AGENDA #13

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

From: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

Subject: Village Plaza Shopping Center Renovation - Application for a Special Use Permit (File No. 7.46.B.11; PIN# 9799242361, 9799148584)

DATE: November 11, 2002

INTRODUCTION

Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from October 16, 2002, regarding the Special Use Permit application to demolish the 18,497 square foot Village Plaza Theater and 6,300 square feet of adjoining retail space. Proposed Phase I and Phase II improvements include a new 40,000 square foot movie theater, 24,840 square feet of new retail, office, and residential floor area and 65 new additional parking spaces. A new 2,000 square foot detached retail building is also proposed in the parking lot.

We understand that the Phase II portion of the application is not the primary development objective of this applicant. The primary development objective of the applicant is to construct a new 40,000 square foot movie theater. However the applicant has indicted that if market conditions can support the development of the Phase II portion of this site as retail, office, residential or combination thereof, the applicant may be wish to develop all or a portion of Phase II.

Adoption of Resolution A, B, C, D, E, or F would approve a Special Use Permit application with conditions. Adoption of Resolution G 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, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, discusses key issues raised at the October 16, 2002 Public Hearing, and offers recommendations for Council action.

¨ Attachments: Includes resolutions of approval and denial, related attachments, a copy of the October 16, 2002 Public Hearing memorandum, including advisory board comments, and related attachments.

background

On October 16, 2002, the Council held a Public Hearing to consider the Special Use Permit application for Village Plaza Shopping Center Renovation. The application proposes to demolish the theater and 6,300 square feet of adjacent retail space and construct a new 40,000 square foot movie theater, 24,840 square feet of residential, retail and office floor area and 65 new additional parking spaces. A new 2,000 square foot detached retail building is also proposed in the parking lot.

Since the October 16, 2002 Public Hearing, the applicant has proposed the following revisions to the application;

· Development of Phase II as residential, office, retail or mixed use;

· Modifications to the impervious surface limits in the Resource Conservation District;

· Reduction in the proposed number of movie theaters and theater seats; and

· Addition of twenty-five parking spaces in the refuse/recycling area.

These items are discussed under the Key Issues section.

The Council determined that contiguous property would be defined as those properties that are within 1,000 feet of the site. The Public Hearing on the Special Use Permit application was recessed until November 11 , 2002.

This is an application for a Special Use Permit. The Development Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit 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 regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Town’s Development Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on October 16, 2002, we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.

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 Development 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.

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

Finding #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.

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 (provided as Attachment #5 to this memorandum).

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

· “The current convoluted and disconnected pedestrian, vehicular, and service traffic patterns are hazardous to customers, employees, and city service providers. The Town has asked for a rear service linkage between all three properties, which is being provided to rectify this problem. A co-use refuse/recycling easement is being negotiated with the property to the south to consolidate refuse pick-up.” [Applicant Statement]

· “In light of the recent flood of Eastgate Mall, stormwater management improvements are being actively pursued in cooperation with the Town and neighboring property owners.” [Applicant Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.

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 this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14 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 Finding #2 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as Attachment #5 to this memorandum).

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

· “It is understood by the applicant that the additional proposed floor area of the two phases exceeds that which is permitted by the current development ordinance. Similarly, the proposed Livability Space does not meet the required Minimum Livability Space as calculated by the current development ordinance. A modification is requested in light of the

· intent of the proposed development ordinance which promotes higher infill intensity as well as the recommendation of the Community Design Commission to provide mixed-use on this site.” [Applicant Statement]

· “A modification of the required parking spaces is also requested, as the project is short of the number required by the current ordinance. We believe the intent of the proposed development ordinance is to promote alternative means of transportation, such as pedestrian, carpool, and public transportation, all of which are provided in the proposed application.” [Applicant Statement]

· “The applicant would like to request a variance for the 20% maximum impervious surface requirement for land within in the RCD (5.5.2.2). The impervious surface as existing is approximately 25% of the land within the RCD, and the current Special Use Permit proposal would reduce that amount to about 24%. Most of the impervious surface is being utilized for multi-site vehicular circulation and thus is necessary for public safety and service functions. We feel that both the reduction in the amount of impervious surface as well as the critical public value of the driveways as they exist warrant the requested variance.” [Applicant Statement]

· “An alternative buffer is requested between the project property and the property to the north. We believe the traffic and pedestrian flow between the properties, as well as site constraints point to a reduced buffer as the best option. The vision of the three neighboring properties as a single mixed use community should allow for modified side buffers in the context of overall site considerations. The applicant also requests a variance on the 5 foot planting strip requirement between the existing building to remain and the new parking lot. We believe the large amount of new vegetation being proposed in the parking lot itself and along the street frontage is a better use of this resource and keeps the integrity of the current highly functional pedestrian walkway intact. The rest of the site’s non-conformance with current Town shading, buffer, green space and planting standards will be brought into conformance.”

[Applicant Statement]

Evidence in opposition: The applicant does not meet several standards and has requested Council modify them.

We note that the applicant is asking for modifications to the regulations for this site. We believe that in this particular case the Council could make the finding that the proposed modifications satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree necessary to approve the modifications. If the Council does not make the finding, then the applicant will be required to comply with the standards and regulations in the Development Ordinance. For additional discussion on the requested modifications, please see “Requested Modification of Regulations” section below.

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

Finding #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;

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

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #3 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as Attachment #5 to this memorandum).

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

· “The mixed use nature of this project enhances the already varied retail and commercial uses extant on the site. By considering the alternating peak hours of usages for the different components, the pedestrian and vehicular traffic volumes will be efficiently interwoven.” [Applicant Statement]

· “The proposal is of a character and scale that will maintain and improve surrounding property values, as well as augmenting the current pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow patterns to tie into adjacent properties and uses. Village Plaza Theatres is an already existing improvement in Chapel Hill. It has been in existence for thirty years. The nature of the Special Use Permit is not to create a new project on virgin ground, but to improve an existing part of the fabric of Chapel Hill that is in need of repair.” [Applicant Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #3.

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

Finding #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.

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

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #4 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as Attachment #5 to this memorandum).

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

· “This development maintains the current successful theatre usage and adds a mixed use office and restaurant component that complements the peak hours of theatre operation.” [Applicant Statement]

· “Rather than increasing impervious area, this project will add to the outdoor livability space on the site while simultaneously furthering pedestrian friendly urban infill and densification as recommended by the Community Design Commission. The rear of the existing theatres currently turns its back on the Booker Creek Linear Park and hampers ongoing efforts to provide a safe and pleasing connection that the Greenway project is attempting to create. A new pedestrian linkage to the Booker Creek Linear Park will be provided as well as a sensitively scaled building façade to face the park.” [Applicant Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #4.

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

REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS OF REGULATIONS

We note that the applicant is requesting that the Council modify Development Ordinance regulations for this site. 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.”

The following modifications are requested by the applicant:

1. Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 Use Group C, and Subsection 5.5.2.1 of the Development Ordinance to allow the Phase I and Phase II development to exceed the maximum permitted floor area (111,368 square feet) by 25,506 square feet.

2. Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 and 5.5.2.1 to modify the minimum livability space requirement of 201,917 square feet and allow a minimum of 154,242 square feet of livability space for Phase I and a minimum of 152,002 square feet of livability space for Phase II.

3. Modification of Subsection 14.6.6 (a) to allow less than a five-foot landscaped strip between portions of the buildings and adjacent parking areas.

4. Modification of Subsection 14.6.7 to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces for Phase I from 770 to 482 spaces and reduce minimum number of parking spaces for Phase II from 870 to 501 spaces.

5. Modification of Subsection 5.5.2.2 to allow impervious surface areas associated with this development to encumber 24% of the Resource Conservation District.

The requests for modifications are described below. Staff comments on the modifications follow the description.

Modification Request #1 - Floor Area: This Special Use Permit application proposes to demolish the Village Plaza Theater and 6,300 square feet of adjoining retail space. Improvements include a 40,000 square foot movie theater, 24,840 square feet of retail and office floor area and a 2,000 square foot detached retail building in the parking lot. Upon build-out the site would contain 136,874 square feet of floor area. The proposed 136,874 square feet of building area exceed the maximum permitted floor area for the 10.9 acre site on which it is proposed by 25,506 square feet. For additional information floor area, please refer to the chart on page 23.

With respect to this request the applicant’s Statement of Justification states the following:

“It is understood by the applicant that the additional proposed floor area of the two phases exceeds that which is permitted by the current development ordinance. A modification is requested in light of the intent of the proposed development ordinance which promotes higher infill intensity as well as the recommendation of the Community Design Commission to provide mixed-use on this site.” [Applicant Statement]

Modification Request #2 – Livability Space: The proposed livability space for Phase I is 47,675 square feet less that the minimum 201,917 square foot livability space requirement. The livability spaces square footage for Phase II is 49,717 square feet less that the 201,917 square foot minimum requirement.

In commenting on the justification for this modification to the regulations, the applicant’s Statement of Justification repeats the above quoted statement.

Modification Request #3 – Landscape Strip Between Buildings and Parking: The applicant also requests a variance on the 5 foot planting strip requirement between the portion of the existing building to remain and the new parking lot. The submitted Statement of Justification states the following:

“We believe the large amount of new vegetation being proposed in the parking lot itself and along the street frontage is a better use of this resource and keeps the integrity of the current highly functional pedestrian walkway intact. The rest of the site’s non-conformance with current Town shading, buffer, green space and planting standards will be brought into conformance.” [Applicant Statement]

Modification Request #4 – Minimum Parking Requirements: The Village Plaza retail center presently has 436 parking spaces. As proposed, the Phase I development will have 482 parking spaces. According to the Town’s Development Ordinance, the Phase I development requires a minimum of 770 parking spaces. The Phase II development will add another 19 parking spaces on the site. The Town’s Development Ordinance requires a minimum of 870 parking spaces for Phase II. This issue is discussed in greater detail in the Key Issues section of this memorandum.

With respect to this request for modifying the minimum parking requirements, the applicant’s Statement of Justification states the following:

“A modification of the required parking spaces is also requested, as the project is short of the number required by the current ordinance. We believe the intent of the proposed development ordinance is to promote alternative means of transportation, such as pedestrian, carpool, and public transportation, all of which are provided in the proposed application.” [Applicant Statement]

Modification Request #5 – Impervious Surface in the Resource Conservation District: Approximately 25% of the portion of the Village Plaza development that is located in the Resource Conservation District is covered by an impervious surface. Once completed that applicants anticipates that approximately 24% of the Resource Conservation District will be covered by impervious surface. Subsection 5.5.2.2 of the Development Ordinance limits the amount of impervious surface area on the Village Plaza site to 20%.

With respect to this request for modifying the minimum parking requirements, the applicant’s Statement of Justification states the following:

“The applicant would like to request a variance for the 20% maximum impervious surface requirement for land within in the RCD (5.5.2.2). The impervious surface as existing is approximately 25% of the land within the RCD, and the current Special Use Permit proposal would reduce that amount to about 24%. Most of the impervious surface is being utilized for multi-site vehicular circulation and thus is necessary for public safety and service functions. We feel that both the reduction in the amount of impervious surface as well as the critical public value of the driveways as they exist warrant the requested variance.” [Applicant Statement]

Staff Comment: Our recommendation is that the Council modify those sections of the Development Ordinance requested by the applicant as discussed above. We believe that the Council may find that the proposed development, with each of the modifications requested above, would satisfy public purposes to a degree equivalent to that which would be achieved with full compliance with all regulations. We believe that the public purposes specifically promoted by this proposed development would be (1) The provision of higher intensity infill development, (2) The provision of a mix of office and retail uses, (3) The promotion of greater pedestrian mobility, (4) The provision of improved access and circulation between neighboring developments, (5) The provision of increased landscaping in the parking lot, (6) The provision of less impervious surface area, and (7) The provision of improved water quality with Best Management Practices.

Alternatively, the Council could reasonably conclude that some or all of the proposed modifications would not satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree and could therefore deny the application or require compliance with the particular regulation.

KEY ISSUES

We have identified five key issues related to this proposed development: 1) Request to Amend the Application; 2) Construction of Phase II Portion of the Development; 3) Number of Proposed Parking Spaces; 4) Pedestrian Access; and 5) Covered Bicycle Parking Spaces. These issues are discussed below.

1) Request to Amend the Application: After the Public Hearing was opened on October 16, the applicant amended the original application (see Attachment #1). The proposed amendments include two changes; a) Flexibility to Develop the 24,840 Square Feet of Floor Area in Phase II as Residential, Office, Retail or Mixed Use; and b) Modifications to the Impervious Surface Limits in the Resource Conservation District. The proposed change to add a residential component and allow mixed use development in Phase II is discussed below. The request to modify impervious surface limits is addressed in the section above on Requests for Modifications to the Regulations.

· Mixed Use Flexibility in Phase II: The original proposal for the Phase II portion of this development included 12,420 square feet of office space and 12,420 square feet for a restaurant. During the Planning Board review the applicant stated an interest in incorporating a residential component into the Phase II portion of the application. The applicant noted that several Planning Board and Community Design Commission members expressed a preference for a greater mix of uses on the site. The applicant stated that in response to these comments, and for greater flexibility in developing the site, the revised application seeks to develop some or the entire Phase II portion of this project as residential, office, retail or a combination of each.

Staff Comment: The inclusion of a residential component into this proposed development was supported by the Planning Board and the Community Design Commission. We believe that a residential component in the Phase II portion of this development would be an asset in the redevelopment and revitalization of this shopping center. Residential use generates less traffic and requires fewer parking spaces than retail or office space. We also believe that the incorporation of residential use into this proposed development, as well as authorization for mixed use, is desirable.

Resolution A, the Manager’s Recommendation, authorizes a maximum of 24,840 square feet for the Phase II portion of this proposal. Resolution A includes flexibility in the ultimate mix of uses (residential, office, retail) in Phase II.

The applicant has been informed of Council’s recent approvals of Special Use Permits involving residential development and affordable housing. The applicant’s submission of a modified application including residential floor area for Phase II does not address the issue of affordable housing. We recommend that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the Phase II portion of the development, that includes residential units, the applicant provide a mechanism to achieve affordable rental housing units. We recommend that if dwelling units are proposed that:

1) The applicant or property owner shall identify and reserve no fewer than 15% of the Phase II residential units as affordable rental housing units;

2) The applicant or owner work with local non-profit low income housing organizations to advertise affordable units and recruit eligible renters;

3) The applicant or owners shall record deed restrictions to ensure that the affordable units remain affordable in perpetuity to low income tenants; and

4) No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for any units in the development until all required affordable units are available for occupancy.

These recommendations for affordable rental housing units in the Phase II portion of the development have been incorporated into Resolution A.

· Modifications to Impervious Surface Limits in the Resource Conservation District: The second request to amend the original application involves impervious surface limitations. The request for modification of impervious surface limits is addressed in the section above on Requested for Modifications to the Regulations.

2) Construction of the Phase II Portion of the Development: The proposed Special Use Permit application includes a Phase I and Phase II development plan. Phase I improvements include:

· Demolition of the Village Plaza movie theater, construction of a new theater and construction of a 2,000 square foot detached retail building;

· Modification to the parking lot design and improvements to the refuse/recycling area;

· Construction of a continuous service access drive, along the east property line, between Elliott Road and the Whole Foods shopping center; and

· Dedication of construction, access and maintenance easements for a portion of the future Booker Creek greenway.

Improvements associated with the Phase II portion of this application include:

· Construction of an elevated 2-story, 24,840 square foot office and retail building;

· Construction of a 8,500 outdoor elevated pedestrian plaza; and

· Expansion of the Phase I parking lot from 55 to 74 spaces.

We understand that the Phase II portion of the application is not the primary development objective of this applicant. From conversations with the applicant and the applican’s representative, we note that the Phase II element of this proposal was incorporated into the original application in response to a desire by the Community Design Commission for a proposal with a greater mix of uses. The applicant has indicted that if market conditions can support the development of the Phase II portion of this site as retail, office, residential or combination thereof, the applicant may wish to develop all or a portion of Phase II.

Staff Comment: We believe that the Phase I portion of the development can proceed and operate independently of Phase II. We understand that the applicants’ primary objective is the new movie theater and that the development of Phase II may not be realized.

We do not believe that Council approval of the Phase I development necessitates that the applicant construct Phase II. We recommend that this Special Use Permit authorizes Phase I and Phase II, and note that Phase I may be constructed independent of the Phase II portion of the application.

3) Number of Proposed Parking Spaces: The Village Plaza retail center presently has 436 parking spaces. According to the Town’s Development Ordinance, a minimum of 638 spaces are required for the existing development. As proposed, the Phase I development will have 482 parking spaces and the Phase II development will increase the number of on-site parking spaces to 501. The Town’s Development Ordinance would require a minimum of 770 parking spaces for development at the Phase I and 870 spaces for the development at Phase II.

Please refer to the table below for additional information.

	Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Required By Development Ordinance Based on Type of Use
	Current Development	Required for Phase I	Required for Phase I & II
Office/ Retail/ Restaurant (1 per 250 sq ft)	305 spaces	288 spaces	388 spaces
Theater (1 per 4 seats)	333 spaces	482 spaces	482 spaces
Total Req. Spaces	638 spaces	770 spaces	870 spaces
	Number of Parking Spaces Existing or Proposed
	Existing	Proposed Ph I	Proposed Ph I & II
	436 spaces	*457 spaces	*476 spaces
Difference between Minimum Req.	(-) 202	(-) 288	(-) 369
Parking Spaces as a Percentage of Minimum Req.	68 %	59%	54%

(* Does not include twenty five proposed parking spaces behind the building near the refuse collection area. See discussion below for additional information

The issue of the number of proposed parking spaces was discussed by Council members and several merchants from the Whole Foods Shopping Center. There was concern that although the existing parking situation seems to provide adequate parking for the current shopping center, the redesigned parking area and new parking spaces may not satisfy the parking needs of the new movie theater or other Village Plaza tenants.

Several tenants from the Whole Foods Shopping Center stated that the parking space availability within the Whole Foods Center parking lot is already limited and will probably worsen once the new theater opens. Some suggested that the applicant provide more parking or reduce the proposed size of the renovation.

In response to the parking survey presented by the applicant, Council members suggested that another survey, including weekday and daytime survey numbers, would be useful in the review of this project. One Council member asked if the applicant would consider reducing the number of movie theaters. Other Council members voiced concerns that it was unclear if overflow parking from the Whole Foods Shopping Center was encroaching onto the Village Plaza parking lot.

In response to the discussion on parking during the Public Hearing the applicant has submitted additional information on the following topics:

1. New Parking Lot Survey and Merchant List with Hours of Operations;

2. Use of the Village Plaza parking area by Whole Foods employees;

3. Reduction in the proposed number of movie theaters and seats;

4. Redesign of refuse area to accommodate employee parking; and

5. Loss of parking during Phase II construction.

Each is briefly addressed below, followed by a staff response.

1. Revised Parking Lot Survey and Merchant List: Following the Public Hearing on October 16, the applicant undertook a second survey of occupied parking spaces in the Village Plaza Shopping Center. Staff suggested that the applicant attempt to conduct twice daily counts for the two week period following the Public Hearing. The results of the second survey and a copy of the first survey are included as Attachment # 2. The applicant has also provided a current list of Village Plaza merchants and the hours of operations (Attachment #3).

Staff Comment: Based on the submitted information, we believe that some of the parking needs for this shopping center would be satisfied by counter-cyclical parking patterns. Eight of the fifteen business included on the merchant list are not open after 7:00pm including several that close at 5:00 or 5:30 pm. Similar to other shopping centers in the community, we believe that this proposed development will include a mix of retail businesses with peak parking needs staggered through out the day and evening.

2. Use of the Village Plaza parking area by Whole Foods employees: The applicant has stated that a month to month agreement currently exists which allows Whole Foods Grocery employees to utilize approximately 50 spaces in the Southwest portion of the Village Plaza parking lot owned by Mark Properties.

Staff Comment: We understand that the applicant has an agreement with the Whole Foods Grocery that these 50 parking spaces are to be made available to movie theater customers during peak theater hours.

3. Reduction in the proposed number of movie theaters and seats: The applicant responded that it is willing to reduce the number of movie screens from 13 to 11, and reduce the overall seating from 1,928 to 1,798 seats.

Staff Comment: According to the applicant the elimination of two movie theaters and removal of 130 seats impact trip generation and parking in varying amounts. The applicant notes that the proposed reduction in screens and seats will produce an overall reduction in both vehicle trip generation and parking space demands. We concur with the applicant; however we are unable to provide the Council with specifics on the reduction in vehicle trips or parking space demand. We note that the proposed elimination of 130 theater seats reduces the required number of parking spaces for Phase I from 770 to 738.

4. Redesigned Refuse/Parking Area: Part of the applicant’s response to parking concerns has been to suggest that additional parking could be added behind the proposed building. Attachment #4 is a revised refuse area plan showing the location of trash and recycling containers and 25 additional striped parking spaces.

Staff Comment: We do not believe that the design in Attachment #4 can accommodate 25 parking spaces as shown nor do we believe that the proposed plan includes an adequate number of refuse containers. A part of the redesign of this Refuse/Parking area has been a shift from using a compactor to using dumpsters. Eliminating the compactor from the proposed design means that 7 to 10 additional dumpsters, may be required which are not shown on the plans. With the needed dumpsters, only 10 additional parking spaces could be added. Alternatively, if the applicant desires to maximize the number of potential parking spaces and still provide adequate refuse service, we believe that the installation of a trash compactor would allow room for approximately 20 to 25 parking spaces.

5. Loss of Parking during Phase II Construction: The applicant intends to negotiate a temporary parking agreement with the neighboring Staples property for parking and staging during the construction of Phase II.

Staff Comment: Use of the Staples property for parking and staging during the construction of Phase II may be a reasonable solution to the temporary loss of parking spaces on the Village Plaza site. We recommend that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for Phase II, the applicant provided a Phase II construction staging and parking area plan. We recommend that the plan provide temporary parking for the parking spaces lost during the construction period. We recommend that the applicant provided a recordable parking space easement agreement for all proposed off-site parking spaces. These recommendations have been stipulated in Resolution A.

We believe that in addition to the proposed transit and pedestrian related improvements stipulated with the attached Resolutions, the increase in parking spaces resulting from the above noted information and the primary use of the parking lot during the day by retail businesses and at night by the movie theater, that the number of parking spaces proposed by the applicant is acceptable. The Manager’s recommendation is that the Phase I portion of this proposal include a minimum of 457 parking spaces and that the Phase II portion include an additional 19 parking spaces for a total of 476 parking spaces.

Alternatively, the Council could reasonably conclude that the number of proposed parking spaces will not adequately serve the development intensity proposed by the applicant. If the Council determines that the proposal does not provide adequate parking, the Council could refer the development proposal back to the applicant for revision and reduction in development intensity.

4) Pedestrian Access: A Council member asked about pedestrian and bicycle access to the site from the surrounding area. We noted that in addition to the extension of the Booker Creek Greenway, from behind the movie theater to Fordham Boulevard, the applicant is proposing to construct a sidewalk along Elliott Road. We also noted the pending construction of a sidewalk along Fordham Boulevard between Willow Drive and Days Inn.

Staff Comment: An area map locating proposed sidewalk and greenway improvements in the vicinity of the Village Plaza development is attached to this memorandum (Attachment #6). Improvements include projects to be constructed by the Town (Fordham Boulevard sidewalk segments, Booker Creek Greenway) and improvements recommended to be required of the Village Plaza applicant.

Except for the proposed segment of Fordham Boulevard sidewalk near Burger King, we believe that the two future Fordham Boulevard sidewalk segments, located immediately adjacent to Fordham Boulevard, and the future Booker Creek Greenway extension, could be constructed and completed before summer of 2003. Although the design and field location for the Burger King sidewalk segment has not been finalized at this time, we believe that it may be possible for the construction of this sidewalk to occur before summer of 2003.

If the Council approves the Special Use Permit for the Village Plaza Shopping Center Renovation, as provided for in the attached Resolutions, the completion of the Elliott Road sidewalk by the applicant will be required prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new movie theaters.

5) Covered Bicycle Parking: At the Public Hearing a Council member asked staff how many of the proposed 87 bicycle parking spaces would be protected from inclement weather. We responded that except for the 18 Class I parking spaces, the Design Manual does not require the remaining 69 parking spaces (Class II) to be constructed to protect bicycles from inclement weather. The applicant was asked to consider providing weather protection for some of the 69 Class II spaces.

Staff Comment: The applicant indicated that there will not be weather protection provided for the Class II bicycle parking spaces.

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Planning Board’s Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this proposal on September 3, 2002. A copy of the Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to the October 16, 2002 Staff Report. The Board voted 7 to 2 to recommend eight revisions to the proposed plans and that the Council approves the application with the adoption of Resolution B.

Below is a list of the eight revisions in Resolution B as recommended by the Planning Board.

1) Minimum number of bicycle parking spaces shall be 48.

Several Planning Board members expressed a concern that the applicant was proposing an excessive number of bicycle parking spaces. The Board agreed that the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces should be calculated on the proposed number of parking spaces (476) and not the required number of parking spaces (870).

Staff Comment: Based on the minimum required number of parking spaces (870 spaces) for the proposed development, the Town’s Design Manual for bicycle parking standards suggests that the Village Plaza applicant provide a minimum of 87 bicycle parking spaces. Eighteen of the spaces must meet Class I requirements and 69 spaces must meet Class II requirements. We note that the applicant’s current proposal complies with this suggested standard of 87 spaces.

Resolution A, the Manager’s Recommendation stipulates that the applicant provide 87 bicycle parking spaces as proposed. We believe that additional bicycle parking spaces, above what is suggested by the Design Manual, are appropriate and reasonable. In particular, the close proximity of the Booker Creek Greenway, the reduction in parking spaces, the willingness of the applicant and the size of the development, reflect the need and appropriateness for additional spaces.

The next seven revisions recommended by the Planning Board are stipulated in Resolution A.

2) That the bicycle parking spaces are proportionally distributed throughout the site.

Although the submitted application involves a site plan that encumbers the entire 10.9 acre Village Plaza site, all of the proposed bicycle parking spaces are located either around the propose movie theater or the 2,000 square foot outbuilding. The Planning Board members recommended that the parking areas should be evenly distributed through the site and not clustered around the movie theater.

Staff Comment: We believe, based on the number of bicycle parking spaces proposed by the applicant and recommended in Resolution A, that the spaces should be proportionally distributed throughout the site. This requirement is stipulated in Resolution A.

3) Construction for Phase I is completed within 5 years and construction for Phase II is completed within 10 years from the date of approval.

Due to the current economic environment, and the uncertainty surrounding the construction of the Phase II portion of the proposal, the applicant is requesting that the Council authorize a longer construction deadline period for both Phase I and Phase II.

Staff Comment: Typically, construction deadlines associated with Special Use Permits are for three years. However, it is not uncommon, with large projects, for the Council to authorize longer construction completion periods. We believe that in this circumstance, the construction period deadline, as requested by the applicant is appropriate and we have incorporated the extended deadlines into Resolution A and Resolution B.

4) Maximum floor area may include up to 24,840 square feet of residential floor area (Phase II portion of the site).

Staff Comment: Please refer to the discussion on Residential Use in Phase II under the section above on Key Issues.

5) Wheel stops shall be installed for parking spaces perpendicular to the sidewalk along Elliott Road.

To reduce the impact of the proposed Elliott Road sidewalk construction on the adjacent street trees, we recommend that the sidewalk be installed directly adjacent the parking lot curb rather than adjacent Elliott Road. The applicant’s proposed parking lot plans include perpendicular parking spaces along this parking lot curb. In order to avoid a situation in which parked vehicles are hanging over the sidewalk, the Planning Board recommends the installation of wheel stops for parking spaces perpendicular to the sidewalk.

Staff Comment: We concur with the recommendation of the Planning Board and have incorporated this recommendation into Resolution A.

6) Park and Ride spaces shall be reserved between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

The applicant is proposing to reserve 20 parking spaces along Elliott Road for the Town’s Park and Ride program. At the request of the applicant, the Planning Board recommends that the 20 assigned Park and Ride spaces shall be reserved between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Staff Comment: We believe that the recommended time/day restrictions on the 20 Park and Ride spaces will adequately serve the needs of the Park and Ride program and will not negatively affect the shopping center. Resolution A stipulates this restriction.

7) Alternate Type “A” bufferyard may be installed along Elliott Road in front of the proposed 2,000 square foot building.

The applicant’s proposal includes an alternate Type “A” bufferyard along the entire length of the site’s Elliott Road frontage, except for that portion of the site between US 15-501 and Driveway “A.” The applicant is proposing this alternate bufferyard because most of the site frontage, especially after installing the proposed sidewalk along Elliott Road, is not wide enough to accommodate a 15 foot wide bufferyard. However, we note that room for a bufferyard area, in some places exceeding 15 feet in width, is possible in front of the proposed 2,000 square foot building along Elliott Road.

In the review of this proposal, the applicant, Planning Board and Community Design Commission agree that the final determination for a bufferyard width, between Elliott Road and the proposed 2,000 square foot building should be determined by Community Design Commission. During the review of final building elevations, the Community Design Commission could determine, based on the proposed elevations, the appropriate bufferyard width in this situation.

Staff Comment: We concur with the recommendation of the Planning Board and have incorporated this recommendation into Resolution A.

8) Underground stormwater management units may be replaced with a similar Best Management Practice design.

At the Planning Board meeting the applicant expressed a concern that the resolution under consideration required the installation of two underground stormwater infrastructure (“stormceptors”) features. Although the units were shown on the submitted site plan, the applicant expressed being somewhat unfamiliar with complete details on the cost and maintenance of this type of Best Management Practice design. The applicant requested and the Planning Board agreed to stipulate that the units may be replaced with a similar Best Management Practice design with the final determination to be by the Town Manager at the final plan review.

Staff Comment: Subsequent to the Planning Board meeting, the applicant has had an opportunity to become familiar with this type of stormwater device. It is our understanding that the applicant now believes that the installation of these units is acceptable. Although there appears to be an acceptance by the applicant on this type of Best Management Practice design, the Town Manager’s Recommendation, Resolution A, includes a stipulation that defers this decision unit final plan review.

Resolution B differs from the Town Manager’s Recommendation with respect to: a) The number of bicycle parking spaces; b) Additional pedestrian connections in the parking lot; c) Required retail location; d) Impervious surface limits in the Resource Conservation District; e) Affordable rental units, f) Reduction in theater and seat numbers; and g) Phase II construction staging plan. Six items, b through g, were not discussed at the Board’s meeting.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this proposal on September 24, 2002. A copy of the Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action is attached to the October 16, 2002 Staff Report. The Board voted 6-0 to recommend two revisions to the proposed plan and that the Council approves the application with the adoption of Resolution C.

Resolutions A and C includes the two revision recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

1) That bicycle racks be distributed throughout the project site, specifically in the area of the stores facing Elliott Road.

Staff Comment: As discussed above under Planning Board Recommendation, we believe, based on the number of bicycle parking spaces proposed by the applicant and recommended in Resolution A (87), that the spaces should be proportionally distributed throughout the site. This requirement is stipulated in Resolution A.

2) That pedestrian connection from the proposed periphery sidewalk to the shopping center buildings be included at all driveway entrances to the project site.

Primary vehicular access to the site is from four driveways on Elliott Road (Driveways “A, B, C and D” as described on page 22). The submitted site plans proposed two pedestrian crosswalks/walkways between Elliott Road and the shopping center buildings. These proposed pedestrian crosswalks are in the vicinity of Driveway A and D. The recommendation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board is for two additional crosswalks, between the propose sidewalk and the buildings, in the vicinity of Driveways B and C.

Staff Comment: We concur with the recommendation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board. We believe that two additional pedestrian crosswalks, between the proposed sidewalk and the building, can be incorporated near Driveways B and C without major site modifications. We recommend that in order to accommodate the crosswalks, parking lot landscaping shall not be modified however; parking spaces may be decreased or eliminated. Final crosswalk/walkway locations shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager. This recommendation has been included in Resolution A.

Resolution C differs from the Town Manager’s Recommendation with respect to: a) Construction deadlines; b) Residential floor area; c) Wheel stops; d) Reservation of Park and Ride spaces; d) Number of bicycle parking spaces; e) Elliott Road bufferyard; f) Underground stormwater units; g) Required retail locations; h) Impervious surface limits in the Resource Conservation District; i) Affordable rental units; j) Reduction in theater and seat numbers; and k) Phase II construction staging plan. These twelve issues were not discussed at the Board’s meeting.

Community Design Commission’s Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this proposal on September 25, 2002. A copy of the Summary of Community Design Commission Action is attached to the October 16, 2002 Staff Report. The Commission voted 8 to 0 to recommend three revisions to the proposed plans and that the Council approves the application with the adoption of Resolution D.

Below is a list of the three revisions in Resolution D as recommended by the Community Design Commission.

1) That the developer shall provide at least one retail shop tenant (other than the theater) along the southwestern façade of the new proposed theater building, in order to enhance the retail nature of this area.

Staff Comment: Unless the applicant voluntarily agrees to this condition we do not believe that that the Council can require the developer to provide a retail shop along the southwestern façade of the proposed theater.

Resolution A includes the next two revisions as recommended by the Community Design Commission.

2) That two additional crosswalks/walkways shall be provided in the parking lot in order that pedestrian connections shall be available from the proposed periphery sidewalk to the shopping center buildings at all driveway entrances to the site.

Staff Comment: Resolution A includes the above recommendation of the Community Design Commission. For additional information on this recommendation for additional pedestrian connections, please refer to the discussion above under the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Recommendation.

3) That an Alternate Type “A” landscape bufferyard may be installed along Elliott Road in front of the proposed 2,000 square foot building, if approved the Community Design Commission.

Staff Comment: Resolution A includes the above recommendation of the Community Design Commission. For additional information on this recommendation for alternate bufferyard in front of the proposed 2,000 square foot building, please refer to the discussion above under the Planning Board Recommendation.

Resolution D differs from the Town Manager’s Recommendation with respect to: a) Required retail locations; b) Construction deadlines; c) Residential floor area; d) Wheel stops; e) Reservation of Park and Ride spaces; f) Distribution of bicycle parking spaces; g) Underground stormwater units; h) Impervious surface limits in Resource Conservation District; h) Affordable rental units, i) Reduction in theater and seat numbers; and j) Phase II construction staging plan. Ten of these issues, items b through j, were not discussed at the Commission’s meeting.

Greenways Commission’s Recommendation: The Greenways Commission reviewed this proposal on September 25, 2002. A copy of the Summary of Greenways Commission Action is attached to the October 16, 2002 Staff Report. The Commission voted 4 to 0 to recommend four revisions to the proposed plans and that the Council approves the application with the adoption of Resolution E.

Resolutions A and E includes the four revisions recommended by Greenways Commission.

1) The developer should provide all easements needed to build and maintain the Booker Creek Linear Park including permanent greenway, temporary construction, and permanent maintenance easements.

Staff Comment: The applicant has agreed to this condition and a stipulation to that affect has been included in Resolution A.

2) Future plans should show the portion of the Booker Creek Linear Park within the Special Use Permit area as currently envisioned. However, it should be noted that we do not expect the developer to build the trail.

Staff Comment: The applicant has agreed to this condition and a stipulation to that affect has been included in Resolution A. We note that the submitted site plans do not included details for the construction of the greenway nor is the construction of the greenway by the applicant stipulated in any of the attached resolutions.

3) The Community Design Commission should review the elevations on the northeast side of the building to assure that the appearance of what would be the back side of the building is appropriate for a park setting.

Staff Comment: Resolution A includes a standard stipulation that the Community Design Commission shall review and approved details for all building elevations prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

4) The Special Use Permit should contain language that would allow construction of the Booker Creek Linear Park within the Resource Conservation District. This language should explicitly state that any impervious surface and disturbance within the Resource Conservation District caused by the linear park not be charged to the property owners.

Staff Comment: The construction of the portion of the Booker Creek Liner Park within the Village Plaza site will be undertaken by the Town of Chapel Hill. Since this portion of the greenway project does not involve any structures and would be undertaken by the Town, construction of the greenway within the Resource Conservation District may proceed. We do not believe that a stipulation to that effect is necessary to authorize construction.

We note that the construction of the greenway and associated improvements would result in additional impervious surface and land disturbance on the Village Plaza site. We recommend that Resolution A stipulate that any imperious surface added to the site within the Resource Conservation District caused by the Town’s Booker Creek Linear Park project shall not be counted toward the Village Plaza amount of impervious surface and/or land disturbance for regulatory purposes. This stipulation has been incorporated into Resolution A.

Resolution E differs from the Town Manager’s Recommendation with respect to: a) Construction deadlines; b) Residential floor area; c) Wheel stops; d) Reservation of Park and Ride spaces; e) Distribution of bicycle parking spaces; f) Elliott Road bufferyards; g) Underground stormwater units; h) Additional pedestrian connections; i) Required retail locations; j) Affordable rental units; k) Reduction in movie and seat numbers; and l) Phase II construction staging plan. These twelve issues (a through l) were not discussed at the Commission’s meeting.

Transportation Board’s Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this proposal on October 1, 2002. A copy of the Summary of Transportation Board Action is attached to the October 16, 2002 Staff Report. The Board voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the Council approve the plans without revisions with the adoption of Resolution F.

Resolution F differs from the Town Manager’s Recommendation with respect to: a) Construction deadlines; b) Residential floor area; c) Wheel stops; d) Reservation of Park and Ride spaces; e) Distribution of bicycle parking spaces; f) Elliott Road bufferyards; g) Underground stormwater units; h) Pedestrian crosswalk in the parking lot; i) Required retail locations; j) Impervious surface limits in the Resource Conservation District; k) Affordable rental units; l) Reduction in movie theater and seat numbers; and m) Phase II construction staging plan. These thirteen issues (a through m) were not discussed at the Commission’s meeting.

Manager’s Recommendation: 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 with modification of the regulations. We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application with conditions.

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution G would deny the application.

Village Plaza Special Use Permit-Differences Between Resolutions

ISSUES	Resolution A Manager’s Rec.	Resolution B Planning Board Rec.	Resolution C Bike and Ped Advisory Board Rec.	Resolution F Community Design Comm Rec.	Resolution E Greenways Comm Rec	Resolution F Transportation Board Rec.
Construction Deadlines Phase I 5 yrs Phase II 10 yrs	Yes	Yes	*	*	*	*
Residential Use Permitted	Yes (24,840 sq ft)	Yes (24,840 sq ft)	*	*	*	*
Wheel Stops in Parking Lot	Yes (along Elliott Rd sidewalk)	Yes (along Elliott Rd sidewalk)	*	*	*	*
Park & Ride Reservation	Yes (6am-6pm Mon-Fri only)	Yes (6am-6pm Mon-Fri only)	*	*	*	*
Min # Bicycle Parking Spaces	87	48	87	87	87	87
Distribution of bicycle spaces	Proportionally throughout the site	Proportionally throughout the site	Proportionally throughout the site	*	*	*
Bufferyard between Proposed Outbuilding & Elliott Road	Alternate	Alternate	Minimum 15’ Type “A” Buffer	Alternate	Minimum 15’ Type “A” Buffer	Minimum 15’ Type “A” Buffer
Alternate BMP’s	Permitted in lieu of under-ground units	Permitted in lieu of under-ground units	*	*	*	*
Add ional Pedestrian Connections	Yes (Between sidewalk and building)	*	Yes (Between sidewalk and building)	Yes (Between sidewalk and building)	*	*
Retail on Southwest Façade	No	*	*	Yes	*	*
Adjust RCD Impervious Limits to allow Greenway	Yes	*	*	*	Yes	*
Affordable Rental Units	Yes	*	*	*	*	*
No. Theaters and Seats	11 Theaters 1,798 Seats	*	*	*	*	*
Phase II Const/Parking Plan	Yes	*	*	*	*	*

* Issue was not discussed by this Advisory Board.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Applicant’s request to modify the application (p. 46).

2. Parking Lot Survey #1 and Survey #2 (p. 47).

3. List of Merchants and Hours of Operation (p. 49).

4. Proposed refuse/parking area layout dated October 25, 2002 (p. 50).

5. Revised Statement of Justification dated October 30, 2002 (p. 51).

6. Proposed sidewalk and greenway improvement map (p. 54).

7. October 16, 2002 handout from Jim Groot (p. 55).

8. October 16, 2002 Public Hearing and related attachments (p. 63).

RESOLUTION A

(Town Manager’s

Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR VILLAGE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER RENOVATION (2002-11-11/R-12a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Eastern Federal Corporation and Triangle V II L. P. on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 46, Block B, Lots 11 and 11B (PIN# 9799242361, 9799148584), if developed according to the site plan dated July 17, 2002 and site plan included as attachment titled Additional Parking Lot Buffer, 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 by the Town Council of Chapel Hill that it finds, in this particular case, that the following modifications satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:

2. Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 and 5.5.2.1 to allow Phase I to allow a minimum of 154,242 square feet of livability space and Phase II to allow a minimum of 152,002 square feet of livability space.

3. Modification of Subsection 14.6.6 (a) to allow less than a five-foot landscaped strip between portions of the buildings and adjacent parking areas.

4. Modification of Subsection 14.6.7 to allow a minimum of 457 spaces for Phase I and 476 spaces for Phase I and Phase II, as noted in the stipulations below.

5. Modification of Subsection 5.5.2.2 to allow impervious surface areas associated with this

development to encumber 24% of the Resource Conservation District.

Said public purposes being (1) The provision of higher intensity infill development, (2) The provision of a mix of office and retail uses, (3) The promotion of greater pedestrian mobility, (4) The provision of improved access and circulation between neighboring developments, (5) The provision of increased landscaping in the parking lot, (6) The provision of less impervious surface area, and (7) The provision of improved quality with Best Management Practices.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the Village Plaza Shopping Center Renovation in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. That construction begins by November 11, 2004.

That construction for Phase I is completed by November 11, 2007, and construction for Phase II is completed by November 11, 2012.

2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes office-type business, business-convenience, and residential use and the demolition of 24,797 square feet of floor and land use intensity requirements as specified below:

Land Use Intensity Phase I and II	Village Plaza Shopping Center
Net Land Area	475,632 sq ft
Total # of Buildings	11 (8 existing, 3 new)
Maximum Floor Area	136,874
Maximum Residential Floor Area -Phase II	24,840 sq ft
Maximum of Movie Theaters	11
Maximum of Movie Theater Seats	1,798
Minimum Outdoor Space	405,920 sq ft
Minimum Livability Space	152,002 sq ft
*Minimum # of Parking Spaces	476
Minimum # of Bicycle Spaces	87

*Parking spaces may be decreased in order to accommodate pedestrian crosswalks/walkways between the proposed Elliott Road sidewalk and the shopping center buildings.

Required Improvements

3. Elliott Road Access Driveway “C and D”: That the applicant improve the two northern most driveways (driveway “C and D”) along Elliott Road to provide 30-foot wide driveways with striped left and right turn lanes exiting the site, stop signs and one lane entering the site. That, if practical, the reconstructed driveways shall intersect Elliott Road at a 90 degree angle. The final design and configuration of these two reconstructed driveways along Elliott Road shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

4. Elliott Road Sidewalk: That the applicant:

a) Construct a minimum width five-foot wide sidewalk along the Elliott Road frontage of the Village Plaza site beginning on the south side of access driveway “D” and terminating on east side of access driveway “A”. The sidewalk shall connect to the proposed Booker Creek Greenway trail spur near the east side of access drive “A.”

b) That the sidewalk be installed directly adjacent to the parking lot curb rather than adjacent to Elliott Road. If deemed necessary by the Town Manager in order to minimize the impact on the street trees and to provide suitable space for supplemental planting necessary to screen the parking lot, the applicant shall adjust the existing parking lot curb location. The final location and design of the sidewalk and parking lot curb, including wheel stops shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.

c) That the installation of the sidewalk include a connection to the Elliott Road bus stops.

d) That, if a portion of the sidewalk is constructed outside of the public right-of-way, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of a recorded pedestrian access and public maintenance easement for the portion of the sidewalk outside of the public right-of-way. The maintenance easement shall extend to a point one-foot behind the inside edge of the sidewalk. The easement document shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds.

e) That the final plans include signage, to be approved by the Town Manager, indicating that the sidewalk connection provides access to the Booker Creek Greenway and US 15-501.

5. 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.

6. Traffic Signal Timing Plans: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu of $5,000 for the design and implementation of a traffic signal timing plan.

7. Elliott Road Bus Shelters: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu of $10,000 for two bus shelters, and associated improvements, at the existing bus stops in front of the Village Plaza Shopping Center. The applicant may provide the approved shelter prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy instead of providing the payment-in-lieu.

Stipulations Related to Affordable Housing

8. Affordable Housing Mechanism: That if final plans are submitted for Phase II that include residential dwelling units, the affordable housing component for this proposed development shall be provided in the following manner:

a) The Developer shall identify and reserve no fewer than 15% of the Phase II residential units as affordable rental housing units.

b) The owner and management company enter into a “good faith” marketing agreement to ensure that the affordable units are rented to eligible low-income renters. The owner shall work with local non-profit low income housing organizations to advertise affordable units and recruit eligible renters.

c) The recorded deed restrictions shall include a provision that if after working with local non-profits, owner/management company are unable to recruit eligible renters, they may rent such units to other renters without restrictions for up to 12 months, if written authorization is provided in advance for such rental units from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust or its assigns and approved the Town of Chapel Hill.

d) The applicant shall record deed restrictions to ensure that the affordable units remain affordable in perpetuity to low income tenants, to be approved by the Town Manager and the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust or its assigns, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the Phase II portion of the development that includes residential units.

e) No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for any units in the development until all required affordable units are available for occupancy.

Stipulations Related to Access and Circulation

9. Booker Creek Greenway Easements: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall provide recorded copies of the following easements, as reviewed and approved by the Town Manager:

a) Temporary construction access easement across the eastern entrance drive and parking lot that lies east of the Spa Health Club;

b) Temporary construction access and staging easements over the portion of the property that lies east of Booker Creek; and

c) Permanent public greenway easement that would allow the Town to construct, access and maintain a continuation of the existing trail across the property.

Exact dimensions and specific location of these easements shall be determined, through discussion between staff and the developer, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The easement document(s) shall be recorded with the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and a copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Town. This easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation.

10. New Vehicular Connection to the Whole Foods Shopping Center: That the applicant provide a service vehicle access driveway connection between the proposed development and the Whole Foods shopping center. The access drive shall permit uninterrupted travel between Village Plaza driveway “A” on Elliott Road and the Whole Foods shopping center. The access drive shall be located behind the Village Plaza shopping center, adjacent to the site’s eastern property line.

11. Access, Construction and Maintenance Easements: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall provide the following easements:

a) A cross access easement between the Village Plaza site and the Whole Foods shopping center. The easement shall permit, vehicular and service vehicle ingress, egress and regress across and between the Whole Foods property and the Village Plaza site.

b) A temporary construction and permanent maintenance easement on the Whole Foods site for off-site improvements associated with the proposed Village Plaza Development.

The easement document(s) shall be recorded with the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and a copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Town. This easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation.

12. Parking Lots: That all parking lots, drive aisles and parking spaces associated with the proposed development shall be constructed to Town standards.

13. Parking Lot Crosswalks/Walkways: That two additional crosswalks/walkways shall be provided in the parking lot for pedestrian movements between the proposed Elliott Road sidewalk and the shopping center buildings. The crosswalks/walkways shall be located at or near Driveway “B” and “C.” Parking lot landscaping shall not be modified however, parking spaces may be decreased in order to accommodate the crosswalks/walkways. Final crosswalk/walkway locations shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.

14. Park and Ride Spaces: The applicant shall reserve a minimum of 20 parking spaces for the Town’s Park and Ride program. Spaces shall be reserved between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The parking spaces shall be located within 200 feet of a bus stop and adjacent to the proposed Elliott Road sidewalk. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall install signage, approved by the Town Manager, for the reservation and designation of these parking spaces.

15. Transportation Management Plan: That the applicant provides a Transportation Management Plan to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The required components of the Transportation Management Plan shall include:

a. Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator;

b. Provision for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager;

c. Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;

d. Ridesharing incentives; and

e. Public transit incentives.

The plan shall be updated and approved annually by the Town Manager.

16. Bicycle Parking: That the development shall comply with the Town’s Design Manual for bicycle parking standards as follows:

Total Number or Required Spaces	87
Number of Class I Spaces	18
Number of Class II Spaces	69

The 87 bicycle parking spaces shall be distributed proportionally around the site. The applicant provide shower and locker facilities.

Stipulations Related to Landscape and Architectural Elements

17. Required Landscape Bufferyard: That the following landscape buffers are required:

Location of Bufferyard	Required Bufferyards

Elliott Road: Between US 15-501 and Driveway “A”	Minimum 15’ Type “A” Buffer
Remaining Elliott Road frontage	Alternate Type “A” Buffer (as authorized by the Town Council)
US 15-501 frontage	Minimum 75’ Type ‘D’ Buffer
Whole Foods property line	Alternate Type ‘B’ Buffer (as authorized by the Town Council)
Staples & Eastgate property lines	Existing off-site buffer
Days Inn property line	Existing off-site buffer and Minimum 30’ on site Type ‘B’ Buffer

18. Alternative Landscape Bufferyards: That the details for all alternate landscape bufferyards shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Design Commission prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

19. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed landscape protection plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This plan shall include a detail of protective fencing; and construction parking and materials staging/storage areas. This plan shall also indicate which labeled trees are proposed to be removed and where tree protection fencing will be installed.

20. Landscape Plan Approval: That detailed landscape plans (including buffers), landscape maintenance plans, and parking lot shading requirements be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The landscape plan shall indicate the size, type, and location of all proposed plantings.

21. Parking Lot Screening: That all parking areas shall be screened from view in accordance with the provisions of Section 14.12.7 of the Development Ordinance. The screening plans shall be approval by the Town Manager.

22. Community Design Commission Approval: That the Community Design Commission shall review and approved details for all authorized alternative bufferyards, building elevation details, and lighting plans prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related To Stormwater Management

23. Stormwater Management Plan: That a Stormwater Management Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. Based on the 1-year, 2-year and 25-year storms, the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate. Depending on the development site location, size in area and the condition of the existing conveyance system and associated lands, the Manager may waive or change the peak discharge rate criteria in part or in whole if, based on an approved Stormwater Management Plan, it is demonstrated that detention would intensify existing peak discharges or may cause other problems on abutting or downstream properties. In addition, the plans shall show all storm drainage outlets and address any impact the stormwater from these outlets may have on abutting properties.

24. Operations and Maintenance Plans: That an Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered structures shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

25. Stormwater Easements: That the final plans and final plat include an easement titled “Reserved Storm Drainageway.” The easement shall be included on all engineered stormwater features located above and below ground including pipes, streams, and ditches that carry water to and from abutting properties. All said easement shall be located on a plat and recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Unless specifically designated by the Town as “Public,” drainage features and infrastructure, within the “Reserved Storm Drainageway” shall be considered private and the responsibility of the property owner. Drainage easements are not required for drainage structures and conveyance systems that handle internal stormwater runoff within a single lot or parcel. This detail shall be noted on the final plans.

26. Best Management Practices: That the applicant provides verification that the proposed bio-retention facility will provide for the removal of at least 85% of the suspended solids in the stormwater runoff prior to the stormwater run-off leaving the site. If practical, the facility shall be designed to capture and treat runoff from that portion of the parking area located down slope from the underground stormwater units (“stormceptor”).

That the underground units proposed at drop inlet #3 shall be relocated to drop inlet #4. The unit (closest to the bio-retention area) shall be relocated to the junction box, location on-line with the existing drainage system. Both units must be sufficiently sized to remove 85% total suspended solids, subject to Town Manager approval.

The proposed bio-retention facility location and design, and the installation of the other underground stormwater units, or similar Best Management Practice design, be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

27. Performance Guarantee: That if more than one acre of land is disturbed, then a performance guarantee in accordance with Section 5-97.1 Bonds of the Town Code of Ordinances shall be required prior to final authorization to begin land-disturbing activities.

Stipulations Related to Resource Conservation District

28. Impervious Surface Limits: Booker Creek Greenway: That any imperious surface added to the site within the Resource Conservation District caused by the Town’s Booker Creek Linear Park project shall not be counted toward the Village Plaza amount of impervious surface and/or land disturbance for regulatory purposes.

29. Boundaries: That the boundaries of the Resource Conservation District be indicated on the final plans and final plat. A note shall be added to all final plans and plats, indicating, “Development shall be restricted within the Resource Conservation District in accordance with the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance.”

30. Variances: That all variances necessary for development within the Resource Conservation District be obtained before application for final plat or Final Plan approval for the subject phase(s) of development.

31. Construction Standards: That for encroachment(s) into the Resource Conservation District, the requirements and standards of subsections 5.6 and 5.8 of the Development Ordinance and all other applicable Resource Conservation District regulations must be adhered to, unless the application is granted administrative exemptions from subsection 5.8.

Stipulations Related to Refuse and Recycling Collection

32. Redesigned Refuse Facility: That the final plans indicate where refuse containers or compactor will be located to service this proposed development. The applicant shall provide a redesigned refuse collection facility for this development that coordinates the refuse needs of the businesses sharing the zoning lot. The plan shall include the construction of accessible dumpster pads, constructed to Town standards, or the installation of a refuse compactor at a central location to service all of the affected businesses. The plan must note the existing sewer line under the driveway along the eastern property and address how the line that may impact the placement of dumpsters in this area. These plans shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

33. Approval of Shared-Container and Joint Access Agreements: That a shared-container and joint refuse vehicle access and construction agreement shall be provided between the property owner of Lot #1 Village Plaza and Lot #2 Village Plaza. The agreement shall be approved by the Town Manager and recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office; and copies of the agreement shall be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

34. Heavy Duty Pavement: That all drive aisles needed to access refuse containers shall be constructed of heavy duty pavement. The final plans must include a detail of this pavement section. It will also be necessary to include the following note on the final plans: “The Town of Chapel Hill, its’ assigns or Orange County shall not be responsible for any pavement damage that may result from service vehicles.

35. Overhead Utility Wires: That the final plan confirm that no overhead obstruction or utility wires will interfere with service vehicle access or operation.

36. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling and for the management and minimizing of construction debris, and demolition waste shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Utilities

37. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), Duke Power Company, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time/Warner Cable and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The final plans shall demonstrate that there is no conflict between utility lines, easements, and other site elements.

38. Utility Lines: That except for existing 3-phase electric utility lines, all new or relocated utility lines shall be installed underground and shall be indicated on final plans.

Stipulations Related to Fire Protection/Fire Safety

39. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer and demonstrating compliance with the provisions of the Design Manual be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

40. Fire Department Connection and Fire Hydrant: That the final proposed location for all Fire Department connections and the location and number of new fire hydrants shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

41. Sprinkler System: That the new building shall have a sprinkler system in accordance with Town Code, which shall be approved by the Town Manager.

Miscellaneous Stipulations

42. Phase II Construction Staging/Parking Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for Phase II, the applicant shall provided a Phase II construction staging and parking area plan. The plan shall provided temporary parking for the parking spaces lost during the construction period. The applicant must provide a recordable parking space easement agreement for all proposed off-site parking spaces.

43. Off-Site Easements: That all necessary off-site utility, construction, access, maintenance, or other required easements shall be obtained and a recorded copy of such easements shall be submitted to the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

44. Certificates of Occupancy: That no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until all required public improvements are complete, and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plans.

That if the Town Manager approves a phasing plan, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for a phase until all required public improvements for that phase are complete; no Building Permits for any phase shall be issued until all public improvements required in previous phases are completed to a point adjacent to the new phase, and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plans.

45. Detailed Plans: That the final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plan (with hydraulic calculations), 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 design standards of the Development Ordinance and Design Manual.

46. As-Built Plans: That as-built plans in DXF binary format using State plane coordinates, shall be provided for buildings, parking lots, street improvements and all other existing or proposed impervious surfaces prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.

47. Erosion Control: That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provision for a maintenance of facilities and modification of the plan if necessary, 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.

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

49. Construction Sign Required: That the developer shall 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. The construction sign may have a maximum of 32 square feet of display area and may not exceed 8 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.

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

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Village Plaza Shopping Center Renovation.

This the 11^th day of November, 2002.

RESOLUTION B

(Planning Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR VILLAGE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER RENOVATION (2002-11-11/R-12b)

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 by the Town Council of Chapel Hill that it finds, in this particular case, that the following modifications satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:

3. Modification of Subsection 14.6.6 (a) to allow less than a five-foot landscaped strip between portions of the buildings and adjacent parking areas.

4. Modification of Subsection 14.6.7 to allow a minimum of 457 spaces for Phase I and 476 spaces for Phase I and Phase II, as noted in the stipulations below.

1. Resolution A: That all of the stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.

2. Deleted Stipulations: That the Affordable Housing Mechanism, Parking Lot Crosswalks/Walkways, Booker Creek Greenway Construction in the RCD, and Phase II Construction Staging and Parking Plan stipulations shall be deleted from the resolution.

3. Revised Stipulations: That the stipulations related to the Land Use Intensity and Bicycle Parking requires a minimum of 48 bicycle parking spaces. That the stipulation related to Land Use Intensity authorizes thirteen movie theaters with a maximum of 1,928 seats.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the Village Plaza Shopping Center Renovation.

This the 11^th day of November, 2002.

RESOLUTION C

(Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR VILLAGE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER RENOVATION (2002-11-11/R-12c)