AGENDA #6

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Marriott Residence Inn Hotel: Application for Special Use Permit, Planned Development - Mixed Use (File No. 7.27.A.3)

DATE: March 3, 2003

INTRODUCTION

Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from January 22, 2003, regarding the Special Use Permit application for a Planned Development-Mixed Use proposal to construct a hotel, office and residential development at the northwest corner of the Erwin Road/Dobbins Drive intersection. The applicant is proposing a 73,120 square foot hotel complex with 108 lodging units. The proposal also includes a two-story, 6,000 square foot building containing 3,000 square feet of office space and 3,000 square feet of residential floor area. Overall, the application proposes 79,120 square feet of total floor area and 126 parking spaces. The property contains 13.29 acres of gross land area, and is located in the Residential-3-Conditonal (R-3-C) zoning district. The site is identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 27, Block A, Lot 3.

This application has been reviewed for compliance with the recently adopted Land Use Management Ordinance.

Adoption of Resolution A would deny the permit. Adoption of Resolutions B, C, D, E, or F would approve a Special Use Permit.

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 January 22, 2003 Public Hearing, and offers recommendations for Council action and includes resolutions of approval and denial.

¨ Attachments: Includes advisory board summaries, memorandum from North Carolina Department of Transportation, a Resource Conservation District determination report, citizen letters, additional information from the applicant, a copy of the January 22, 2003 Public Hearing memorandum and other attachments.

background

On January 22, 2003, the Council held a Public Hearing to consider the Special Use Permit- Planned Development application for Marriott Residence Inn. The application proposes to construct a hotel, office and residential development including a 73,120 square foot hotel complex with 108 lodging units. The proposal also includes a two-story, 6,000 square foot building containing 3,000 square feet of office space and 3,000 square feet of residential floor area. The Public Hearing on the Special Use Permit application was recessed until March 3, 2003.

On January 27, 2003, the Town Council held a public hearing and adopted a new Land Use Management Ordinance. The enacted ordinance requires that the Resource Conservation District boundary on the proposed Marriott development site, along Dobbins Road, be 150 feet from the banks of a stream in that location. The application, as reviewed by the Council on January 22, 2003, included a 75-foot Resource Conservation District boundary. For additional discussion on the Resource Conservation District, please refer to the discussion under the Key Issues section.

This is an application for a Special Use Permit. The Land Use Management 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 Land Use Management Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on January 22, 2003, 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 Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit shall then be approved. If the Council decides that the evidence does not support making one or more of the findings, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.

Tonight, based on the evidence in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based on 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 #14 to the January 22, 2003 memorandum).

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

· “The location of the three buildings in the center of the large 13.29-acre lot allows for the preservation of 1.78 acres located within a Resource Conservation District along the southern border of the site.” [Applicant’s Statement]

· “…it retains large undisturbed buffers of existing vegetation on the southern, western, and northern boundaries of the site. The building closest to Summerfield Crossing is approximately 185 feet from the property line. The parking nearest to Summerfield Crossing is 183 feet distant. Both the building and the parking lie to the east of the proposed 100 feet width existing vegetation buffer.” [Applicant’s Statement]

· “The site shares a property line with Summerfield Crossing to the west and two vacant properties to north. The SUP proposes a 100 feet buffer of existing vegetation against Summerfield Crossing (20’ is the minimum required) and a 40-100 feet buffer to the north (20’ is the minimum required).” [Applicant’s Statement]

· “As designed, two dry water quality / detention basins are provided to control both the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff and are designed to meet the regulations currently in effect. These basins will be redesigned and other low impact design methods will be utilized to meet the anticipated stormwater quality, volume and rate requirement…” [Applicant’s Statement]

· “The additional traffic from the proposed mixed-use development will be minor compared to existing traffic.” [Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition: Several citizens have spoken in Public Hearings on this application, describing existing traffic congestion in the vicinity of this project, and stating opinions that traffic patterns would worsen with the addition of automobile trips generated by this project.

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 3 and 5, the applicable specific standards in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6) and with all other applicable regulations.

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

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #2 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as Attachment #14 to the January 22, 2003 memorandum).

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

· “The applicant believes that the application as submitted and fully engineered to comply with the new stormwater management requirements of the LUMO will exceed all of the minimum requirements of the adopted LUMO.” [Applicant’s Statement]

· “…the site plan proposes an impervious surface coverage of only 18.2% of the gross lot area.” [Applicant’s Statement]

· “…the plan proposes no disturbance in the current RCD overlay district except disturbance required as part of the Dobbins Drive improvements required by the Town of Chapel Hill.” [Applicant’s Statement]

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

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 #14 to the January 22, 2003 memorandum).

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

· “The applicant believes that the proposed hotel-office-residential development will maintain or enhance the value of the adjoining townhouses by providing a significant buffer between the uses and not utilizing the OWASA sewer easement that runs across the Summerfield Crossing property.” [Applicant’s Statement]

· “In several locations in Chapel Hill, multi-family developments (e.g. 82 Magnolia) and hotels (e.g. The Sienna) are located adjacent to or very near single-family and multi-family neighborhoods. They are very good everyday neighbors and do not appear to have had a negative affect upon the value or quality of neighboring residential areas.” [Applicant’s Statement]

· “… to the north on Erwin Road are several multi-family projects including Erwin Village, Kirkwood, Oxford Townhouses, Presque Isle…and the Windhover Subdivision…The proposed mixed-use development:

· Shares no borders with these nearby residential areas.

· Will be minimally visible from Erwin Road and from the intersections of Erwin Road with several residential streets. But as far as the applicant can tell the mixed-use buildings will not be visible from these residential areas.

· Shares no roadway access with these residential areas.

· Will improve the traffic flow and safety along Erwin Road, a road which the residents of these neighborhoods use regularly.

· Will have a minimal traffic impact from its own traffic as reported by the Town of Chapel Hill traffic consultant.” [Applicant’s 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 #14 to the January 22, 2003 memorandum).

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

· “The applicant believes that the proposed mixed-use development including the Residence Inn Hotel will help the Town of Chapel Hill achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, most notably by:

¨ Providing for non-residential development that is appropriately located in an existing entryway corridor that contains both non-residential and multi-family residential uses;

¨ Providing substantial buffers of existing vegetation along boundaries with existing residential neighbors;

¨ Providing a development with a low impervious surface coverage and stormwater quality and quantity measures meeting or exceeding Town standards; and

¨ Adding to the tax base for the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County without adding demand on existing school and community recreation facilities. The proposed hotel would add about $70,000 in annual property tax and $105,000 in Occupancy Tax. The school district would receive about $80,000 in tax revenue.” [Applicant’s Statement]

· “The proposed mixed-use development would:

¨ Generate virtually the same amount of peak hour traffic as a multi-family development;

¨ Provide the needed right-of-way for the realignment of Dobbins Drive west of Erwin Road and provide its equitable share of improvements on Erwin Road;

¨ Provide for stormwater quality basins using the Best Management Practice design principle as well as other Town water quality requirements;

¨ Result in the substantially less land disturbance on the site than a subdivision, townhome, or multi-family development meeting current zoning requirements. Further, the proposed development places development in the center of the site to preserve not only the Resource Conservation District (RCD) onsite, but allow for more generous buffering and landscaping for Summerfield Crossing residents;

¨ Preserve meaningful undisturbed buffers along most of the property’s borders, including a 100 feet undisturbed buffer next to the existing townhouse community, where only a 20-foot buffer is required for the proposed use;

¨ Achieve the objectives of the Master Landscape Plan Entranceway Corridor Plan for this portion of US 15-501 by placement of the building onsite well away from the corridor while maintaining a visual buffer;

¨ Protect the adjoining neighborhood’s landscaped environment by not clearing the mature trees from within the platted OWASA sanitary sewer easement that traverses the neighboring development because the proposed sanitary sewer service crosses Erwin Road with the service main due to the central location of the building for the use allowed by the rezoning amendment.” [Applicant’s Statement]

· “The proposed use would increase employment opportunities, increase the tax base, and provide support to other Town businesses and the University of North Carolina by providing appropriate accommodations for visitors that wish to stay in town for more than one or two nights.’ [Applicant’s Statement]

· “The proposed use is located so that it can be served by the Chapel Hill Bus System.” [Applicant’s Statement]

· “In addition, the proposed use would put virtually no additional burden on the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School System facilities.” [Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in Opposition: We agree that the proposal addresses some of the general statements and goals in the Comprehensive Plan. We agree with several of the points made by the applicant. But a key point is that the May 8, 2000 Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies this property as low-density residential (1-4 units per acre). On balance, we do not believe that addressing general statements and goals in the Comprehensive Plan is sufficient to override the specific designation given to this particular property by the approved Land Use Plan. We recognize that this is a policy determination, and that the Town Council may reach a different conclusion.

We do not believe that the proposed use of this site, as a hotel is an appropriate land use. The proposed development site is located adjacent to several residential neighborhoods. We are particularly concerned with the commercial nature of the proposed development and its visual intrusion into this residential area.

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

KEY ISSUES

Our full evaluation, and discussion of each of the required four findings, is included in the attached January 22, 2003 Staff Report. Key issues that emerged at and subsequent to the January 22, 2003 Public Hearing are: 1) Resource Conservation District; 2) Traffic impact analysis; 3) Coordinating occupancy of development and completion of Super Street; 4) Comparison of impervious surface areas; 5) Voluntary conditions imposed by the applicant; and 6) Relocation of development entrance on Erwin Drive. These key issues are discussed below:

1) Resource Conservation District: During the January 22, 2003 Public Hearing, Council members stated that once the Council adopts the pending Land Use Management Ordinance, staff should reevaluate Resource Conservation District on the proposed site. Following Council adoption of the Land Use Management Ordinance on January 27, 2003, staff identified two changes to the Resource Conservation District regulations that affect this proposed development: a) Increase in the Resource Conservation District boundary to 150 feet along perennial streams; and b) Identification of perennial water bodies in the determination of Resource Conservation District. These two items are discussed below.

a) One new standard in the adopted Land Use Management Ordinance affecting the proposed development site involves an increase in the Resource Conservation District boundary to 150 feet along perennial streams. The site plan submitted by the applicant on January 8, 2003 identified a 75-foot Resource Conservation District boundary along a perennial stream running parallel to Dobbins Drive. Following adoption of the Land Use Management Ordinance, the required Resource Conservation District boundary on this proposed development site, adjacent to the perennial stream, increases from 75 feet to 150 feet.

Comment: When the applicant submitted a site plan on January 8, 2003 with a 75-foot wide Resource Conservation District boundary, a final determination concerning the width of Resource Conservation District along perennial streams, in the pending Land Use Management Ordinance, was still under discussion. In response new requirements in the adopted Land Use Management Ordinance, associated with the Resource Conservation District, the applicant has provided an illustrative site plan that includes a 150-foot wide Resource Conservation District boundary along the perennial stream, parallel to Dobbins Drive (Attachment # 5).

The illustrative plan identifies three stream corridors (stream side-50’, managed-100’ and upland-150’). The illustrative plan, in comparison to the January 8, 2003 site plan, relocates a portion of the parking area from the south side to the north side of the building. With respect to land disturbance/use within the 150 foot wide Resource Conservation District Stream Corridor, the attached illustrative plan identifies a retention/detention basin in the managed and upland stream corridors. We note that the Land Use Management Ordinance permits retention/detention basins within these stream corridors. As show on the illustrative plan, the applicant believes that the proposed development could proceed, with a 150-foot wide Resource Conservation District, and comply with standards for development within the Resource Conservation District.

Although the application and site plan before the Council does not proposed the design shown on the illustrative plan, we believe that the proposed development could be constructed and design similar to the illustrative plan, with the required 150-foot Resource Conservation District boundary. We believe that this design can comply with the standards and requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance including Section 3.6.3 (Resource Conservation District) and Section 5.4 (Stormwater Management). Stipulations 28, 29 and 30, included in Resolution B, require the applicant to comply with Resource Conservation District standards and stormwater management, including rate, quality and volume.

b) Another change in the adopted Land Use Management Ordinance involves identifying perennial water bodies when conducting a Resource Conservation District determination study. The new ordinance classifies perennial water bodies as Resource Conservation District. Although the proposed development site does not include a perennial water body, it was noted during the Public Hearing that a potential perennial water body (pond) is present near the site’s northeast property line. At the January 22, 2003 Public Hearing a Council Member asked staff to conduct a site inspection of the nearby pond and determine its status as a possible perennial water body.

Comment: On February 3, 2003, Town staff conducted a site inspection on the adjoining property. The inspection determined the existence of a perennial water body on the property. A copy of the staff report is included as Attachment # 8. As required by the Land Use Management Ordinance, a 50-foot wide Resource Conservation District is established adjacent to perennial water bodies. The applicant’s illustrative plan, Attachment #5, identifies the portion of the Resource Conservation District boundary on the development site that is associated with the nearby pond. We note that, based on the illustrative plan submitted by the applicant, it appears the entire Resource Conservation District is located within a proposed 40-foot wide landscape buffer area.

At the request of the applicant, Town Staff also investigated an on-site drainage swale on the proposed development site. The swale is located west of the pond. Included in the February 3, 2003 staff investigation and report (Attachment #8), is the determination that this drainage swale is not Resource Conservation District.

2) Traffic Impact Analysis: Traffic issues discussed during the Public Hearing on January 22, 2003 concerned: a) Trip generation comparison information presented by the applicant; and b) A question about traffic impacts associated with the Erwin Road/Europa Drive/US 15-501 intersection if Sage Road is not extended beyond Erwin Road to Weaver Dairy Road.

a) During the Public Hearing the applicant presented a chart titled “Trip Generation Comparison- Mixed-Use-Residential-Hotel.” A copy of the chart is included as Attachment #13.

Comment: A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by an independent engineering consultant as a required component of this application. The analysis assumed a 120 room hotel on the site, and calculated projected trip generation that might result from that facility in that location. Estimates were based on conservative assumptions (worst case), to project the traffic impact that the project might produce. The result of this analysis was that the facility as projected would not worsen the operation of nearby intersections. This conclusion was reported at public hearings.

Also during the hearings, questions were raised about how the traffic impacts of this development might compare to a residential development on this site. The applicant presented the chart referred to above on January 22.

We note that the chart describes several different types of developments. An Extended Stay hotel is shown, which generates fewer trips per room than would a full service hotel. And several residential possibilities are shown. The range of possible trip generation estimates for the site, shown on the applicant’s table (expressed in terms of Estimated Average Daily Trips) varies between 566 and 705. Trip estimates for a full-service, 108 room hotel are 889 daily trips.

b) During the Public Hearing a Council member stated that the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis did not discuss anticipated traffic impacts if Sage Road is not extended beyond Erwin Road to intersect with Weaver Dairy Road. The Council member asked staff to return with additional information on this issue.

Comment: We have contacted the North Carolina Department of Transportation to discuss the impact of Erwin Road/Europa Drive and US 15-501 if Weaver Dairy Road is not connected to Sage Road. A copy of the correspondence received from the North Carolina Department of Transportation is included as Attachment #7. The response from the North Carolina Department of Transportation includes the following statement:

“…if the Weaver Dairy Road extension to Sage Road is not constructed as planned, it will have some effect on trip distribution at the intersection of US 15-501 and Erwin Road/Europa Drive. However, it is not expected to have a major impact on capacity at this intersection. The most likely scenario is that more traffic will be routed down Erwin Road to this intersection, rather than Sage Road to US 15-501. The percentage of traffic that will make this change is not expected to significantly alter the level of service at this intersection.”

3) Coordinating Occupancy of Development and Completion of Superstreet: At the Public Hearing, a Council member questioned if the Town could withhold issuing occupancy permits for the mixed-use development if the construction of the superstreet was not finished.

Comment: We do not believe that there is adequate information contained in the Marriott Residence Inn Traffic Impact Analysis to recommend a stipulation that would withhold the issuance of occupancy permits if the construction of the superstreet is not completed. However, we note that Council recent approval of the Europa Office Building Special Use Permit included the following stipulation with respect to occupancy permits and superstreet construction:

That no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for any part of this development until the superstreet improvements at the intersection of U.S. 15-501 and Europa Drive/Erwin Road, being designed and constructed by the N.C. Department of Transportation, are completed and open to traffic.

Although the findings reported in the traffic impact analysis for the Europa Office Building did not provide adequate information justifying withholding occupancy permits until the construction of superstreet was complete, the Europa applicant agreed to the above stipulations. We understand that applicant for the Marriott Residence Inn will discuss this subject with the Council at tonight’s meeting.

4) Comparing Impervious Surface Areas: A Council member asked if a comparison of impervious surface areas, between residential-type development on the applicant’s site and the proposed mixed-use could be provided.

Comment: The applicant has submitted information comparing the proposed mixed-use development to several other proposed/existing developments. The comparison of impervious surface square footage for each of these projects is shown in a chart included as Attachment # 6.

5) Voluntary Conditions Imposed by the Applicant: On January 8, 2003, the applicant submitted a memorandum to the Town Council including a list of “Proposed Voluntary R-3[C] Conditions” (Attachment #17 January 22, 2003 Public Hearing memorandum). The applicant is proposing that the list of voluntary conditions, contained in Attachment #17, be associated with the existing Residential-3-Conditional zoning district.

Comment: As provided for in the Land Use Management Ordinance, conditions associated with a conditional zoning designation must be offered at such time that the Council is considering the application for conditional rezoning. Since the Residential-3-Conditional zoning was initially approved by the Council on March 23, 1998, the conditions proposed by the applicant cannot be linked to the zoning district without a rezoning hearing.

Instead we recommend that the conditions proposed by the applicant be stipulated as conditions of approval associated with the Special Use Permit application. Resolution B, the Town Manager’s alternate resolution, includes the applicant’s voluntary conditions. These conditions are included in the following Stipulations: 2, 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 34.

6) Relocation of Development Entrance on Erwin Drive: During review by advisory boards some board members expressed a preference for relocating the site entrance on Erwin Road as far north as possible, in order to provide greater separation for vehicles turning into this site, and those vehicles turning onto the realigned Dobbins Drive.

Comment: We note that the applicant’s proposed plans for Erwin Road improvements and a site entrance have been reviewed and endorsed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). In addition, the Town Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and supports the proposed entrance driveway location as the preferred point of ingress and egress to the site from Erwin Road, given the sight distances and locations of other nearby intersections.

SUMMARY

Resolution A, the Manager’s Recommendation, recommends denial of the application. We have also attached Resolution B that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we would recommend for this application if the Council makes the four findings necessary for approval. The key special conditions that we would recommend are described in detail in the accompanying Staff Report. The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Planning Board’s Recommendation: On February 4, 2003, the Planning Board reviewed a proposal for a 73,120 square foot hotel and 6,000 square foot office/residential condominium building with 126 parking spaces. The Planning Board voted 4-3 to recommend that the Council deny this application with the adoption of Resolution A. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.

Transportation Board’s Recommendation: On January 21, 2003, the Transportation Board reviewed a proposal for a 73,120 square foot hotel and 6,000 square foot office/residential condominium building with 126 parking spaces. The Transportation Board voted 4-2 to recommend one revision to the proposed plan and that the Council approved the application with the adoption of Resolution C.

Below is the revision to the proposed plan, as recommended by the Transportation Board and incorporated into Resolution C:

1. That the 6,000 square foot office/commercial use be eliminated from the project.

Comment: This application is for a Special Use Permit as a Planned Development-Mixed Use. Planned Development-Mixed Use applications must include an office and residential component. Unless the applicant modifies the current application, or the Council grants a modification to the Land Use Management Ordinance, an office/residential element is necessary for the application as currently proposed.

Community Design Commission’s Recommendation: On February 19, 2003, the Community Design Commission reviewed a proposal for a 73,120 square foot hotel with a 6,000 square foot office/residential condominium building and 126 parking spaces. The Community Design Commission voted 5-2 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution D. Please see the attached Summary of Community Design Commission Action.

Resolution D includes the following recommendation of the Community Design Commission:

1. That the site entrance on Erwin Road shall be moved as far north as possible, in order to provide greater separation for vehicles turning into this site, and those vehicles turning onto the realigned Dobbins Drive.

Parks and Recreation Commission’s Recommendation: On February 19, 2003, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed a proposal and voted 10 to 0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution D. Please see the attached Summary of Parks and Recreation Commission Action.

Resolution D includes the following four recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission:

1. Complete the sidewalk along Dobbins Drive to the edge of the property.

Comment: We agree with this recommendation. A stipulation requiring this improvement has been incorporated into Resolutions B, C, D, E and F.

2. Ensure that there is nothing to prohibit the future possibility of adding a connector trail from neighboring communities.

Comment: The idea of a connector trail to neighboring communities was not part of the applicant’s proposed development. Given the transient nature of the hotel usage and the fact that neighbors have not had an opportunity to address this proposal, we do not recommend inclusion of a condition to this effect.

3. Include a loop trail within the property.

Comment: The applicant proposes to satisfy the recreational requirements with on-site amenities including a pool and exercise room. Given that the proposal meets the recreational requirements, we believe it is desirable to minimize land disturbance on the remainder of the site and therefore do not recommend inclusion of a condition to this effect.

4. Ensure property owners on site unencumbered access to the recreation amenities by including this in the deed of property, this should include: no additional user fees for recreation access, suitable changing.

Commnent: We agree with this recommendation and a stipulation to that effect has been incorporated into Resolution B.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s Recommendation: On October 22, 2002, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed a proposal for an 85,500 square foot hotel with 120 parking spaces. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board voted 6-0 to not make a recommendation on whether the Council should approve or deny this application.

The Board then voted 5-1 to provide two recommendations to the Council for consideration if the Council decided to approve the application. Both recommendations are related to bicycle and pedestrian circulation and access issues. Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Board Action.

Resolution E includes the following recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board:

1. That when Dobbins Drive is realigned, that the old section of Dobbins Drive should be converted to a bicycle/pedestrian path in order to provide bicycle and pedestrian access to the US 15-501/Erwin Road intersection.

Comment: The Dobbins Drive realignment project is being undertaken to decrease congestion and confusion at the intersections of Dobbins Drive and Erwin Road, and Erwin Road and US Highway 15-501. In particular, the proposed realignment of Dobbins Drive and Erwin Road is intended to increase safety for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians at these both of these intersections.

Given that the Dobbins Drive realignment project will include a sidewalk along the north side of Dobbins Drive (as realigned) to Erwin Road, and the abandoned roadbed will be on the south side of Dobbins Drive, we do not recommend making this change. We believe that the best route of bicycle and pedestrian access from Dobbins Drive to US Highway 15-501 will be via the realigned roadway.

2. That improvement to Erwin Road should include wide outside lanes in both directions, instead of striped bicycle lanes on one side only.

Comment: We note that the applicant is proposing to dedicate right-of-way and provide a southbound bike lane along the site’s frontage on Erwin Road.

Regarding the provision of a northbound bicycle lane (along the eastern side of Erwin Road), in this case, we do not believe that it is appropriate to ask the applicant for roadway improvements not adjacent to the applicant’s street frontage. If a northbound bicycle lane is desired, we believe that it is preferable to obtain right-of-way for a northbound bicycle lane on the eastern side of Erwin Road at such time that an application for development along that side of the road is submitted to the Town.

Manager’s Recommendation: Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the findings to deny the Special Use Permit application. We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, denying the application.

Resolution A would deny the application as recommended by the Planning Board.

Resolution B would approve the application, as an alternate to the Town Manager’s recommendation for denial.

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

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

Resolution E would approve the application as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Resolution F would approve the application with the recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

Marriott Residence Inn Special Use Permit- Planned Development

Differences Between Resolutions

ISSUES	Resolution A (Deny) Manager’s, Planning Board Rec.	Resolution B (Approval) Alternate to Town Manager’s Denial Rec.	Resolution C (Approval) Transportation Board Rec.	Resolution D (Approval) Community Design Commission Rec.	Resolution E (Approval) Parks & Recreation Commission Rec.	Resolution F (Approval) Bicycle & Ped. Advisory Board Rec.
Eliminate 6,000 sq ft office/ residential component	NA	No	Yes	*	*	*
Shift Erwin Rd entrance north	NA	No	*	Yes	*	*
Ensure ability for future connection trails to adjacent properties	NA	No	*	*	Yes	*
Internal loop trail	NA	No	*	*	Yes	*
Deed guaranteeing condominium residence access to hotel recreational facilities with out fee or cost	NA	Yes	*	*	Yes	*
Bicycle/Ped Path on old Dobbins Dr	NA	No	*	*	*	Yes
North bound outside bike lane on Erwin	NA	No	*	*	*	Yes
Prohibit Restaurant	NA	Yes	*	*	*	*

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Board Summary of Action (p. 35).

2. Transportation Board Summary of Action (p. 36).

3. Community Design Commission Summary of Action (p. 37).

4. Parks and Recreation Summary of Action (p. 38).

5. Applicant’s illustrative site plan with new Resource Conservation District boundaries (p. 39).

6. Impervious surface comparison between mixed-use and residential developments (information submitted by applicant) (p. 40).

7. February 12, 2003 memorandum from NCDOT: Sage Road /Weaver Dairy extension (p. 41).

8. February 4, 2004 from Town’s Stormwater Management Engineer to applicant: Resource Conservation District determination (p. 42).

9. February 3, 2003 letter to Town Manager from applicant (p. 49).

10. February 19, 2003 letter to Chapel Hill News from citizens (p. 57).

11. January 18, 2003 letter to Town Council from citizen (p. 61).

12. January 14, 2003 letter to Town Council from citizen (p. 62).

13. January 22, 2003 Trip Generation Comparison: Applicant’s Public Hearing presentation (p. 63).

14. January 22, 2003 Tax Revenue and School Impact Comparison: Applicant’s Public Hearing presentation (p. 64).

15. January 22, 2003 Public Hearing item (p. 65).

RESOLUTION A

(Manager’s and Planning Board

Denial Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT/ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE FOR THE MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN HOTEL (2003-03-03/R-4 a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit/Planned Development-Mixed Use application proposed by Summit Hospitality Group, Ltd., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 27, Block A, Lot 3 (PIN # 9799-48-0252), if developed according to the site plan dated January 13, 2003, and the conditions listed below, would not:

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

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

3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity;

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

(INSERT ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR DENIAL)

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby denies the application for the Marriott Residence Inn Hotel as proposed by Summit Hospitality Group, Ltd.

This the 3^rd day of March, 2003.

RESOLUTION B

(Manager’s Alternate

Approving the Application)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT/ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE FOR THE MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN HOTEL (2003-03-03/R-4b)

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

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

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit/Planned Development-Mixed Use for the Marriott Residence Inn Hotel development in accordance with the plans listed above and with conditions listed below:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. That construction begins by March 3, 2005 and be completed by March 3, 2006.

2. Land Use: That this Special Use Permit authorizes the construction of a Planned Development – Mixed Use including the following:

A. A two-story hotel building and associated one-story guest check-in building containing no more than 73,120 square feet of floor area, and a maximum of 108 lodging units. Use of the guest check in building shall include a hearth room, meeting room, exercise room, lobby/vestibule, front desk area, administrative offices, limited food service facilities, housekeeping, maintenance and associated employees and utility areas.

B. A two-story building including 3,000 square feet of general office floor area on the ground floor and 3,000 square feet of residential floor area, consisting of four one-bedroom dwelling units on the second floor.

C. Associated recreational amenities including a pool.

D. This approval does not authorize a restaurant.

3. Parking: That a maximum of 126 parking spaces shall be provided on the site. All parking lots shall be designed to Town standards.

4. Building Location and Height Limitations: No building shall be placed closer that 175 feet to the joint property line of the Marriott site and Summerfield Crossing, nor closer that 100 feet to any other property line and no building shall exceed 45 feet in height.

Required Improvements

5. Dobbins Drive Relocation and Reconfiguration: That public right-of-way be dedicated along Dobbins Drive to correspond with the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s plans for the relocation and reconfiguration of this roadway, and that the width of this right-of-way dedication be approved by NCDOT and the Town Manager, and the right-of-way dedicated, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

6. Dobbins Drive Right-of-Way Dedication: That a 60-foot public right-of-way, or one-half of a 60-foot public right-of-way as applicable, be dedicated along Dobbins Drive prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

7. Dobbins Drive Realignment and Reconfiguration: That the portion of Dobbins Drive located west of Erwin Road (and along this property’s frontage) be realigned/reconfigured to line up with the eastern intersection of Dobbins Drive and Erwin Road. This realigned/reconfigured portion of Dobbins Drive shall be constructed to include 26 feet of pavement, curb and gutter, and a 5-foot concrete sidewalk along one side of the road. These improvements shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

8. Dobbins Drive – Existing Portion (No Reconfiguration Needed): That the portion of Dobbins Drive that is not involved in the NCDOT reconfiguration project be improved to include curb and gutter, and a five-foot concrete sidewalk. These improvements shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

9. Bus Stop on Dobbins Drive: That the developer either provide a bus stop including a shelter, bench and 5-foot by 10-foot pad on Dobbins Drive once this road is reconfigured; or, that a payment-in-lieu be provided for this bus stop, at an amount to be approved by the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

10. Sidewalk from Parking Lot to Dobbins Drive: That a sidewalk be constructed from the southern parking lot to Dobbins Drive, in order to provide a direct pedestrian connection to Dobbins Drive and the required bus stop.

11. Erwin Road Right-of-Way: That one-half of a 110-foot public right-of-way be dedicated along this property’s Erwin Road frontage, and that the location of this right-of-way be approved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Town Manager, and the right-of-way dedicated, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

12. Erwin Road Improvements: That Erwin Road be improved to provide 44 feet of pavement width along this site’s frontage, including a bicycle lane, a left turn lane, curb and gutter, a three-foot wide planting strip, and a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk. These improvements shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

13. Construction of Road Improvements/Payment In Lieu: That the applicant shall work with North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Town to construct improvements required by the Town and desired by North Carolina Department of Transportation. In the case of the Dobbins Drive realignment and Erwin Road improvements, the applicant shall provide a payment in lieu to the Town for forwarding to North Carolina Department of Transportation for the Town required improvements that exceed the improvements North Carolina Department of Transportation would otherwise make. For the “remainder of Dobbins Drive (the approximately 340 feet of Dobbins Drive not involved in the realignment) the applicant shall either construct the improvements required by the Town or make a payment in lieu should the Town or North Carolina Department of Transportation wish to construct these improvements.

14. Pedestrian Access: Sidewalks connecting the internal sidewalks on the site to external sidewalks on Erwin Road and Dobbins Road will be provided as well as a sidewalk connecting the parking areas on the southern side of the site directly to Dobbins Drive.

15. Bicycle Parking: That bicycle parking, as required by the Town’s Design Manual, will be provided. Three (3) Class I (enclosed) bicycle parking spaces and ten (10) Class II (stationary ‘U’ rack) bicycle parking spaces be provided on this site. Safe bicycle access to and from the hotel site will be provide.

Stipulations Related to State or Federal Government Approvals

16. Permits: That any required State permits or encroachment agreements be approved and copies of the approved permits and agreements be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Landscaping and Architectural Issues

17. Landscape Plan Approval: That a detailed landscape plan, landscape maintenance plan, and lighting plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

18. Landscape Protection Plan: That a Landscape Protection Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit; and that the Plan include Town standard notes and details.

19. Required Buffers: That the following landscape bufferyards be provided; and if any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirements, the vegetation will be protected by fencing from adjacent construction:

¨ Western Property Line (Summerfield Crossing): Type ‘C’ landscape bufferyard (minimum width 100 feet);

¨ Southern Property Line (Dobbins Drive): Type ‘D’ landscape bufferyard (minimum width 30 feet);

¨ Northern Property Lines: Type ‘C’ landscape bufferyard (minimum width 20 feet); and

¨ Eastern Property Line (along Erwin Road): Type ‘D’ landscape bufferyard (minimum width 50 feet);

Alternative buffers will not be permitted.

20. Buffer Adjoining Summerfield Crossing: A permanent deed restricted buffer of existing vegetation, a minimum of 100 feet in width, shall be created along the joint property line with Summerfield Crossing.

21. Preservation of 24-inch Cedar: That the 24-inch Cedar tree located in the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the southern detention basin be preserved.

22. Building Elevations: That the Community Design Commission approve building elevations, including the location and screening of all HVAC/Air Handling Units for this project, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

23. Lighting Plan: That the Community Design Commission approve a lighting plan for this project prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

24. Building Lighting: No building mounted lighting will be placed on the sides or ends of the guest buildings where those facades face Summerfield Crossing.

25. Parking Lot Lighting: Parking lot lighting shall: a) Be designed to provide for the safe movement of hotel guests and employees; b) Use fixtures not greater than 15 feet in height with high pressure sodium lamps; c) Use cut-off or similar shield devices to prevent light spillage away from the parking lots; and d) Be consistent with the Town of Chapel Hill and Duke Power lighting standards.

Stipulations Related to Environmental Issues

26. Impervious Surface Limits: That the maximum amount of impervious surface area on the site shall not exceed 20% of the gross land area of the site.

27. Stormwater Flow and Site Disturbance-Northern Drainage Swale: The natural drainage swale passing from west to east across the northern portion of the site (and to the north of all proposed site disturbance shown on the accompanying Special Use Permit) shall be protected from encroachment during construction by tree protection fencing and other devices as approve by the Town of Chapel Hill.

28. Land Disturbance in the Resource Conservation District: That land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District is prohibited in accordance with the rules and regulations of Article 5 of the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance.

29. Stormwater Management Plan: That a Stormwater Management Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The plan shall be based on the 1-year, 2-year, and 25-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate and the post-development stormwater runoff volume shall not exceed the pre-development volume for the local 2-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards.

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.

30. Stormwater Easements: That the final plans and final plat include an easement titled “Reserved Storm Drainageway.” That 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. The easement must be recorded prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

That 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. That 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

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

Stipulations Related to Utility and Service Issues

34. OWASA Sewer Connection: The hotel shall be developed so that sanitary sewer service shall not require the clearing of and use of the existing OWASA easement crossing Summerfield Crossing.

35. Utility Plan Approval: That the final utility 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.

36. Underground Utilities: That all utility lines, other than 3-phase electric power distribution lines, shall be placed underground.

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

38. Sprinkler system: That a sprinkler system be provided in the proposed building, and that the Fire Marshal approve the Fire Department’s connections to the system prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

39. Fire Prevention: That all Fire Department safeguards and requirements be established and confirmed, and that the Department approve all fire hydrant locations, siamese connections, building evacuation capabilities, and fire truck access to the proposed building, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

40. Refuse Collection Facilities: That a minimum of two bulk refuse dumpsters be provided to service the site; or, alternative refuse collection facilities be proposed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

41. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a detailed solid waste management plan, including a recycling plan and a plan for managing and minimizing construction debris, be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Recreation Space

42. Recreation Space for Four One-Bedroom Dwelling Units: That residents of the four one-bedroom dwelling units shall have access to the recreational amenities associated with the hotel. That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Town Manager, for review and approval, a proposed deed guaranteeing use of the recreation facility by residents of the dwelling units. Deed shall include a provision allowing use of the recreation facility free of fees or cost to residents of the dwelling units.

Affordable Housing Stipulations

43. That the developer shall identify and reserve no fewer than one of the four one-bedroom dwelling units as an “affordable unit,” in accordance with the following conditions:

A. If the affordable unit(s) is provide for private ownership, such opportunity shall be provided in accordance with the following conditions:

§ That the affordable unit shall only be available for private ownership and occupancy.

§ That the affordable unit shall be priced so as to be affordable for Qualified Buyers. Qualified Buyers shall be defined as individuals or families with gross incomes equal to 80% or less of the median income for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

§ Each Qualified Buyer shall deliver to the Developer written evidence, acknowledged in writing by the Orange Community Housing Corporation (or alternative organization as approved by the Town Manager), that such buyer has been officially determined to be a Qualified Buyer.

§ That mechanisms shall be established to guarantee that the affordable unit shall be permanently affordable and available to Qualified Buyers, subject to the approval of the Town Manager and the Orange Community Housing Corporation (or alternative organization as approved by the Town Manager), prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance permit.

§ That the affordable unit shall be constructed and available for occupancy, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel.

B. Alternatively, if the affordable unit(s) is provided for rental, such opportunity shall be provided in accordance with the following conditions:

§ That eligible renters for affordable dwelling units shall include families earning 80% or less of median 3-person family income for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Section 8 vouchers will be accepted for these units.

§ That rental rates shall not exceed current Section 8 Fair Market rents (including utilities) as published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, according to the number of bedrooms in each unit (e.g. 2002 rate: 2 bedroom unit, $777/month).

§ That 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. The “good faith” marketing agreement shall be subject to the approval of the Town Manager and the Orange Community Housing Corporation (or alternative organization as approved by the Town Manager) prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

§ That 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 alternative organization as approved by the Town Manager) and approved the Town of Chapel Hill.

C. That the applicant shall record deed restrictions to ensure that the affordable units remain affordable in perpetuity to low income owners or renters, subject to approval by the Town Manager and the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust (or alternative organization as approved by the Town Manager), prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

D. That the affordable unit(s) be constructed and available for occupancy prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel.

Miscellaneous Stipulations

44. Detailed Plans: That final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plan (with hydraulic calculations), landscape plan and landscape management plan be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and the Design Manual.

45. Transportation Management Plan: That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant prepare a Transportation Management Plan for approval by the Town Manager. The required components of the Transportation Management Plan shall include:

1. Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator;

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

3. Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;

4. Ridesharing incentives;

5. Public transit incentives; and

6. Other measures determined appropriate by the Town Manager.

46. 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 Building 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.

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

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit/Planned Development-Mixed Use for the Marriott Residence Inn Hotel in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

This the 3^rd day of March, 2003.

RESOLUTION C

(Transportation Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT/ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE FOR THE MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN HOTEL (2003-03-03/R-4c)

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

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

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

Stipulations Specific to the Development

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

2. Revised Stipulation: That the stipulation related to Land Use Intensity shall delete the reference to the following authorized use:

a. A two-story building including 3,000 square feet of general office floor area on the ground floor and 3,000 square feet of residential floor area, consisting of four one-bedroom dwelling units on the second floor; and

b. Associated recreational amenities including a pool.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit/Planned Development-Mixed Use for the Marriott Residence Inn Hotel.

This the 3^rd day of March, 2003.

RESOLUTION D

(Community Design Commission Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT/ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE FOR THE MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN HOTEL (2003-03-03/R-4d)

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

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

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

Stipulations Specific to the Development

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

Insert Stipulation: That the following stipulation shall be inserted into Resolution B;

a. Erwin Road Driveway: That the entrance driveway off of Erwin Road be moved as far north as possible, subject to the approval of the Town Manager and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit/Planned Development-Mixed Use for the Marriott Residence Inn Hotel.

This the 3^rd day of March, 2003.

RESOLUTION E

(Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT/ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE FOR THE MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN HOTEL (2003-03-03/R-4e)

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

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

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

Stipulations Specific to the Development

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

2. Insert Stipulations: That the following stipulations shall be inserted into Resolution B:

a. Future Connector Trail : Ensure that there is nothing to prohibit the future possibility of adding a connector trail from neighboring communities.

b. Internal Loop Trail: Include a loop trail within the property.

This the 3^rd day of March, 2003.

RESOLUTION F

(Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT/ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE FOR THE MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN HOTEL (2003-03-03/R-4f)

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

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

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

Stipulations Specific to the Development

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

2. Insert Stipulations: That the following stipulations shall be inserted into Resolution F:

a. Bicycle/Pedestrian Path on old section of Dobbins Drive: That after Dobbins Drive is realigned, the old section of Dobbins Drive be converted to a bicycle and pedestrian path, in order to provide bicycle and pedestrian access to the US 15-501 intersection, subject to the approval of the Town Manager and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).

b. Additional Right-of Way Dedication on Erwin Road: That improvements to Erwin Road be revised to include an additional 5-feet of right-of-way dedication, the realignment of the travel lanes and turn lanes on Erwin Road, and the construction of a northbound bicycle lane on the east side of Erwin Road, subject to the approval of the Town Manager and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).

This the 3^rd day of March, 2003.