TOWN of CHAPEL HILL Town Council Public Hearing Town Hall Council Chamber 7:00 P.M., NOVEMBER 14, 2011

TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Town Council Public Hearing Town Hall Council Chamber 7:00 P.M., NOVEMBER 14, 2011

Participate! Transform your ideas into action – and make Chapel Hill even better.

Please visit www.townofchapelhill.org/agendas for Council Meeting Public Participation Guidelines and Information Related to Council Meetings. Did you know you can receive Council Agendas by email? Sign up at www.townofchapelhill.org/signup Let us know how we can improve our efforts to serve you. Contact us at [email protected] or 919-968-2743.

AGENDA ITEMS

1. Public Hearing: Towing Ordinance.

PRESENTER: Christopher C. Blue, Chief of Police

a. Comments from the public b. Comments and questions from the Mayor and Town Council.

2. Public Hearing: Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment - Chapel of the Cross, 304 East Franklin Street.

PRESENTER: Kendal Brown, Principal Planner

a. Without objection, the Manager’s preliminary report and any other materials submitted at the hearing for consideration by the Council will be entered into the record b. Introduction and preliminary recommendation by the Town Manager c. Presentation by the applicant d. Recommendation of the Planning Board e. Recommendations of other boards and commissions f. Comments from the public g. Comments and questions from the Mayor and Town Council h. Motion to recess the public hearing to January 9, 2012 i. Referral to the Manager and Attorney.

3. Public Hearing: Application for Special Use Permit - Chapel of the Cross, 304 East Franklin Street.

PRESENTER: Kendal Brown, Principal Planner

Swearing of all persons wishing to present evidence

a. Without objection, the Manager’s preliminary report and any other materials 2

submitted at the hearing for consideration by the Council will be entered into the record b. Introduction and preliminary recommendation by the Manager c. Presentation of evidence by the applicant d. Recommendation of the Planning Board e. Recommendations of other boards and commissions f. Presentation of evidence by the public g. Comments and questions from the Mayor and Town Council h. Applicant’s statement regarding proposed conditions i. Motion to recess Public Hearing to January 9, 2012 j. Referral to Manager and Attorney.

4. Public Forum: Triangle Regional Transit Program Local Preferred Alternative.

PRESENTER: David Bonk, Long Range and Transportation Planning Manager

a. Comments from the public b. Comments and questions from the Mayor and Town Council.

5. Public Forum: Durham -Chapel Hill -Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 2014 -2020 Transportation Improvement Program Regional Priority List

PRESENTER: David Bonk, Long Range and Transportation Planning Manager

a. Comments from the public b. Comments and questions from the Mayor and Town Council.

3 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 11/14/2011 AGENDA #1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Title of Agenda Item: Public Hearing: Towing Ordinance.

Council Goal: Champion Downtown B. Compare alternative approaches from successful peer communities and modify ordinances and policies as appropriate in key downtown policy areas

Background: Tonight’s public hearing has been called to receive comment regarding proposed changes to the Town's Towing Ordinance.

Fiscal Note: No fiscal impact has been identified.

Recommendations: That the Council receive comments from the public at this hearing on November 14, 2011, and provide guidance to Town staff.

ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Staff Memorandum Draft Ordinance Map of Zoning Districts TC -1, TC -2, TC -3 October 10, 2011 Staff Report Towing Storage Lots Table

MEMORANDUM

TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

FROM: Christopher C. Blue, Chief of Police

Matthew Sullivan, Police Legal Advisor

SUBJECT: Public Hearing on the Towing Ordinance

DATE: November 14, 2011

INTRODUCTION

Tonight’s public hearing has been called to consider proposed changes to the Town’s towing ordinance. We recommend that the Council consider this information and open the public hearing to receive comment regarding proposed changes to the Town’s Towing Ordinance.

CURRENT REGULATIONS

Our current ordinances regulate non-residential, private property towing in zoning districts TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3. These zoning districts encompass our Central Business District Downtown Chapel Hill. Key components of the ordinance are as follows:

1. Required Signage Property owners must post appropriate signage on their property that notifies individuals that vehicles are subject to being towed. These signs must be no less than twenty-four inches by twenty-four inches in size and no larger than four square feet. Signs must contain specific language and be located prominently at each entrance to the property. The signs must also contain the name and 24-hour telephone number of the tow company.

2. Release of Vehicles Calls made to the tow company’s posted telephone number must be answered by a person and a person with the authority and ability to release the vehicle must respond to the location of the vehicle within thirty minutes of a call. If a vehicle owner gets to the vehicle prior to it being towed from the private property, the tow operator is required to release the vehicle and may charge a fifty dollar fee.

3. Notification to the Police Department Within thirty minutes after a vehicle has been placed at a storage site, the tow truck operator who removed the vehicle is required to report by telephone to the Chapel Hill Police Department that the vehicle has been removed, a license tag number and description of the vehicle, and its present location. 5

4. Towing Fees The towing fee for a vehicle towed under the ordinance is limited to one hundred dollars. The tow company is also allowed to charge twenty dollars per day as a storage fee. However, no storage fee may be charged for the first twenty four hours. Tow operators are required to provide a receipt at the time payment is made.

5. Penalties for Violation Tow operators face both civil and criminal penalties for violations of this ordinance. Civil penalties are fifty dollars for the first offense; one hundred dollars for the second offense within a twelve-month period; and two hundred fifty dollars for each offense when the offense is the third or subsequent offense within a twelve-month period.

STAKEHOLDER INPUT

The Department has sought the input of multiple stakeholders regarding this issue. On August 17, 2011, the Parking Task Force of the Downtown Partnership met to discuss the recent concerns raised about towing downtown. This group recommended that the ordinance be changed to require tow operators to accept all major credit cards as payment for towing from private lots. The Parking Task Force agreed to monitor complaints and make additional recommendations as needed.

On Friday September 9, 2011, Police Department staff met with tow operators to discuss the issues that have been raised. Most of the local tow companies were represented at this meeting, during which we discussed the ideas that have been generated about modifying the current ordinance.

Police Department staff has received 20 written complaints about towing in the central business district since April 2011. Citizen concerns have generally focused on safety when they have retrieved their towed vehicles from storage locations in remote areas and their frustration with being subject to a “walk-off” tow. Staff has investigated those complaints and has pursued charges for violation of the Town ordinance where possible.

We have received multiple ideas about ordinance modifications from community members. These ideas include:

• Require specific language on tow receipt to include company name, time, date, and reason for the tow. • That the tow operator accepts multiple forms of payment. • Require businesses that enforce a “walk-off” tow policy to notice this practice at every vehicular entrance to their parking lot. 6

• Require businesses that enforce after-hours towing in their lots to restrict access through the use of chains or other means that would prohibit a vehicle entering the lot. • Require businesses that employ video surveillance systems to notice this practice at every vehicular entrance to their parking lot. • Annual inspection of the tow trucks and of the lighting, signage, and security at storage lots. • Patrons who do business and park at one lot have the option of doing additional business, for a period not to exceed 30 minutes, at another business. • Expand the coverage of the Tow Ordinance from TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3 to town wide coverage. • Eliminate the tow fee if the vehicle owner arrives back at the business prior to the vehicle leaving the property, even if already attached to the tow truck. • Vehicle owner has the option of requesting that their car be brought back to them, within 30 minutes, for an extra fee of $25. The tow truck operator has the option of allowing this particular fee service, or they MUST have their car storage lot within 5 miles of the site of tow. • Consider a sign in front of every two parking spaces subject to towing to enhance the visibility and notice of the practices in place. • A change in tow and storage fees.

COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS

On October 10, 2011 staff provided information to the Council related to concerns about towing in the Central Business District. A summary of these questions and our staff response follows.

Question

A council member inquired about the distances to the storage lots for tow companies.

Staff Response: We researched the distances to tow storage lots from the intersection of Franklin Street and Columbia Street. These distances ranged from 5.1 miles to 9.9 miles. A table of tow companies and storage lot distances has been included as an attachment to this report.

Question

A Council member inquired about the use of video surveillance to enforce walk-off tow policies.

Staff Response: We did not find any communities where the use of video surveillance to enforce towing policies has been prohibited. The use of the cameras could be beneficial when investigating complaints related to tows.

Question 7

A Council member inquired about the relationships between tow operators and the businesses that use them to tow.

Staff Response: We do not have access to the contracts between the tow companies and the related businesses.

Question

A Council member inquired about how many complaints the Town has received about towing outside the central business district.

Staff Response: We have received fewer than 8 complaints about tows outside TC-1, TC-2, and TC-3. They are not concentrated in any particular part of town.

PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGES AND DISCUSSION POINTS

The attached proposed ordinance contains staff’s recommended changes to our current ordinance. The recommended changes are as follows.

1. Expansion of the ordinance to cover all towing from any non-residential private property in Chapel Hill. 2. Additional signage requirements when lots are subject to a walk off policy or video surveillance. 3. A requirement that tow operators accept debit or credit cards in addition to cash payments and that these payment forms be accepted with no additional fees. 4. An increase in the tow fee from $100 to $125 and an increase in the storage fee from $20 to $25. 5. Additional requirements regarding receipts that are provided upon payment of tow fees. 6. Mandatory notification to the police department by the tow truck operator prior to removing the vehicle from the private lot. 7. Minimum security standards for the tow storage lots. 8. An additional penalty that allows the Town Manager to revoke the business license of any tow company who if found to have violated any provision of the tow ordinance three times within 365 days.

Tonight is an opportunity for members of the public, including vehicle owners wishing to park in the downtown area, parking lot property owners, and tow truck operators, to express their views on the Town’s regulations on towing from non-residential lots in downtown areas zoned TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council receive comments from the public at this hearing on November 14, 2011, and provide guidance to Town staff. 8

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Ordinance Reflecting Changes

2. Map of zoning districts TC-1, TC-2, TC-3

3. May 31, 2011 Staff Report

4. October 10, 2011 Staff Report

5. Distances to Tow Company Storage Lots

DRAFT ORDINANCE

AN ORDINANCE REVISING ARTICLE XIX OF CHAPTER 11 OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN CODE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE REGULATIONS THAT GOVERN TOWING FROM PRIVATE LOTS

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:

Section 1. Article XIX, Section 11-301 is hereby revised to read as follows:

“Sec. 11-301. - Notice required.

(a) It shall be unlawful to tow or remove a vehicle which is parked on private property without the permission of the owner or lessee of that private property unless notice in accordance with the provisions of this section is posted on the private property from which the towing or removal is made. Such notice shall fulfill the following requirements:

(1) A notice, in the form of a sign structure, not less than twenty-four (24) inches by twenty-four (24) inches in size, shall be prominently placed on the private property at each access or curb cut allowing vehicular access to the property, within five (5) feet of the street right-of-way line. If there are no curb or access barriers, signs shall be posted not less than one (1) sign each fifty (50) feet of the frontage to the public street. The maximum size for any sign shall be four (4) square feet.

(2) The notice shall clearly display the following:

a. In not less than one-and one-half (1½) inch high letters on a contrasting background, the words "tow-away" or "tow-away zone" or "towing enforced ," or a similar phrase. b. In not less than one (1) inch high letters on a contrasting background, a statement indicating that parking by unauthorized vehicles is prohibited by the use of a phrase such as "private property", "leased parking", "no parking", "parking for customers only", "parking for residents only", or a similar phrase. If parking by unauthorized vehicles is not prohibited on a twenty-four (24) hour continuous basis, the days of the week and hours of the day during which unauthorized parking is prohibited shall be posted. c. If the property owner adopts a policy where the vehicles are subject to immediate towing when the vehicle operator steps off the property, the signage shall also depict the phrase “If you walk-off this property, you are subject to being towed. This includes patrons who are doing business on this property” in (1) inch high letters on a contrasting background. d. If parking on the private property is monitored or enforced through the use of video surveillance, an additional sign not less than twenty-four (24) inches by twenty four (24) inches in size shall be placed in proximity to any sign required in Sec. 11-301 (a)(1). This sign, in not less than one-and one-half (1½) inch high letters on a contrasting background, shall clearly display the words "towing enforced through the use of video monitoring” or “towing enforced through video surveillance”. (3) In not less than one-half (½) inch high letters on a contrasting background, the telephone number at which a person available to release the vehicle that has been towed, removed, or 10

immobilized may be contacted at any time. Calls to the telephone number must be answered by a person and a person with the authority and ability to release the vehicle must respond to the location of the vehicle within thirty (30) minutes of a call.

(b) The sign structure displaying the required notices shall be permanently installed with the bottom of the sign not less than six (6) feet above ground level and not more than eight (8) feet above ground level. Pedestrian safety should be taken into consideration when locating freestanding signs.”

Section 2. Article XIX, Section 11-302 is hereby revised to read as follows:

“Sec. 11-302. - Applicability.

The provisions of this article shall apply to any private property used for non-residential purposes . in all areas of the town zoned TC -1, TC -2 and TC -3 under the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance .”

Section 3. Article XIX, Section 11-304 is hereby revised to read as follows:

“Sec. 11-304. - Towing fees.

(a) Any towing or storage firm which tows or removes a vehicle pursuant to this article shall not charge the owner or operator of the vehicle in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00) one hundred twenty five dollars ($125.00) for the towing or removal or in excess of twenty dollars ($20.00) twenty five dollars ($25.00) per day for storage fees. No storage fees shall be charged for the first twenty-four (24) hour time period from the time the vehicle is initially removed from the private property. The fees referred to herein shall be all inclusive; no additional fees may be charged for the use of particular equipment or services. The towing or storage f irm shall provide a receipt for each payment at the time the payment is made.

(b) The towing or storage firm shall provide a receipt for each payment at the time the payment is made. Each receipt shall be legible and shall contain the following information: a. The name, address, and telephone number of the tow company b. The name of the person who towed the vehicle c. A total fee with a breakdown of towing and storage fees d. A clear and accurate reason for the for the towing and the date and time of the towing. Receipts shall not use descriptions that might cause individuals to associate private property towing with municipal action.

(c) The fee of one hundred twenty five dollars ($125.00) shall be all inclusive. The fees referred to in this section shall be payable by cash, debit card or major national credit card at no extra cost. Failure to accept credit or debit cards for payment is a violation of this section and is punishable as a misdemeanor. No additional fees may be charged for using dollies, trailers, lifts, slim jims or any other equipment or service. However, the maximum fees in this section shall not apply to the non-consensual towing of vehicles weighing in excess of two (2) tons. Non- consensual towing fees and storage rates shall be established annually by the Council. ”

Section 4. Article XIX, Section 11-305 is hereby revised to read as follows:

“Sec. 11-305. - Report to police department.

Within thirty (30) minutes after a vehicle has been placed at a storage site When towing a vehicle pursuant to this article, the tow truck operator who is removed ing the vehicle shall report by telephone to the Chapel Hill Police Department that the vehicle has been removed , a license tag number , and description of the vehicle, the location from which the vehicle is being towed, and the intended storage location present location . This report to the police department shall be made before the tow truck towing the vehicle leaves the private property from which the vehicle is towed. ”

Section 5. Article XIX, Section 11-307 is hereby revised to read as follows:

“Sec. 11-307- Penalties Regulations for Tow Storage Lots

(a)Any violation of the provisions of this article or a failure to comply with any of its requirements shall subject the offender to a civil penalty as follows:

(1) In the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first offense; (2) In the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the second offense within a twelve month period; and (3) In the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for each offense when the offense is the third or subsequent offense with a twelve -month period.

(b) This article may also be enforced by a n appropriate equitable action.

(c) Any violation of the provisions of this article shall be a misdemeanor punishable as provided by North Carolina General Statute 14 -4.

(d) Any one, all, or any combination of the foregoing penalties and remedies may be used to enforce this article.

Tow operators are required to provide the location of their tow storage lots to the Chapel Hill Police Department on an annual basis. Tow storage lots must be clearly signed. The lot shall be secured and lighted in such a manner as to keep the vehicle safe from break-ins or damage while in storage. A fenced storage yard with average surface level lighting sufficient for transacting nighttime business shall be deemed compliant with this section. Tow storage lots will be inspected by the Police Department on an annual basis. ”

Section 6. A New Section 11-308 is added to Article XIX, and shall read as follows:

“Sec. 11-308. - Penalties.

(a) Any violation of the provisions of this article or a failure to comply with any of its requirements shall subject the offender to a civil penalty as follows: (1) In the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first offense; (2) In the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the second offense within a twelve month period; and (3) In the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for each offense when the offense is the third or subsequent offense with a twelve-month period.

(b) A towing company that is found to violate any provision of this article, three times within one year, is subject to having its Chapel Hill Business License revoked. 12

(d) Any violation of the provisions of this article shall be a misdemeanor punishable as provided by North Carolina General Statute 14-4.

(e) Any one, all, or any combination of the foregoing penalties and remedies may be used to enforce this article. ”

Section 7. The modified sections 11-301 and 11-304 of the code become effective 60 days after enactment. All other code changes created through this ordinance become effective upon enactment.

This the ____ day of ____, 2011. 13

A L J L S E R DW S TE AL N AS C E . M H E R Mc L P C B J O O E B N T B S G

N S C C E E K D H KI O FR Y U S W T S R S T K R I A O E E A Y O C S R R H N G K B H P E T D D D R E E A U L S C D H I S c N Y P H M L E H G I C A T N C N R I O K O P K N D E R T R A GOMAINS T LA E T L C R R O R O R A S B D B R A O N C M E Y Y N R N PR AR T U EM S M S O I O IG T R N CRA C T H Y OR A DSA SH R LIN D WHITAKER P O R T UNN N N H U O N L N A E S M U I C N T M M Y O

S A I L

E U H

T R M A D

H O B

R A E I B W

G A L

E S L

R O S N ITY O N LIN R N E K AT N AN R RO FR F E AM M C A L F Legend . L E CO E T R K T Z O E T E T E O N R TC-1 P R M S A I E T O AT N B Y T S G E TC-2; TC-2-C B R R W O A S B I R H O L A O TC-3-C A N S S M O N N I G A B SOU R ch_parcels_clipped H TH MI E M Y T E LU L W E UL CO R A O R C R c T A M I T N L T S L

E M O M Y B I LE L AU L cC M M E Map Date: 2/20/08 DICAL By CA L. Meyer 14

A L J L S E R DW S TE AL N AS C E . M H E R Mc L P C B J O O E B N T B S G

S A I L

E U H

T R M A D

H O B

R A E I B W

G A L

E S L

R O S N ITY O N LIN R N E K AT N AN R RO FR F E AM M C A L F . L E CO E T R K T Z O E T E T E Legend O N R P R M S A I E T O AT N B Y T S G E TC-1 B R R W O A S B I R H O L A O TC-2; TC-2-C A N S S M O N N I G A B SOU R TC-3-C H TH MI E M Y T E LU L W E UL CO R A O R C R c T A M I T N L T S L

E M O M Y B I LE L AU L cC M M E Map Date: 2/20/08 DICAL By CA L. Meyer 15 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 10/10/2011 AGENDA #12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Title of Agenda Item: Consider Scheduling a Public Hearing on Modifications to the Towing Ordinance. (R-8)

Council Goal: Champion Downtown Compare alternative approaches from successful peer communities and modify ordinances and policies as appropropriate in key downtown areas.

Background: Recently, staff received a number of citizen complaints about towing in the central business district. The Town of Chapel Hill began regulating towing from private lots located in zoning districts TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3 in March of 2002 and, in 2008, the ordinance was amended to include additional regulations. This report includes a recommendation that a public hearing be called to solicit input regarding potential changes to the Town of Chapel Hill Town Ordinances that regulate towing from private property.

Fiscal Note: There is no fiscal impact identified at this time.

Recommendations: That the Council adopt the attached resolution to hold a public hearing on November 14, 2011 to obtain input on possible amendments to the current Towing Ordinance.

ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat. Staff Memorandum Resolution May 2011 Towing Report Map of TC-1, 2, 3

MEMORANDUM

TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

FROM: Christopher C. Blue, Chief of Police Matthew Sullivan, Police Legal Advisor

SUBJECT: Towing Concerns in the Central Business District

DATE: October 10, 2011

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide information related to concerns about towing in the central business district. This report also includes a recommendation that a public hearing be called to solicit input regarding potential changes to the Town Ordinances that regulate towing from private property.

DISCUSSION

The Town of Chapel Hill began regulating towing from private lots located in zoning districts TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3 in March of 2002 and, in 2008, the ordinance was amended to include additional regulations. The current towing ordinance is located in Chapter 11, Article XIX of the Town Code of Ordinances and is entitled “Pre-Towing Notice on Private Lots.” The current ordinance applies only to towing from any private property used for non-residential purposes in Land Use Management Zones TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3, which encompass most of our central business district. The ordinance sets specific standards for tow truck operators, such as the maximum fees that can be charged, notice requirements, release procedures and post towing police department notification. It also requires posting of signs on the private lot to provide notice that a vehicle is subject to being towed. Penalties for violation of the ordinance include both civil and criminal sanctions.

Over the past several months, towing from private property in the central business district has generated significant public discussion. Town staff has received a number of complaints regarding the tow practices in two private parking lots, in particular. At these properties, the property owners have instituted a “walk-off tow” policy. Under this type of policy, individuals who park their vehicles in the privately-owned lot and then walk off the property are immediately subject to being towed. This policy is further enforced through the use of video cameras, which monitor the lots and enable tow companies contracted to these businesses to identify “walk-offs” and tow the vehicles almost immediately. In several instances, citizens complained that the tow operator had violated our ordinance. These complaints were investigated and the tow company was charged, when appropriate.

The community discussion about this issue has revealed some divergent interests. For example, property owners/managers have expressed an interest in controlling the limited parking resources necessary to support the businesses that occupy their properties. Citizens have expressed 17

concerns about their safety when they have retrieved their towed vehicles from storage locations in remote areas, generally outside the Chapel Hill corporate limits. It has also been suggested that aggressive towing practices have negatively impacted the business climate in the central business district.

The Police Department has taken steps to address the concerns. Staff has met with the tow operators who do business in Chapel Hill and with the property owners/managers of the lots that are generating complaints. The purpose of this outreach has been to review the Town’s tow ordinance with them and to answer any questions they have about compliance. We have monitored and investigated complaints, bringing charges when appropriate.

On August 17, 2011, the Parking Task Force, made up of central business district merchants, Downtown Partnership staff, and Town officials, met to discuss the recent concerns raised about towing downtown. The group recommended that the ordinance be changed to require tow operators to accept all major credit cards as payment for towing from private lots. The Parking Task Force agreed to monitor complaints and make additional recommendations as needed.

Possible Regulation Response

That the tow operator accepts multiple forms Concerns were expressed about accepting non- of payment. cash payments. Tow operators are concerned that the person towed can cancel a check or reverse the credit card charges, both of which hurt the tow operators. Such a requirement might increase business costs which might be offset by a higher tow fee.

Tow operators felt that the addition of a criminal charge for canceling a check or reversing credit card charges after a lawful tow would be a way to reduce business risk.

Requirements related to lighting, signage and No opposition or concerns were expressed. security at storage lots.

Annual inspection of storage lots and tow No opposition or concerns were expressed. trucks.

Expand the coverage of the Tow Ordinance No opposition or concerns expressed except from TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3 to town wide that if jurisdiction is expanded, the tow fee coverage. should also be adjusted.

A change in tow fees. Operators observed that the tow fee had not 18

been adjusted in several years while business costs have increased.

Staff has also spoken with a number of citizens who have had negative experiences related to the tow practices. Many of these citizens have suggested changes in the ordinance to require businesses to erect signs explicitly stating that they have a “walk-off tow policy” and/or they use video surveillance. Another suggestion from citizens is that property owners restrict access to their lots after-hours through the use of chains or other barricades.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council consider holding a public hearing on November 14, 2011 to obtain input on possible amendments to the current Tow Ordinance.

ATTACHMENTS

1. May 31, 2011 Staff Report 2. Map of zoning districts TC-1, TC-2, TC-3 19

A RESOLUTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING POSSIBLE CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL ORDINANCES RELATED TO TOWING FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY (2011-10-10/R-8)

WHEREAS, A number of citizens have expressed concerns about towing from private property in the town’s central business district; and

WHEREAS, These concerns have generated significant community discussion surrounding the issue of towing practices, our city ordinances and associated community impacts, and

WHEREAS, Part of the community discussion has involved possible changes to the current tow ordinance that would address some of the concerns expressed about towing from private property.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council call a public hearing to take input regarding possible changes and additions to the Town of Chapel Hill Ordinances related to towing from private property.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this hearing will occur on Monday November 14, 2011.

This the 10th day of October, 2011.

Memorandum

To: Christopher C. Blue, Chief of Police

From: Flora Parrish, Records Supervisor Matthew Sullivan. Staff Legal Advisor

Date: May 31, 2011

Re: Response to recent towing complaints

The purpose of this correspondence is to document to you our departmental response to a series of recent citizen complaints involving George’s Towing and Recovery.

Background

Between March 21, 2011 and May 24, 2011, Mrs. Parrish received 5 written complaints from citizens related to towing from private property in the Central Business District. In addition to these five written complaints, on February 23, 2011, our downtown unit wrote an incident report after a citizen complained about another towing incident from the property of 306 West Franklin Street. In each of these complaints, the complaining citizens expressed concerns related to the tow practices of George’s Towing and Recovery. George’s Towing and Recovery has a business address of 210 Highway 54 West Old Greensboro Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27516. The company has a valid Chapel Hill Business license. The owner of this business is Mr. George King. It appears that Mr. King operates his business as a sole proprietorship. The business is not a registered entity with the North Carolina Secretary of State.

As you know, one of Mrs. Parrish’s job responsibilities involves her serving as the appeals officer for the Town’s Parking Services Division. In this capacity she reviews appeals from citizens who have been issued parking citations issued by police officers and parking services enforcement officers. Mrs. Parish is also responsible for oversight of town initiated towing and any towing conducted pursuant to Chapel Hill City Ordinance Chapter 11 Article 19, “Towing From Private Lots”. It is also important to note that, between March 21, 2011and May 24, 2011, Mrs. Parish received verbal complaints about the tow practices of several businesses, including George’s Towing and Recovery, when towing occurred from private property covered by the ordinance. When receiving complaints, Mrs. Parrish requests that the complainant send written documentation that can be used as a basis for her investigation. None of the additional verbal complainants documented their concerns in written form.

The Chapel Hill City Ordinance applies only to towing from any private property used for non- residential purpose in Land Use Management Zones TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3 which encompass much of our Central Business District. The ordinance sets specific standards for tow truck operators, such as the maximum fees that can be charged, notice requirements, release procedures and post towing police department notification. Violators of the ordinance face both civil and criminal penalties.

Discussion

We reviewed each of the written complaints. A summary of the complaints follows:

Date of Location of Tow Summary of Complaint Tow Complaint Complied with Ordinance? 2/23/2011 306 West Franklin Street Vehicle owner walked off Yes properly noticed business property and was towed. 3/21/2011 306 West Franklin Street Vehicle owner walked off Yes properly noticed business property and was towed. 4/6/2011 Phi Mu Sorority Lot, 214 Vehicle towed from private N/A Henderson Street property and owner was charged $200 tow fee. This property is not located in TC-1, TC-2 or TC-3 and therefore is not covered by our ordinance. 5/2/2011 306 West Franklin Street Vehicle owner walked off If, tow properly noticed business company property, tow company did not initiated tow and would not provide a release when owner receipt this returned. Tow company has is a cash only policy and owner violation of did not have cash on hand at City point of encounter. Tow Ordinance. company also did not Otherwise, provide receipt as required the towing 22

under CO 11-304. was in compliance. 5/5/2011 213 West Franklin Vehicle owner walked off Yes, Possibly 306 West properly noticed business however the Franklin property and his vehicle was company’s towed. Tow company initial initially attempted to collect attempt to $20 storage fee in the initial collect a 24 hours after the tow in storage fee violation of 11-304. When and the confronted with a copy of employee’s the ordinance, tow company demeanor did not charge for storage. toward the Employee of tow company citizen are “Zach” was rude and of concern. aggressive to vehicle owner. 5/17/2011 306 West Franklin Street Vehicle owner walked off Yes properly noticed business property and was towed.

In reviewing the complaints, it became immediately apparent that the tows from the parking lot at 306 West Franklin Street are generating the recent series of complaints. 306 West Franklin Street (Orange County parcel # 9788261802) is owned by Westside Limited Partners and Triangle V Limited Partners. This parcel is located in zoning district TC-2. The property owner entered into an agreement with George’s Towing and Recovery to conduct private property towing. Because the property is non-residential and is located in the TC-2 zoning district, any towing from the parking lot must be in compliance with our towing ordinance. A review of the incidents revealed one possible violation of the ordinance. We were unable to substantiate this violation.

Due to significant parking by persons not doing business on the property located at 306 West Franklin, the property owner has instituted a “walk off tow policy”. Parking in the lot is only allowed when doing business with one of the businesses on the property. Any person who parks in the parking lot and walks off the property is subject to being towed. This policy includes the towing of patrons who do business on site and then walk off the property to do business elsewhere downtown. The restricted parking signs at the entrance to the property explicitly state this policy. The signs also list which businesses are served by the parking lot. George’s Towing and Recovery has also set up a video surveillance system that can be monitored from off-site and recorded. The “walk off tow policy” coupled with video surveillance has led to aggressive 23

enforcement of unauthorized parking on the property. This appears to be the interest of the property owner and was evidenced in an e-mail correspondence between one of the property owners and a citizen complaining about the tow practices.

On Wednesday May 25, 2011, we requested that Mr. King come to the police department to discuss the series of complaints noted above. Mr. King met with us for about 30 minutes. In this meeting we discussed the Town Towing Ordinance and our expectation that he comply with all the regulations. He informed us that he was in compliance and that he intended to remain in compliance. We also discussed concerns surrounding the May 5, 2011 incident where a citizen reported that the employee was aggressive and hostile. The employee is no longer working for Mr. King. Mr. King reported that it is his company policy that all customers receive a receipt.

Mr. King also indicated that the aggressive tow strategy with video surveillance represented a “New Era of Towing”. He anticipates that other property owners will soon be using similar enforcement strategies on their properties in our central business district.

Summary/Next Steps

The aggressive tow strategy being used by George’s Towing and Recovery and the property owners at 306 West Franklin Street has resulted in multiple complaints. The location of this parking lot in an area of the Central Business District that has very little parking undoubtedly increases this tension. We anticipate that the town will continue to receive complaints about towing from this location and possibly others if additional properties and tow companies begin to utilize video surveillance and aggressive towing policies. While such a practice is not necessarily customer or citizen friendly, it is a lawful exercise of property rights by the property owners so long as they remain in compliance with our tow ordinance.

We will continue to investigate any complaint made regarding violation of provisions of our city ordinance. Should violations be detected we will take enforcement action as authorized in C.O. 11-307. It is anticipated that with video evidence, Mr. King will be able to document the violations and the subsequent tows.

9224

A L J L S E R DW S TE AL N AS C E . M H E R Mc L P C B J O O E B N T B S G

S A I L

E U H

T R M A D

H O B

R A E I B W

G A L

E S L

E M O M Y B I LE L AU L cC M M E Map Date: 2/20/08 DICAL By CA L. Meyer 9325

A L J L S E R DW S TE AL N AS C E . M H E R Mc L P C B J O O E B N T B S G

S A I L

E U H

T R M A D

H O B

R A E I B W

G A L

E S L

E M O M Y B I LE L AU L cC M M E Map Date: 2/20/08 DICAL By CA L. Meyer 26

Table A below depicts the distances to those lots currently operating in Chapel Hill.

Table A.

Tow Company Distance from Franklin/Columbia Streets

Adams & Rams Eastgate 5.8 miles

411 Erwin Rd.

Barnes & T-Roy’s 8.1 miles

601 Hwy 54 West

Talbert’s & Spuds 8.1 miles

2809 Whitecross Rd

Blalock’s 9.9 miles

3504 NC Hwy 86 S

Clayton’s 11.9 miles

500 Cornerstone Court

George’s 5.1 miles

1200 0ld Greensboro Hwy

Bob’s Towing 6.1 miles

108 Dairyland Road

Chandler’s Towing 9 miles

6105 Chapel Hill Rd.

Durham,NC

4 Rivers Towing Storage location unknown

Wolfpack Lane

Durham, NC

28 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 11/14/2011 AGENDA #2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Title of Agenda Item: Public Hearing: Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment - Chapel of the Cross, 304 East Franklin Street.

Council Goal: Focus on Economic Development, Land Use, and Transportation for a Balanced and Sustainable Future

Background: An application has been received for rezoning the Chapel of the Cross site from Office/Institutional-3 (OI-3) to Town Center-1-Conditional (TC-1-C). A Special Use Permit application for a building addition accompanies the rezoning request.

Fiscal Note: No fiscal impact has been determined at this time.

Recommendations: That the Council open the public hearing and receive arguments regarding the rezoning request.

ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Public Hearings Cover Memorandum Staff Memorandum Ordinance A (enacting the rezoning) Resolution (denying the rezoning) Area Map Zoning Map Summary of Planning Board Action Applicant's Rezoning Statement of Justification

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

FROM : Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

SUBJECT : Public Hearings: Applications for Rezoning and Special Use Permit Chapel of the Cross, 304 East Franklin Street (File No. 9788-57-0788)

DATE: November 14, 2011

PURPOSE

Tonight the Council opens public hearings regarding applications from Chapel of the Cross for a rezoning of a 1.55-acre site at 304 East Franklin Street from Office/Institutional-3 (OI-3) to Town Center-1-Conditional (TC-1-C) and for a Special Use Permit to construct a two-phase 4-story addition on the existing church. Tonight’s public hearings have been scheduled to receive arguments on the rezoning application and evidence in support of and in opposition to approval of the Special Use Permit application. The purpose of this cover memorandum is to forward my preliminary recommendations to the Council.

MANAGER’S PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS

Tonight’s public hearings have been called to receive input on the developer’s offer and the staff’s preliminary recommendations.

I recommend the Council open the public hearings and receive comment on the proposed rezoning and Special Use Permit. We will return to the Council with recommendations for action after the Council has received public comment and evidence this evening and after the hearings have been reconvened.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

FROM: J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Manager Kendal Brown, Principal Planner

SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment – Chapel of the Cross at 304 East Franklin Street

DATE: November 14, 2011

INTRODUCTION

The application proposes to rezone the 1.55-acre site at 304 East Franklin Street from Office/Institutional-3 (OI-3) to Town Center-1-Conditional (TC-1-C). Situated on the south side of East Franklin Street between the Morehead Planetarium and Raleigh Street, and adjacent to the UNC main campus, the Chapel of the Cross has occupied this location since the mid-1800’s. The zoning lot is in the Franklin-Rosemary Street Historic District and is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9788-57-0788.

This application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment would effect a change to the current zoning, and thus the permitted types and intensity of land uses. The applicant seeks to redevelop the church site to increase the floor area. The Office/Institutional-3 (OI-3) zoning district allows development at a maximum intensity of 42,022 s.f. of floor area; the Town Center-1 (TC-1) zoning district would allow a maximum intensity of 146,260 s.f. of floor area for this site. The accompanying Special Use Permit application proposes redevelopment resulting in 80,000 total square feet of floor area.

CONDITIONAL USE REZONING REQUEST

In Chapel Hill, a rezoning may be requested as either a general use rezoning or a conditional use rezoning request. A general use rezoning would change the zoning to a different zoning district in which any of several kinds of developments and uses are permissible. A conditional use rezoning request is to allow development and uses only with approval of a Special Use Permit or Special Use Permit Modification. The applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Zoning application accompanied by a Special Use Permit application.

With respect to conditional use rezoning requests, the Council has a resolution stating the Council’s expectations associated with the accompanying Special Use Permit application. The resolution outlines the Council’s desire for the submittal of an Energy Management Plan as part of the Special Use Permit application associated with a conditional use rezoning. For additional information on the applicant’s response to these expectations, as adopted by the Council, please refer to the Energy Management sections in the Staff Report attached to the Special Use Permit memorandum.

The Council has discretionary authority to approve or deny a rezoning request. As with a conditional use rezoning request, the specific proposal in the accompanying Special Use Permit application is related to the rezoning request. We believe it is appropriate for the Council to consider a specific Special Use Permit proposal on that application, in tandem with a rezoning hearing. If the Council does not find the Special Use Permit proposal to be an acceptable use of the property, we would recommend that the Council not approve the rezoning request.

PROTEST PETITION

Opportunity for a protest petition to a proposed amendment to the Zoning Atlas is provided for under North Carolina Statutes. If a sufficient protest petition is filed with the Town Clerk at least 2 business days prior to the date of the public hearing, the proposed rezoning shall not become effective except by favorable vote of not less than three-fourths of the Town Council. Copies of protest petition forms and additional information are available from the Planning Department or the Town Clerk. We will report at tonight’s public hearing whether or not we have received a valid protest petition.

ANALYSIS OF THE REZONING APPLICATION

The zoning designation of a property determines the range of land uses and development intensities permitted on the property. Article 4.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance establishes the intent of Zoning Atlas Amendments by stating that, “In order to establish and maintain sound, stable, and desirable development within the planning jurisdiction of the Town it is intended that this chapter shall not be amended except:

a) to correct a manifest error in the chapter; or b) because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally; or c) to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.

Each of the findings, with respect to this proposed rezoning application, is discussed below:

A) An amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance (rezoning) is warranted to correct a manifest error in the chapter (zoning atlas).

Staff Comment : We believe the information in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

• Argument in Support : The applicant has not offered arguments to support this circumstance. We were unable to identify any arguments in support of a manifest error.

• Argument in Opposition : To date no arguments in opposition have been submitted.

B) An amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance (rezoning) is warranted because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally.

Staff Comment : We believe the information in the record thus far can be summarized as follows:

• Arguments in Support : Arguments in support of this finding are offered in the applicant’s Statement of Justification (please see attached Statement). Excerpts of the applicant’s Statement of Justification follow:

o “As the Town and University have grown, the need to appropriately optimize usage of the limited land area has become more acute, especially in the downtown area.” o “In recent years, there has been a growing realization that the downtown Chapel Hill area is well-suited for certain types of increased density where it can be appropriately designed and implemented.” o “the site and surrounding area have the necessary population density, destination centers, synergistic land use characteristics, pedestrian facilities, urban services, municipal infrastructure, and other important characteristics to justify very high density development. [all quoted text above excerpted from Applicant’s Statement] We note that there are other places of worship in the Town Center zoning districts: The church at the Franklin Street/Columbia Street intersection, and the church at the Roberson Street/Rosemary Street intersection. Other churches also front on East Franklin Street on or near downtown. • Arguments in Opposition : To date no arguments in opposition have been submitted.

C) An amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance is warranted to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.

Staff Comment : We believe the information in the record thus far can be summarized as follows:

• Arguments in Support : Arguments in support of this finding are offered in the applicant’s Statement of Justification (please see attached Statement). Portions of the applicant’s Statement of Justification follow:

• “The relevant themes [of the Comprehensive Plan] to this request are:

o Conserve and protect existing neighborhoods : …the Church pre-dates most of the buildings and homes in the Historic District.. property re-development is not expected to have any negative effect on the Franklin-Rosemary Street neighborhood at large, and will therefore conserve and protect the existing neighborhood.”

o Encourage desirable forms of non-residential development : Chapel of the Cross is a very good example of desirable non-residential land use in Chapel Hill. By implementing the proposed site and building improvements, the Church will be able to expand and improve its various ministries and service programs, which are already among the most extensive in the community…”

• “Approval of this amendment request will also support the continued vitality of an important and historic element of downtown Chapel Hill and the larger Chapel Hill community.”

[all quoted text above excerpted from Applicant’s Statement]

Arguments in Opposition : To date no arguments in opposition have been submitted.

Additional Information : The Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies this area for institutional use. Both the current and proposed zoning districts allow places of worship.

Based on our preliminary review, we believe the Council could make the finding that the proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Plan. Relevant goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan include:

• Identify areas where there are creative development opportunities; • Encourage desirable forms of non-residential development; and • Promote vitality of downtown.

RECOMMENDATION

Planning Board Recommendation : The Planning Board reviewed the application on June 29, 2011 and recommended enactment of proposed Ordinance A, approving the rezoning.

Staff Recommendation : We recommend that the Town Council open the public hearing, receive comments, and consider the attachments associated with this application.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Ordinance, as requested by the applicant, approving the rezoning application 2. Draft Resolution, denying the rezoning application 3. Planning Board Summary of Action 4. Applicant’s Statement of Justification 5. Legal Description 6. Area Map

ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS FOR THE CHAPEL OF THE CROSS (Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9788-57-0788)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of the Chapel of the Cross to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Office/Institutional-3 (OI-3) to the Town Center-1-Conditional (TC-1-C) and finds that the amendment is warranted, in order to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, including:

• Identify areas where there are creative development opportunities; • Encourage desirable forms of non-residential development; and • Promote vitality of downtown.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas be amended as follows:

SECTION 1

That the site, identified as now or formerly Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9788-57- 0788 that is currently zoned Office/Institutional-3 (OI-3) and located at 304 East Franklin Street, on the south side of East Franklin Street, including half of the East Franklin Street right-of-way within the Chapel Hill Town Limits that is abutting the property frontage, shall be rezoned to Town Center-1-Conditional (TC-1-C). The description of the entire property is as indicated on the attached map.

SECTION 2

That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

This the ____ day of ____, 2011.

ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT FOR THE CHAPEL OF THE CROSS (Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9788-57-0788)

a) corrects a manifest error in the chapter, or b) is justified because of changed or changing conditions in the area of the rezoning site or the community in general, or c) achieves the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby denies the application of the Chapel of the Cross to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone the property identified as now or formerly Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9788- 57-0788 that is currently zoned Office/Institutional-3 (OI-3) and located at 304 East Franklin Street, on the south side of East Franklin Street, including half of the East Franklin Street right- of-way within the Chapel Hill Town Limits that is abutting the property frontage, shall be rezoned to Town Center-1-Conditional (TC-1-C). The description of the entire property is indicated on the attached map.

This the day of , 2011.

36 37 38

SUMMARY OF PLANNING BOARD ACTION

Subject: Chapel of the Cross Zoning Atlas Amendment

Meeting Date: June 29, 2011

Recommendation: The Planning Board unanimously recommended that the Council enact proposed Ordinance A.

Vote: 6-0

Ayes: Del Snow (Vice-Chair), John Ager, Jason Baker, George Cianciolo, Andrea Rohrbacher, and Judy Weseman.

Nay: None

Other Issues: None

Prepared by: Del Snow, Vice-Chair Mary Jane Nirdlinger

STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION for ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT

Chapel of the Cross 304 E. Franklin St. Chapel Hill, NC

Chapel Hill Township PIN 9788-57-0788 December 21, 2010

GENERAL

Chapel of the Cross requests a Zoning Atlas Amendment for the subject property to allow redevelopment of the property for expanded Church facilities. The property consists of a single 1.55 acre parcel situated on the south side of East Franklin Street, in the eastern portion of downtown Chapel Hill. The Applicant requests that the property’s zoning be changed from the existing OI-3 designation to TC-1 (C), to allow the property to support the floor area requirements to meet the Church’s physical space needs. Concurrent with this rezoning request, the Applicant also requests a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the subject property.

JUSTIFICATION

The Applicant believes that the requested zoning atlas amendment is justified (a) because of changing conditions in the Town’s downtown area, and (b) because the proposed development will help achieve the purposes of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.

The zoning request for the subject property is merely intended to allow the proposed development intensity to be achieved, not to develop the property to the full density allowed under the TC-1 zoning district. For this reason, the Conditional (C) designation is requested, providing Site Plan-based constraints on the property’s development intensity and impacts. Similarly, and to a higher degree, the SUP will provide appropriate constraints on site development in the sense of protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and in ensuring that any proposed improvements will meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.

1 40

CHANGED CONDITIONS

Chapel of the Cross has been an important part of downtown Chapel Hill for over one and a half centuries. As the Town and University have grown, the need to appropriately optimize usage of the limited land area has become more acute, especially in the downtown area. While the demand for facilities and services has increased in rough proportion to population growth, it has become apparent that smartly located high-density land uses are a responsible and sustainable way of accommodating growth needs. This is especially true where the higher density development accommodates and utilizes alternate modes of transportation, and where it includes types of uses that depend on and support each other. In recent years, there has been a growing realization that the downtown Chapel Hill area is well-suited for certain types of increased density where it can be appropriately designed and implemented. This recognition represents a changed condition that supports this request for a Zoning Atlas Amendment.

The proposed project will increase the density and functionality of the Church property in virtually the same built-upon footprint as currently exists, but in a more efficient and sustainable manner. The site and the surrounding area have the necessary population density, destination centers, synergistic land use characteristics, pedestrian facilities, urban services, municipal infrastructure, and other important characteristics to justify very high density development. Indeed, the principle of good stewardship dictates that land development strategies should optimize the overall community benefit that may be derived from the unique conditions in downtown Chapel Hill. As demonstrated in detail within the SUP application documents that correspond to this Zoning Atlas Amendment request (incorporated herein by this reference), the proposed Church facilities will be sensitively and appropriately designed to provide larger community benefit, without negatively impacting the site, surrounding properties, or the environment at large.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The proposed land use will be a continuation of the existing land use. With approval of the requested zoning amendment, the proposed use will conform to applicable zoning density and dimensional standards specified in the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) and Comprehensive Plan (CP). The Land Use Plan, which is an element of the CP, identifies the existing and future uses of the site as “Institutional”. LUMO Article 1.5 outlines several major themes that are emphasized in the CP. The relevant themes to this request are:

2 41

this district on the south side of the street. Building improvements to the site are proposed on the south side of the property, which is the furthest part of the site from the balance of the historic district. These improvements will not directly abut nor impact any other property in the district. For these reasons, property re-development is not expected to have any negative effect on the Franklin-Rosemary neighborhood at large, and will therefore conserve and protect the existing neighborhood.

• Conserve and protect the Town’s existing natural setting: The proposed project design will conserve the existing green space/vegetation in the front yard of the church property. This area is significant in its visual appeal, and in its function on the site as a memorial garden. Maintaining the character of this important area will contribute to the goal of conserving and protecting the Town’s existing natural setting.

• Identify areas where there are creative development opportunities: Although this site is not specifically listed in the CP as one of the special areas identified for future development opportunities, the site nevertheless has untapped potential for sensitive and responsible expansion. The subject development application illustrates how this expansion may be achieved, having more dense and more vertical characteristics than the current facilities. Moreover, these new facilities will be located appropriately to the rear of the site, preserving historic resources, while meeting the Applicant’s expansion needs. The new fellowship hall, the largest new room in the building, will have a strong spatial relationship and view to the Coker Arboretum. The building elevation toward this public outdoor space will be designed with strong emphasis on visual appeal, to present a gracious and welcoming appearance. The new facilities will also be designed to embrace the Coker Arboretum with a broad new terrace, as an extension of the fellowship hall space. In these and other ways, the proposed site improvement program will employ creative and appropriate re-development solutions for this unique site.

• Encourage desirable forms of non-residential development: Chapel of the Cross is a very good example of desirable non-residential land use in Chapel Hill. By implementing the proposed site and building improvements, the Church will be able to expand and improve its various ministries and service programs, which are already among the most extensive in the community; thus enriching individual lives and the community as a whole. In addition, by providing sustainable and context-appropriate design approaches, the new facilities will be a desirable addition to the downtown historic district.

• Promote the vitality of downtown: The proposed facilities expansion will sensitively add an incremental amount of additional floor area and density to the downtown area, and will increase the capacity and quality of the services that the Church provides. In these ways, re-development of this site will have a positive effect on the vitality of the downtown area.

3 42

• Provide quality community facilities and services: Chapel of the Cross is well- established and recognized as a high-value community asset. Expansion of the Church facilities as requested will allow the church to expand and improve its service to the local community and beyond.

Conformance to Downtown Design Guidelines

The proposed project will conform to the content and spirit of the Downtown Design Guidelines in the following ways:

• From the Franklin Street and the Planetarium parking lot views, the proposed new buildings will reclaim and extend the two-story form and design characteristics of the original 1924 Battle building, which links the historic chapel to the larger sanctuary. From the Arboretum side, the proposed new building relates to the overall massing of the existing three-story form of the1958 Yates wing, but articulates its character more fully in keeping with the 1924 building. Also from the Arboretum side, the new building will be taller than the existing building, but still below the heights of the adjacent Planetarium and Spencer Dormitory.

• Breaking up the exterior elevation elements of the new building into smaller components is consistent with the design of the 1924 Hobart Upjohn parish house building, and will maintain the human scale and visual interest of the Church buildings.

• The fellowship hall portion of the new building will have windows that are proportionally larger and taller, adding variety to the building features, signaling a functional difference for this space, and indicating that this room has a larger scale than the other spaces in the new facilities.

• The use of a limited palette of exterior materials, such as brick similar to the 1924 Yates wing, stone trim, the rhythm of window types, and slate roof elements, will assure and maintain the existing overall architecture style and appealing texture of natural materials.

• The additional top floor level will be masked into a more developed dormered roof form, recalling the existing buildings and maintaining the overall sense of scale of the buildings when viewed from Franklin Street and the Planetarium parking lot.

• The roof forms will be designed to architecturally express the various building elements, but also to shield vents, utility elements, and mechanical equipment which may also have to be on the roof.

An overriding design criterion for the project is that the new buildings will fully complement, and never compete with, the landmark forms of the historic chapel and larger sanctuary with their distinctive bell towers.

4 43

Conformance to Historic District Guidelines

The proposed new building will reclaim and extend the two-story form and design characteristics of the original 1924 Battle building, which links the historic chapel to the larger sanctuary. In order to maintain the site’s overall architecture and rich visual texture, new building elevation elements will be broken into smaller components; and brick, stone, and slate roof elements will be appropriately used to match existing elevation materials. The additional top floor level will be masked into the dormered roof form maintaining the overall sense of scale of the present parish buildings. Design of the new facilities will assure that the existing historic chapel and the newer larger sanctuary buildings, with their respective towers, will remain the dominant building elements on the site.

SUMMARY

The requested Zoning Atlas Amendment will provide the necessary zoning flexibility for the subject property to allow Chapel of the Cross to construct much-needed improvements to their facilities. The rezoning is justified due to changed conditions in the Town’s downtown area, and because the proposed re-development will help achieve the purposes of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.

Approval of this amendment request will also support the continued vitality of an important and historic element of downtown Chapel Hill and the larger Chapel Hill community. In planning for the future, Chapel of the Cross has affirmed its long-term commitment to its downtown location. This location is integral to the Church’s identity, conducive to its overall mission, and critical to its specific ministries. The requested Zoning Atlas Amendment is required to allow Chapel of the Cross to expand and improve its ability to serve the parish, the University, the Chapel Hill community, and the larger world from the Church’s current downtown location.

END

5 44 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 11/14/2011 AGENDA #3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Title of Agenda Item: Public Hearing: Application for Special Use Permit - Chapel of the Cross, 304 East Franklin Street.

Council Goal: Focus on Economic Development, Land Use, and Transportation for a Balanced and Sustainable Future

Background: Accompanying a request to rezone the church property from Office/Institutional-3 (OI- 3) to Town Center-1-Conditional (TC-1-C) is an application for Special Use Permit for construction of a 4-story building addition.

Fiscal Note: No fiscal impact has been determined at this time.

Recommendations: That the Council open the public hearing and receive evidence in support of and in opposition to the Special Use Permit application.

ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Public Hearing Staff Memorandum Public Hearing Staff Report Resolution A (approving the Special Use Permit) Resolution B (denying the Special Use Permit) Summary of Planning Board Action Transportation Board Summary of Action Historic District Commission Summary of Action Comments from Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board members Applicant's Materials

MEMORANDUM

TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

FROM: J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Manager Kendal Brown, Principal Planner

SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Application for Special Use Permit - Chapel of the Cross, 304 East Franklin Street (File No. 9788-57-0788)

DATE: November 14, 2011

INTRODUCTION

Attached for your consideration is an application for a Special Use Permit, submitted by the Chapel of the Cross, to construct a two-phase 4-story addition on 1.55 acres at 304 East Franklin Street. The property is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9788-57-0788.

Accompanying this application is a Zoning Atlas Amendment application to rezone the church property from Office/Institutional-3 (OI-3) to Town Center-1-Conditional (TC-1-C). The staff’s recommendation on the Special Use Permit application is conditional upon the requested zoning being approved.

Tonight’s public hearing has been scheduled to receive evidence in support of and in opposition to approval of the Special Use Permit application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

The Special Use Permit application proposes retention of the historic chapel and sanctuary, and demolition of 28,000 square feet of floor area. A 70,000 square foot 4-story addition is proposed to be constructed in two phases over a 17-year construction period for a new fellowship hall and classrooms. By the end of the requested 17-year construction period there would be 80,000 square feet total floor area and parking for 16 vehicles. A new waterline is to be constructed to serve the site and stormwater facilities would be upgraded to current standards. Some aspects of the proposal include off-site work:

• Water line construction in East Franklin Street or on adjacent UNC property, and • Construction access/staging, possibly on adjacent UNC property.

The applicant is also requesting two modifications to Land Use Management Ordinance regulations: minimum buffer requirements and height regulations.

DISCUSSION

During staff and advisory board review, the following issues were identified:

• Fire/emergency access to the church site; 46

• Parking; and • Additional detail at final plan stage for Historic District Commission review; and Each issue is discussed below.

Fire/Emergency Access : Town staff was asked by the Planning Board whether the Fire Marshal was satisfied with the emergency access stipulation as it appeared in Resolution A. In addition, at its June 29 meeting, the Planning Board sought assurance that UNC had approved the church’s fire/emergency access plan. The Historic District Commission recommended the following be included in Resolution A:

3. Emergency Access : That the applicant make reasonable efforts to obtain alternate emergency access to the site across the adjoining UNC property in order to improve emergency access to the site, and to minimize fire hose line lengths to an extent acceptable to the Town of Chapel Hill Fire Department. If any access agreement with UNC is reached, the terms of the agreement for any such access across UNC property shall be properly documented in a form acceptable to the Town Manager. Any fire access agreement with the adjacent property must be provided prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Staff Response: The Fire Marshal had reviewed and approved the language in Stipulation #3 of Resolution A prior to the June 29 meeting. Subsequent to that meeting, the developer met again with UNC. While no firm agreement has been reached, the applicant states that UNC’s responses seemed favorable towards granting access privileges across UNC property. Discussions are ongoing. We will provide an update on the positions of UNC and the Town’s Fire Marshal at the November 14, 2011 public hearing. In the meantime, we have included the above language in a stipulation in Resolution A. Parking: The proposed Town Center-1 (TC-1) zoning district does not require vehicular parking spaces on-site. At the church, most of the parking demand occurs during Sunday services. 33 parking spaces are currently available on the site proper. Most attendees’ parking needs are met in lots dispersed throughout the downtown, including the public parking deck at the intersection of Rosemary and Henderson Streets, and the Morehead Planetarium lot next door. On-street parking on East Franklin Street does occur during Sunday church services, and is permitted on Sundays until 3:00 p.m. No additional seating capacity is proposed for Sunday services. It is anticipated that the above- described parking pattern will continue after site redevelopment. The redevelopment as proposed would reduce on-site parking by half (16 parking spaces, including 2 handicap spaces would remain). We expect this will result in 17 additional cars needing parking off-site. We recommend that one regular parking space be designated for carpooling or alternative fuel vehicles. Additional Detail on Final Plans for Building Elevations: The Historic District Commission sought assurance that additional detail would be provided on the final plans, particularly regarding fenestration, color, and materials for the building exterior.

Staff Response: In anticipation of what we expect to be a typical review sequence after Council action on this application, Resolution A already includes a stipulation calling for detailed final plans, including elevation drawings, to be reviewed and approved by the Historic District Commission. Construction Phasing : The Planning Board requested information on the construction deadlines in the Special Use Permits for two other local churches: St. Thomas More and Orange United Methodist. The Planning Board recommended that a stipulation be included that states the first phase of construction would be completed within 5 years of the date of Special Use Permit approval. Staff Response: Orange United Methodist Church Special Use Permit granted the church a construction start date 10 years from the date of approval and a construction end date 12 years from the date of approval (2 year construction period starting10 years from Special Use Permit approval). Saint Thomas More Special Use Permit Modification granted the church 3 years to start construction and 10 years to complete construction (7 year construction period starting 3 years from SUP approval date). As the applicant did not object to the Planning Board recommendation, we augmented the construction deadline stipulation in Resolution A to include a 5-year endpoint for the first phase of construction. Re-Use of Deconstruction Materials: The Historic District Commission requested the applicant make efforts to make deconstructed materials available for re-use.

Staff Response: We have added a stipulation in Resolution A calling for re-use of deconstructed materials to the extent possible.

Bicycle Parking Spaces: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board asked the developer to consider providing additional bicycle parking spaces and some Class I (covered) bicycle parking spaces. Staff Response: The ordinance requires 8 bicycle parking spaces for a place of worship of this seating capacity in the Town Center-1 zoning district; the applicant proposes providing 12 spaces. We have included in Resolution A a stipulation calling for the applicant’s consideration of, not requirement for, providing additional bicycle parking and covered bicycle parking.

Proposed Modifications of the Regulations

The applicant is requesting that the Council approve two modifications to Land Use Management Ordinance regulations: 1) Table 3.8-1, Dimensional Matrix (including building height), and 2) Table 5.6.6-1andscape bufferyard requirements. Council Findings and Public Purpose: The Council has the ability to modify the regulations, according to Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. We believe that the Council could modify the regulations if it makes a finding in this particular case that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree. The Council may deny one or more of the proposed modifications from regulations at its discretion. If the Council chooses to deny a request for 48

modification to regulations, the applicant’s alternative is to revise the proposal to comply with regulations. Building Height Limits : The primary and secondary height limits in Town Center-1 (TC-1) zoning district are 44’ and 60’ respectively. In the proposed building design, the building heights would be exceeded in two locations: the gable peak in the front of the Phase II addition and the tower near the southern property line. The existing 81-foot tower already exceeds the secondary height limit. The applicant requests to exceed the height limits in the existing tower and two new locations in order to:

• Minimize the footprint of the new building expansion, thereby allowing more room for parking and landscaping; • Optimize potential for daylighting the new building interior; • Harmonize the new architectural style with the existing buildings.

The request is to extend the primary building height limit from 44’ to 70’; and to extend the secondary building height limit from 60’ to 81’. The applicant’s justification follows:

• “Without introducing any negative impact to the adjacent University property, these modifications will provide the zoning flexibility to allow the church project to accommodate defined design criteria and programming requirements, such as minimizing developed footprint area by adding a fourth floor level, optimizing daylighting into interior spaces, providing architectural compatibility with existing Church building elements, and providing a functional but hidden (top level) space for utility equipment in the tower feature.” (Applicant’s Statement)

Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification and elevation drawing, attached, showing the where the current regulatory building envelope would be exceeded in height. Given the uses and characteristics of the surrounding properties and buildings (Spencer Dormitory, Morehead Planetarium, Coker Arboretum adjacent; sorority/fraternity houses across Franklin Street) and for the reasons cited in the applicant’s Statement of Justification, we believe that the Council could modify the regulations in this case by making the finding that public purposes would be served to an equivalent or greater degree. We recommend approval of the applicant’s request to modify building height regulations. Landscape Bufferyards: Although the Town Center zoning districts do not typically require perimeter landscape bufferyards, when Town Center zoned property is adjacent to a zoning other than Town Center, bufferyards are required. The landscape bufferyard requirements at this location call for a 20-foot Type C buffer along the Franklin Street frontage, and a 15-foot Type B buffer along all other property lines. Vegetation is growing on site and can be characterized thusly:

• Southern property line (Arboretum) – a row of low trees (to be removed with redevelopment(. • Western property line (Morehead Planetarium) – shrubs and deciduous trees.

The applicant requests modifications to the regulations for the buffers along all property lines, noting the following circumstances:

• Coker Arboretum abuts the southern property line; • The historic, compact downtown characteristics of the property; • The low-impact nature of the church activities on surrounding properties; and • The existence of a memorial garden between the church buildings and Franklin Street.

The request is to allow some of the existing landscaping to serve as buffering in lieu of plantings only on the site perimeter, and to reduce the buffer requirements along the east, and west property lines. The applicant proposes no buffer on site for the southern property line, noting the Coker Arboretum is adjacent to the south. We believe that the Council could modify the regulations in this case by making the finding that public purposes would be served, to an equivalent or greater degree, for the following reasons cited by the applicant:

• “The subject property currently contains a generous amount of significant trees, smaller trees, and other types of landscape vegetation, including a memorial garden that front on East Franklin Street. Due to the historic nature of the property, and its compact town- center characteristics, this vegetation is not located in strict accordance with the perimeter buffer provisions stated in the LUMO. The existing site conditions do not present any offensive condition to adjoining property (all of which is UNC-Chapel Hill); nor will the proposed site re-development introduce any substantially different land use condition that would suggest the need for additional buffering. Accordingly, the Applicant request that the preserved vegetation on the property, along with the additional plantings shown on the SUP application drawings, be considered sufficient in type, size, volume, and location to fulfill the property’s perimeter buffer requirements. To this end, the Applicant also requests that an appropriate modification to the landscape buffer regulations applicable to this project be approved as an SUP approval condition. ” (Applicant’s Statement)

Please refer to the applicant’s Statement of Justification, attached. We believe this request is reasonable, given the existing landscaping that is to remain, and given the uses and characteristics of the surrounding properties and buildings. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A which calls for modified landscape buffer. EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

Tonight the Council receives information submitted by the applicant and our attached evaluation. All information submitted at the hearing will be part of the record of the hearing. Based on the evidence submitted, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of four required findings for the approval of the Special Use Permit: 50

a) 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; b) That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this Chapter, including all applicable provisions of the Land Use Management Ordinance; c) That the use of development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity; and d) That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Plan and in the Comprehensive Plan.

The Comprehensive Plan lists several goals and objective relevant to this application, some of which compete with each other.

We anticipate receiving additional public comment and evidence at the public hearing. Following the hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application.

ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

Planning Board : The Planning Board met on June 29, 2011 and voted 6-0 (see attached Summary of Action) to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with Resolution A, with the following addition to Stipulation #1:

• the first phase of construction would be completed within 5 years of the date of Special Use Permit approval.

We adjusted the construction deadline Stipulation #1 in Resolution A to reflect this recommendation.

Transportation Board : The Transportation Board met on June 29, 2011 and voted 5-0 (see attached Summary of Action) to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with Resolution A.

Historic District Commission : The Historic District Commission met on June 29, 2011 and voted 7-0 (see attached Summary of Action) to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with Resolution A with the following additions:

• Stipulation #3: “that fire access plan shall be acceptable to the Town’s Fire Marshal, and, if applicable, documentation shall be provided regarding UNC’s acceptance of the fire access plan;

• Stipulation #50 re: building deconstruction to include “provision for re-use of deconstruction materials to the extent possible”;

• Stipulation #56 re: Historic District Commission review of final plans to include “details on exterior building elevations, including materials, color, and fenestration.” 51

Staff Comment: We adjusted Stipulations #3, #50, and #56 to include these clarifications

The Historic District Commission also asked the applicant to obtain written acknowledgement from UNC of the university’s awareness of the potential for construction hazards during church construction, particularly at the shared property line abutting the arboretum. We note that a representative from UNC’s property office attended the September 20, 2011 Planning Board meeting and provided verbal acknowledgement. We have not added a stipulation to Resolution A regarding this issue.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board : The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board was unable to achieve a quorum to vote on this application. On June 29, 2011, individual members made the following suggestion:

• That the applicant consider providing additional parking spaces and Class I (covered) parking spaces.

A summary of individual comments is attached.

Staff Comment: There has been no official recommendation by this board. We note that the bicycle parking requirement for this project is 8 spaces; the applicant is proposing 12 bicycle parking spaces. Because there was no objection from the applicant, we have included the board members’ suggestion in Stipulation #9 in Resolution A.

SUMMARY

Subsequent to the Advisory Board meetings, the following changes have been incorporated into Resolution A:

• Stipulation #1 re: construction phasing to include a provision for a 5-year deadline for construction of Phase I;

• Stipulation #3, added that fire access plan shall be acceptable to the Town’s Fire Marshal, and, if applicable, documentation shall be provided regarding UNC’s acceptance of the fire access plan;

• Stipulation #9 that the applicant consider adding more parking spaces and covered parking spaces;

• Stipulation #50 re: building deconstruction to include a provision for re-use of deconstruction materials to the extent possible; and

• Stipulation #56 re: Historic District Commission review of final plans to include details on exterior building elevations, including materials, color, and fenestration.

RECOMMENDATION 52

Preliminary Recommendation : The Special Use Permit cannot be approved absent approval of the accompanying rezoning request. Our preliminary recommendation is that the Council open the public hearing and receive evidence in support of and in opposition to the Chapel of the Cross Special Use Permit application the same evening that the Council considers the rezoning request. Following tonight’s public hearings and public comment, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application. We will return to the Council with a recommendation for action after the Council reconvenes the public hearings. 53

CHAPEL OF THE CROSS SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Differences among Recommendations by Advisory Boards

Topics Staff Planning Transportation Bicycle & Pedestrian Historic District Preliminary Board Board Advisory Board Commission

Acknowledgem ent by UNC of No * * * Yes potential effects/hazards of church construction Approval of fire access plan Yes * * * Yes by Town’s Fire Marshal Approval of fire access plan Yes 8 * * Yes by UNC Re-use of deconstruction Yes * * * Yes materials to extent possible For Historic District Commission * Yes review, final Yes * * elevation drawings to include details on materials, color, fenestration Consider providing * * Yes * bicycle Yes parking spaces above required number Consider installation of * Class I bike Yes Yes facilities * * *Not discussed Created October , 2011

STAFF REPORT

SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Chapel of the Cross at 304 East Franklin Street – Application for Special Use Permit (File No. 9788-57-0788)

DATE: November 14, 2011

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND ON THE SITE DEVELOPMENT

1848 Construction of the original chapel in the center of the site.

1916-1958 New structures added.

1924 Hobart Upjohn parish house and Battle Building constructed in the center of the site, linking the old chapel to the larger sanctuary.

1958 Yates wing, 3 stories, constructed on the south side of the lot.

1991 Site Plan Review approved by Planning Board for additions totaling 6,963 s.f. at the southeast and southwest corners of the complex

November, 2008 Concept Plan for current proposal reviewed by Historic District Commission

January, 2009 Concept Plan reviewed by Town Council

May, 2009 Historic District Commission issued Certificate of Appropriateness, and staff issued an Engineering Construction Permit, for widening of entry drive

January, 2011 Submittal of formal applications for rezoning and Special Use Permit.

Current Site Conditions: 39,400 square feet of floor area now exist on the 1.55 acre site, including a historic chapel and sanctuary, a caretaker’s room, and building additions which house meeting and classroom space. Two driveways provide access onto East Franklin Street. In front of the chapel, a semi-circular drive, once a carriage path, extends from the entry drive to the chapel and around to the exit drive on the street frontage. From the westernmost street 55

access, a driver can proceed southward to a small parking lot on the western edge of the church complex. On this compact site, the narrow drives and patterns of vehicular access, circulation, and parking are problematic at times of peak usage, such as before and after Sunday services.

Church Programs and Outreach: Worship services and other religious activities, pre-school, University-related ministries, meeting spaces for Alcoholic Anonymous meetings, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, classes in English as a second language, choral groups, and other non-profit groups occur in the church buildings.

Surroundings: UNC-Chapel Hill adjoins property to the east, south, and west. Morehead Planetarium lies to the southwest, its parking lot immediately west of the church property. To the east is Spencer dormitory. Coker Arboretum lies directly south. Several sorority and fraternity houses face this property across East Franklin Street.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY

The Special Use Permit application proposes retention of the historic chapel and sanctuary, and demolition of 28,000 square feet of floor area. A 70,000 square foot 4-story addition would be constructed in two phases over a 17-year period for a new fellowship hall and classrooms. By end of the requested 17-year construction period there would be 80,000 total floor area and parking for 16 vehicles. A new waterline is to be constructed to serve the site and stormwater facilities would be upgraded to current standards. Some aspects of the proposal include off-site work:

• Water line construction in East Franklin Street or on adjacent UNC property, and • Construction access/staging, possibly on adjacent UNC property.

The developer requests modifications to the regulations regarding height limits and landscape bufferyards standards.

We note that the Special Use Permit cannot be approved absent the Council’s approval of the accompanying request to rezone the site from Office/Institutional-3 (OI-3) to Town Center-1- Conditional (TC-1-C).

STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION

The Town staff has reviewed this application for compliance with the themes from the Comprehensive Plan , the standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance , and the Design Manual, and offers the following evaluation:

Comprehensive Plan: The following are themes from the Comprehensive Plan :

1. Maintain the Urban Services/Rural Buffer boundary; 2. Participate in the regional planning process; 3. Conserve and protect existing neighborhoods; 4. Conserve and protect the Town’s existing natural setting; 56

5. Identify areas where there are creative development opportunities; 6. Encourage desirable forms of non-residential development; 7. Create and preserve affordable housing opportunities; 8. Cooperatively plan with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; 9. Promote the vitality of downtown; 10. Work toward a balanced transportation system; 11. Complete the bikeway/greenway/sidewalk systems; 12. Provide quality facilities and services; and 13. Develop strategies to address fiscal issues.

For additional information on how this proposed development addresses these and other goals, objectives, and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, please refer to the applicant’s Statement of Justification, part of the attached combined application materials.

Land Use Intensity: 39,400 square feet of floor area now exists on the 1.55 acre site. The Office/Institutional-3 (OI-3) zoning district allows development at a maximum intensity of 42,022 s.f. of floor area; the Town Center-1 (TC-1) zoning district would allow a maximum intensity of 146,260 s.f. of floor area for this site. The applicant is proposing redevelopment that would result in 80,000 s.f. of floor area.

Dimensional Standards: Height Limits: The applicant requests modifications to the regulations regarding height limits. Please see this memorandum’s section on modifications to the regulations below.

Setbacks : There are no setback limitations in the Town Center-1 (TC-1) zoning district unless residentially zoned property is adjacent or across the street from the subject site. In such a case, transitional controls apply. This property abuts non-residential property on three sides. However, properties across the street are zoned Residential-6. Thus, the church site is subject to a 20-foot street setback. This setback requirement is currently met, and will continue to be with the proposed redevelopment.

Proposed Modifications of the Regulations

Council Findings and Public Purpose: The Council has the ability to modify the regulations, according to Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. We believe that the Council could modify the regulations if it makes a finding in this particular case that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree. The Council may deny one or more of the proposed modifications from regulations at its discretion. If the Council chooses to deny a request for modification to regulations, the applicant’s alternative is to revise the proposal to comply with regulations.

Building Height Limits : The primary and secondary height limits in Town Center-1 (TC-1) zoning district are 44’ and 60’ respectively. In the proposed building design, the building 57

heights would be exceeded in two locations: the gable peak in the front of the Phase II addition and the tower near the southern property line. The existing 81-foot tower already exceeds the secondary height limit. The applicant requests to exceed the height limits in the existing tower and two new locations in order to:

The request is to extend the primary building height limit from 44’ to 70’; and to extend the secondary building height limit from 60’ to 81’. The applicant’s justification follows:

Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification and elevation drawing, attached, showing the where the current regulatory building envelope would be exceeded in height.

Given the uses and characteristics of the surrounding properties and buildings (Spencer Dormitory, Morehead Planetarium, Coker Arboretum adjacent; sorority/fraternity houses across Franklin Street). And for the reasons cited in the applicant’s Statement of Justification, we believe that the Council could modify the regulations in this case by making the finding that public purposes would be served to an equivalent or greater degree. We recommend the applicant’s request to modify building height regulations.

Landscape Bufferyards : Although the Town Center zoning districts do not typically require perimeter landscape bufferyards, when Town Center zoned property is adjacent to a zoning other than Town Center, bufferyards are required. The landscape bufferyard requirements at this location call for a 20-foot Type C bufferyard along the Franklin Street frontage, and a 15-foot Type B bufferyard along all other property lines. Vegetation exists on site and can be characterized thusly:

• Northern property line (street frontage) - mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. Between the street and the buildings is a memorial garden of mixed layers and species. • Eastern property line (Spencer Dorm) – mostly lawn but some ornamental trees as well. • Southern property line (Arboretum) – a row of low trees (to be removed with redevelopment(. • Western property line (Morehead Planetarium) – shrubs and deciduous trees.

The applicant requests modifications to the regulations for the buffers along all property lines, noting the following circumstances:

We believe that the Council could modify the regulations in this case by making the finding that public purposes would be served, to an equivalent or greater degree, for the following reasons cited by the applicant:

Please refer to the applicant’s Statement of Justification, attached.

We believe this request is reasonable, given the existing landscaping that is to remain, and given the uses and characteristics of the surrounding properties and buildings. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A which calls for modified landscape bufferyards.

Vehicular Access/Circulation: Access to and from the site is provided by two driveways onto East Franklin Street. In front of the old chapel, a semi-circular drive, once a carriage path, connects the two access points on the street frontage. From the westernmost street access, a driver can proceed southward to a parking lot of 33 spaces on the western edge of the church complex.

The westernmost driveway entrance is narrow, prompting concern about emergency access. This concern was expressed by some Council members and Historic District Commission members during Concept Plan review. In 2010, the applicant received a Certificate of Appropriateness 59

from the Historic District Commission and a Zoning Compliance Permit from Town staff to widen the driveway somewhat. The applicant anticipates this work will be completed prior to Council action on this application for Special Use Permit.

Town staff remains concerned about the widened driveway’s sufficiency for emergency access. Please see the following section on Fire Protection.

Traffic Impact: Though church activities and programming are anticipated to increase, the seating capacity for peak usage (church services) will not be changed with this application. Overall daily trips are expected to be 102 over the existing 510 for a total of 612. This section of East Franklin Street has an ADT count of 15,000 (weekdays). The anticipated 102 new trips due to the church redevelopment (likely on Sundays) would account for only 0.7% increase if this number were applied to the weekday ADT. Most of the church activities occur during off-peak hours. For these reasons, Town staff exempted this application from a Traffic Impact Analysis.

The church estimates that about 25% of attendees walk or bike to services.

The applicant states that church staff who arrive at the site by alternative transportation will have access to a shower within the buildings on site. A stipulation in Resolution A calls for review and approval of a Transportation Management Plan at Final Plans stage.

Bus Routes and Transit Stops: Because the predominant uses of the expanded church facilities occur mainly during off-peak transit travel times and peak use for church services is not expected to increase significantly from what currently exists, we feel that the impact of this project on Chapel Hill Transit’s services will be negligible. This site is served by weekday CL, D, F, HS, NU, and U Routes and Saturday D, FG, and T routes. The U and NU routes serve the site on Saturdays and Sundays except during UNC winter, spring, and summer breaks. The closest bus stops are located on East Franklin Street in front of the Morehead Planetarium and East Franklin Street at Pickard Lane opposite the Planetarium. Both stops are 250-300 feet walking distance from the site. When UNC is in session, the Morehead Planetarium bus stop is relatively busy, with an average of 120 daily weekday passenger boardings. Weekend ridership is lower, with an average of 19 and 8 passenger boardings on Saturday and Sunday, respectively.

Vehicular Parking: The proposed Town Center-1 (TC-1) zoning district does not require vehicular parking spaces on-site. At the church, most of the parking demand occurs during Sunday services. 33 parking spaces are currently available on the site proper. Most attendees’ parking needs are met in lots dispersed throughout the downtown, including the public parking deck at the intersection of Rosemary and Henderson Streets, and the Morehead Planetarium lot next door. During Sunday church services, oOn-street parking occurs on East Franklin Street and is allowed until 3:00 p.m.

No additional seating capacity is proposed for Sunday services. It is anticipated that the above- described parking pattern will continue after site redevelopment. The proposed redevelopment as proposed would result in a parking reduction by half (to 16 parking spaces, 2 of which would be handicap spaces). We expect that 17 additional cars will be parking off-site after site redevelopment. 60

We recommend that one regular parking space be designated for carpooling or alternative fuel vehicles.

Bicycle Parking: For a place of worship in the Town Center Districts, a minimum of one bicycle parking space per 50 seats is required. For the proposed redevelopment, 8 parking spaces would be required. Twelve bicycle parking spaces are proposed at the southwest corner of the building near Morehead Planetarium. Some of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board members suggested the applicant consider providing additional bicycle parking spaces, including Class I (covered) spaces. Not hearing objection from the applicant, we have included the members’ suggestion that the applicant consider providing additional spaces.

Pedestrian Access/Circulation: Public sidewalk exists on both sides of Franklin Street and along the southern boundary of the site within the Coker Arboretum. On the east and west sides of the building complex, sidewalks connect the Arboretum sidewalk to the Franklin Street sidewalk. Within the site, a paved walkway connects from the sanctuary entrance to the Franklin Street sidewalk. Other on-site walkways connect the sanctuary to the chapel.

With this application, the walkway connection from the planetarium parking lot would be reconfigured to align with the new building entrance. On the south side of this lot, a walkway would connect the new church terrace and new church door to the existing arboretum sidewalk. On the southeast side of the church, a new walkway would extend from the new church door to the Spencer Dorm sidewalk.

With the driveway widening, approved separately in 2010, we requested the applicant repair and reset the brick sidewalk in the Franklin Street right-of-way. The applicant has agreed to meet with staff to consider minor repairs to the brick sidewalk.

Construction Phasing: In part due to the nature of church funding, the applicant proposes to develop in two phases. The first would entail a 4-story addition on the southwest corner of the site and would begin within 3 years from the approval date. The second phase would involve an adjoining 4-story addition on the southeast corner of the site that would begin construction within 15 years of the approval date and be completed within two years thereafter. The Planning Board recommended, and the applicant raised no objection to, specifying that the first phase of construction would be completed within 5 years of the date of Special Use Permit approval. We have included these dates in Resolution A.

Construction Access: Phase I construction access is proposed from the Franklin Street entry drive into the existing parking lot at the southwest corner of the site. Alternatively, construction access could be from Franklin Street exit drive to the existing front courtyard. Continuous access to the building site would entail removing the covered walkway linking the two sanctuaries.

For Phase II construction access, through an agreement with the university, the church would access the southern and eastern sides of its lot via East Franklin Street and the adjacent property (the western yard of Spencer Dorm) during demolition and construction associated with Phase Two of the development. Other routes from the east and/or south may be considered if future 61

conditions on adjacent properties change such that other construction access routes appear feasible. Resolution A includes a condition calling for a written documentation between the two parties for construction access to this part of the site.

Historic Preservation: The Historic District Design Guidelines address additions to historic structures:

• Introduce additions in locations that are not visible from the street. Locate additions carefully so they do not damage or conceal significant building features or details. • Minimize damage to the historic building. • Limit the size and scale of an addition to minimize its visual impact. • Design the addition so it is discernible from, yet compatible with the historic building as to scale, materials, proportions, and details. • Maintain and protect significant site features from damage during or as a consequence of related site work or construction.

Please see the attached summary pertaining to building additions, found on pages 54-55 of the Guidelines.

During the November 13, 2008 Historic District Commission’s review of the Concept Plan, the commission members commented favorably on the proposed scale, architectural style and articulation of the new additions. Please see the attached summary of the Historic District Commission’s Concept Plan Review comments.

At the June 29, 2011 review of the application, the Historic District Commission recommended that final detailed building elevation plans include exterior details, including materials, color, and fenestration. A stipulation in Resolution A reflects this recommendation.

The applicant’s Statement of Justification reads as follows:

“the proposed new building will reclaim and extend the two-story form and design characteristics of the original 1924 Battle Building, which links the historic chapel to the larger sanctuary. In order to maintain the site’s overall architecture and rich visual texture, new building elevation elements will be broken into smaller components; and brick, stone, and slate roof elements will be appropriately used to match existing elevation materials. The additional top floor level will be masked into the dormered roof form, maintaining the overall sense of scale of the existing parish buildings. Design of the new facilities will assure that the existing historic chapel and the larger sanctuary building, with their respective towers, will remain the dominant building elements on the site.” [Applicant’s Statement]

Building improvements are proposed on the south side of the building, away from the Franklin Street frontage. The applicant states that the two sanctuaries (circa 1848 and 1924) will remain undisturbed, as will the memorial garden in front of the church.

In Resolution A there is a stipulation calling for Historic District Commission review and approval of building elevations, landscaping, landscape bufferyards, and lighting.

During the Town Council’s Concept Plan Review of this application, a Council member asked the applicant to consider creating a “preservation easement” for the existing building(s). Following is the applicant’s response:

“The entire Church property is, or will be, encumbered with several forms of protection against improper land use or building alterations. These include Town zoning regulations, Special Use Permit conditions, Historic District restrictions, and implicit diligence related to the older Chapel being listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Church feels that these protections, as well as the parishioners' own deeply-seated conservatism about the property, are adequate to preserve the essential character, appearance, and use of the property and facilities, without providing additional preservation strategies.” [Excerpt from Applicant’s Materials]

Public Art: The applicant notes that recent artistic upgrades and additions to the church doorways and windows facing Franklin Street serve to provide the public art:

• Limestone carving above the main church doorway; • Main sanctuary’s wooden front doors; • Traceried stained glass window above the main sanctuary’s front doors.

Environmental: The site is vegetated and almost flat. There are no stream-related overlay districts, riparian buffers, floodplains, or wetlands.

Sustainability: On April 23, 2007, the Council adopted a resolution specifying the Council’s expectations for energy efficiency and an energy management plan for applicants seeking approval of rezoning applications. We have evaluated the application in terms of energy management and water conservation.

Energy Management: The following features have been included in the proposal: • Daylighting the interior of the building; • High-efficiency HVAC system; • Energy Management systems and controls; • Attainment goal of energy efficiency exceeding ASHRAE 90.1, 2004 by a minimum of 20%; • Participation in the NC Green Power program; and • Ensure high quality indoor air.

We have included these features in the stipulations in Resolution A.

In addition, the applicant states that solar energy collection, green roof treatment, and/or solar- heated hot water systems are being considered.

Water Conservation/Re-Use: The applicant proposes re-using rainwater for irrigation of the landscaping.

Stipulations in Resolution A address the Energy Management Plan and water re-use.

Landscaping and Tree Protection: Landscaping is present along all sides of the buildings, including a memorial garden between Franklin Street and the historic chapel and sanctuary. There are no tree canopy coverage requirements in the Town Center zoning district. There are large trees on the site associated with an urban style landscape versus natural woodlands.

After reviewing the redevelopment plan, we recommend that two sugar maples (trunk caliper 6” and 10”) and a 15” hardwood be removed, and that these trees be replaced. The applicant proposes to replant with native Eastern Cedar trees.

Stipulations in Resolution A address planting of the new trees.

Two large oaks (24” and 36”) grow in the southwest corner of the site. These are slated for removal with Phase I construction. The applicant states the Church has striven to create a building design that balances building program needs with minimizing impacts to the site. The applicant cites that as a result, preserving these two trees is not an option. Subsection 5.7.5(b)(4) of the LUMO regarding the removal of rare trees: “unless the Town Manager determines that there is no reasonable way the property can be otherwise developed, improved or properly maintained and the tree saved.” We note that the trees are Willow Oaks, a common species, and believe that the proposed building size, configuration, and design is otherwise sensitive to the site, the historical character of the church, and its surroundings. We agree that without the removal of these trees, it would be difficult to increase the floor area to the degree the church finds necessary. We believe the removal of these oaks is reasonable in this case.

Two Ash trees in the southwest corner of the property are proposed for removal. A landscape professional has evaluated the trees and deemed them to be in declining health (see attached report). Town staff has also evaluated the trees and the development proposal and concludes that the trees are in decline, which argues against requiring a development design which would retain them.

Street Tree: The applicant has agreed to plant a Shumard Oak (alternate Willow Oak) just west of the carriage drive exit. A stipulation in Resolution A calls for its installation.

Utilities: Utilities currently serve the site and are anticipated to continue serving post- construction. Some connections will need to be relocated in the redevelopment process.

A water main to upgrade service to this site is proposed to be installed in the right eastbound lane of East Franklin Street. We expect the digging and waterline placement to significantly disrupt Franklin Street traffic for a period of time. NCDOT has stated that the applicant must provide justification for the installation as shown and that there are no feasible alternatives for the proposed main location.

The applicant is exploring an alternate route across university-owned property, but as yet there is no firm agreement between the two parties. Resolution A includes a stipulation addressing both scenarios, including a requirement for a traffic control plan if it becomes necessary to install the waterline in Franklin Street. If the water line is installed in Franklin Street, NCDOT will require a three party encroachment agreement (OWASA, NCDOT, and the church) accompanied with complete engineering plans and comprehensive traffic control plans. This requirement has also been included in Resolution A.

Fire : Fire suppression sprinklers are proposed for the new additions, and for parts of the existing buildings. Emergency access is proposed from the Franklin Street entrance and via the carriage drive. We continue to believe that the applicant should explore ways to supplement the proposed fire access from the narrow entry drive and exit drive on Franklin Street, such as providing emergency access from adjacent property to the west side of the church such that the fire hose line lengths are no greater than 250 feet, or other arrangement that would be acceptable to the Fire Department. A stipulation in Resolution A calls for the fire access plan to be reviewed and approved by the Town Fire Marshal prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

We recommend that the applicant use reasonable efforts to obtain a fire access agreement with the adjacent property. If such an agreement is reached, documentation must be provided prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. A stipulation requiring sprinklers has also been included in Resolution A.

Stormwater: Currently there is 42,485 s.f. of impervious surface on the site. The proposed demolition and construction would result in a net increase of 6,300 s.f. of impervious surface.

Stormwater management plan calls for runoff to be diverted to a closed basin sand filter before flowing to an on-site underground stormwater detention tank. Resolution A includes a number of stormwater related stipulations pertaining the construction and maintenance of the proposed stormwater facilities.

Resolution A includes stipulations addressing stormwater management.

Deconstruction: The Historic District Commission recommended that building deconstruction include provision for re-sue of deconstruction materials to the extent possible. This recommendation is reflected in stipulation in Resolution A.

Solid Waste: The application includes a new shed to house several solid waste and recyclables rollout carts. The rollout carts would be rolled outside to a concrete pad on collection day, and service by pickup trucks would be provided by the Town and County.

SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS

The applicant’s materials are included as attachments to this memorandum. All information submitted at the public hearing will be included in the record of the hearing. Based on the evidence that is submitted, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit Modification. The four findings are:

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;

Finding #2: That the use or development would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance;

Finding #3: That the use or development is located, designated, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity; and

Finding #4: That the use or development conforms to the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

Following the public hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application. 66

PROJECT FACT SHEET REQUIREMENTS

Check List of Regulations and Standards

Special Use Permit Application

CHAPEL OF THE CROSS STAFF EVALUATION COMPLIANCE NONCOMPLIANCE Use Permitted √ Gross Land Area – 1.55 acres √ Minimum Lot Width √ Maximum Floor Area √ (With TC-1-C Zoning

Atlas Amendment) Minimum Recreation Space N/A Impervious Surface Limits √ Land Disturbance Minimized N/A Maximum # Vehicular Parking Spaces N/A Minimum # Bicycle Parking Spaces √ Minimum # Loading Spaces N/A Minimum Street Setback √ Minimum Interior Setback N/A Minimum Solar Setback N/A Maximum Height Limit √ (With TC-1-C Zoning Atlas Amendment and

Modification to Regulations) Minimum Landscape Bufferyards √(With Modifications) Steep Slopes Compliance N/A Parking Lot Screening √ (With Alternate

Bufferyards) Public Water and Sewer √ (water line upgrade

proposed) Adequate Public Schools Facilities N/A

N/A = Not Applicable Prepared: June, 2011

RESOLUTION A (Approving the Special Use Permit Application)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CHAPEL OF THE CROSS (FILE NO. 9788-57-0788)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit proposed by the Chapel of the Cross on property identified as a portion of Orange County Property Identifier Number 9788-57-0788, if developed according to the Site Plan dated December 28, 2010 and revised April 14, 2011 and the conditions listed below would:

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

2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance;

3. Be located, designed, and 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 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:

1. Modification of Table 3.8-1 of the Land Use Management Ordinance to modify the intensity regulations as regards the building heights for the buildings and extend the primary building height limit from 44’ to 70’; and to extend the secondary building height limit from 60’ to 81’.

2. Modification of 5.6.6-1 of the Land Use Management Ordinance to modify the landscape bufferyard requirements to allow reduced widths and planting intensities to allow some of the existing landscaping to serve as buffering in lieu of plantings only on the site perimeter, and to reduce the buffer requirements along the east, and west property lines. The applicant proposes no buffer on site for the southern property line.

The findings above correspond numerically to the following determinations that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree:

1. Building Heights - in order to reduce development envelope (vertical expansion allows footprint reduction) and because the tower on the historic sanctuary/chapel currently exceeds today’s height limits.

2. Landscape Buffer Standards - because the property to the south is an arboretum, and because the uses on the properties to the east and west and across Franklin Street would not be adversely affected by reduced landscape buffer standards on this church property.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the Chapel of the Cross in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. Construction Deadline : That Phase 1 construction begin by ___ (3 years from date of approval) and be completed by ____ (5 years from date of approval), and Phase 2 construction begin by ___ (15 years from date of approval), with Phase 2 construction to be completed by ___ (17 years from date of approval).

2. Land Use Intensity : This Special Use Permit authorizes the following:

Use: Place of Worship Total Maximum Floor Area Allowed 80,000 sq. ft. Minimum Vehicular Parking Spaces N/A Vehicular Parking Spaces 16 Bicycle Parking Spaces 12 spaces Carpool/Alternative Fuel Vehicle Parking 1 space Spaces Impervious Surface 48,785 s.f.

Access

3. Emergency Access : That the applicant make reasonable efforts to obtain alternate emergency access to the site across the adjoining UNC property in order to improve emergency access to the site, and to minimize fire hose line lengths to an extent acceptable to the Town of Chapel Hill Fire Department. If an agreement with the adjacent property owner is reached, the terms of the agreement for any such access across UNC property shall be documented in a form acceptable to the Town Manager. Any fire access agreement with the adjacent property must be provided prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

4. Off-Site Cross Access Easement : If vehicular and/or pedestrian access is needed across property owned by UNC-Chapel Hill, that prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall provide written documentation, in a form acceptable to the Town Manager, of the agreement between the applicant and UNC regarding such access. Notes to this effect shall be placed on final plans.

5. Removal of Covered Walkway Associated with Construction Access for Phase I : That if construction access for Phase I of construction necessitates removal of the covered walkway, separate approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic District Commission shall not be not required.

6. Accessibility Requirements : That prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide the minimum required handicapped parking spaces and design all handicapped parking spaces, ramps, and crosswalks, and associated infrastructure according to Americans With Disabilities Act standards, North Carolina Building Code, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Code, and Town standard.

Transportation

7. Temporary Lane Closure : In the case that the water line construction must occur in East Franklin Street, that prior to issuance of an Engineering Construction Permit, a plan showing temporary lane closure in East Franklin Street shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town Manager, with details as to traffic management, signage, and temporary removal of parking space accessibility. A three-party agreement (NCDOT, OWASA, and the applicant) will need to be signed prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

8. Heavy Duty Structural Support Under Parking Lot : Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the developer shall provide documentation that the proposed underground stormwater detention chamber can structurally support the live loads of fire trucks and garbage trucks.

9. Bicycle Parking : That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall provide dimensioned details for a minimum of 12 bicycle parking spaces that comply with Town parking standards. The bicycle parking design must comply with the spring 2002 Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals Guidelines, and the Class I and Class II bicycle parking standards required by the Town Design Manual. The applicant shall consider providing more than the minimum number of parking spaces and consider providing Class I bicycle parking spaces.

10. Transportation Management Plan : A Transportation Management Plan for the development shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This plan shall be updated annually and approved by the Town Manager. The required components of the Transportation Management Plan shall include:

a) A Transportation Coordinator to communicate and promote alternate modes of transportation. b) Submission of an Occupancy Survey due 90 days after issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. c) Submission of an updated annual Transportation Management Plan Report. d) Submission of Business and Employee Surveys during survey years. e) Measures to gradually attain the goals of the program.

Landscaping and Elevations

11. Landscape Buffers : That the applicant shall provide the following modified landscape buffers

Location Bufferyard Northern (Franklin Street) 0-20 ft. wide Modified Type C

Eastern (Spencer Dormitory) 0-15 ft. wide Modified Type B

Southern (Coker Arboretum) No buffer

0-5 ft wide Modified Type B Western (Morehead Planetarium)

12. Landscape Protection : That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan, clearly indicating which significant tree stands, rare and specimen trees shall be removed and which shall be preserved, shall be approved prior to

issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The plan shall include critical root zones of all rare and specimen trees, and clearly indicate names and species.

Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the plan shall also include detail of tree protection fencing around construction limits and indicated construction parking and materials staging/storage areas, and Town standard landscaping protection notes, subject to Town Manager approval.

13. Landscape Planting Plan : Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant shall provide a detailed Landscape Planting Plan with a detailed planting list, subject to Town Manager approval. The Plan shall include replacement planting for the two sugar maples (6” and 10” caliper) and 15” hardwood; and a Shumard Oak (alternate Willow Oak) just west of the carriage drive exit as a street tree.

14. Tree Protection Fencing Prior to Construction : Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant shall provide a note on the Final Plans indicating that tree protection fencing will be installed prior to land-disturbing activity on the site.

15. Landscape Plan and Landscape Maintenance Plan : Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit a detailed Landscape Plan and a Landscape Maintenance Plan, shall be approved by the Town Manager. The landscape plan shall indicate the size, type, and location of all proposed plantings as well as the limits of land disturbance and tree protection fencing.

16. Lighting Plan Approval : Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the Historic District Commission shall approve a lighting plan for this site and shall take additional care during review to ensure that the proposed lighting plan will minimize 1) upward light pollution and 2) offsite spillage of light.

Environment

17. Energy Management Plan : That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant shall provide an Energy Management Plan (EMP) to be approved by the Town Manager. The plan shall: a) consider utilizing sustainable energy, currently defined as solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, hydroelectric power; b) consider purchase of carbon offset credits and green power production through coordination with the NC GreenPower program; c) provide for 20 percent more efficiency that also ensures indoor air quality and adequate access to natural lighting, and allows for the proposed utilization of sustainable energy in the project; and (d) that the property owner reports to the Town of Chapel Hill the actual energy performance of the plan, as implemented, during the period ending one year after occupancy.

The EMP shall also be formatted to Town standards and shall include pre-construction energy models (calculations) to demonstrate the anticipated energy efficiency as compared to base building which demonstrates the anticipated energy performance of the proposed structures. To address item (d) above, the applicant shall submit post-construction energy models (calculations) one year after occupancy, or certification from a recognized standard which demonstrates the actual energy performance of the applicable structures.

18. Energy Efficiency : That the final plans shall incorporate a “20 percent more energy efficient” feature relative to the 2004 energy efficiency standard of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air

Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), as amended and in effect at the time of Special Use Permit issuance. Comparable standards generally recognized as applicable to building energy consumption, as amended and in effect at the time of building permit issuance, may be used by the applicant when incorporating the “20 percent more energy efficient” feature into the final plans.

The developer’s implementation of energy management techniques shall include the use of high-efficiency HVAC system, daylighting of the building interior, and energy management systems and controls.

19. Stormwater Management Plan : That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. This project must comply with the stormwater management requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance to provide for 85 percent total suspended solids removal from the increased impervious area, retention for 2-5 days of the increased volume of stormwater runoff from the 2-year, 24-hour storm, and control of the stormwater runoff rate for the 1-year, 2-year, and 25-year storms.

20. Stormwater Management Structures : No stormwater management best management practices (BMP) structures are permitted in the rights-of-way or building setbacks. This includes the outlet structure and stabilization, any underdrains, and the downgradient toe of french drains. Further, the discharge must be in a sheet flow condition, unless otherwise approved to discharge to a stormwater system.

21. On-Site/Adjacent Stormwater Features : That the final plans locate and identify existing site conditions including all on-site and adjacent stormwater drainage features on the plans prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The final plans must provide proper inlet protection for the stormwater drainage inlets on or adjacent to the site to ensure the stormwater drainage system will not be obstructed with construction debris.

22. Professional Engineer Certification : That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any phase, the applicant shall provide a certification, signed and sealed by a North Carolina-licensed Professional Engineer, that the stormwater management facility (ies) is (are) constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

23. Stormwater Facilities Easements : All stormwater detention, treatment and conveyance facilities located on and below the ground that are not located on University of North Carolina property shall be wholly contained within an easement entitled: “Reserved Stormwater Facility Easement Hereby Dedicated” and shall be reserved from any development which would obstruct or constrict the effective management, control, and conveyance of stormwater from or across the property, other than the approved design and operation functions. A copy of the final plat or easement exhibit, signed and sealed by a North Carolina- registered Land Surveyor and recorded by the County Register of Deeds, and containing the following notes shall be submitted prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

a. All engineered stormwater management control, treatment, and conveyance structures on and below the ground shall be wholly located within an easement entitled: "Reserved Stormwater Facility Easement Hereby Dedicated" and shall be reserved from any development which would obstruct or constrict the effective management, control, and conveyance of stormwater from or across the property, other than the approved design and operation functions. A suitable maintenance access

(minimum 20’ wide) to accommodate heavy equipment from the nearest public right-of-way to the Reserved Stormwater Facility Easement must be provided and shown on the plans.

b. The "Reserved Stormwater Facility Easement(s)" and the facilities it/they protect are considered to be private, with the sole responsibility of the owner to provide for all required maintenance and operations as approved by the Town Manager.

c. The Reserved Stormwater Facility Easement and the Operations and Maintenance Plan are binding on the owner, heirs, successors, and assigns.

d. The applicant shall conduct routine inspections of the drainage conveyance system and the stormwater management structures that are not located on University of North Carolina property and shall submit annual inspection reports to the Town.

24. Stormwater Inspections, Operations, and Maintenance Plan : Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit (ZCP), a Stormwater Inspections, Operations, and Maintenance Plan (Plan), signed by the owner(s) and the designated entity responsible for operations and maintenance activities, and recorded by the Orange County Register of Deeds, shall be submitted to the Stormwater Management Engineer for approval. A schedule of inspection and maintenance tasks shall be included. The plan and schedule shall be detailed, clear, and concise such that property owners/responsible party fully understand these requirements (what, when, where, and how). A copy of the approved site plan delineating the stormwater structures, maintenance access, and maintenance easement must be included in the Plan. The portion of the Plan pertaining to stormwater facilities that are not located on University of North Carolina property shall be recorded by the County Register of Deeds.

25. Stormwater Certification : That the applicant shall provide a certification, signed and sealed by a North Carolina-licensed Professional Engineer, verifying that the stormwater management facilities is/are constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications prior to a Certificate of Occupancy.

26. As-Built Plans : That the applicant shall provide certified as-built plans for building footprints, parking lots, street improvements, stormwater drainage/conveyance systems and stormwater management structures, and all other impervious surfaces. The as-built plans shall be in DXF binary format using State plane coordinates and NAVD 88.

27. Stabilization : All disturbed areas shall be stabilized with vegetation or permanent ground cover within 21 calendar days of completion of any grading work.

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

During the construction phase, additional erosion and sediment controls may be required if the proposed measures do not contain the sediment. Sediment leaving the property is a violation of the Town’s Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance.

29. Erosion Control : That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan for on and offsite activity, including provision for a maintenance of facilities and modification of the plan if necessary, shall be

approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer. A copy of the approvals shall be provided to the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

30. Erosion Control Inspections : That, in addition to the requirement during construction for inspection after every rainfall, the developer shall inspect the erosion and sediment control devices daily, make any necessary repairs or adjustments to the devices, and maintain inspection logs documenting the daily inspections and any necessary repairs.

31. Bonds for Land Disturbing Activity : If one (1) acre or more is uncovered by land-disturbing activities for this project, 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. This financial guarantee is intended to cover the costs of restoration of failed or failing soil erosion and sedimentation controls, and/or to remedy damages resulting from land-disturbing activities, should the responsible party or parties fail to provide prompt and effective remedies acceptable to the Town.

32. Curb Inlets : That the applicant shall provide pre-cast curb inlet hoods and covers stating, "Dump No Waste! Drains to Jordan Lake", in accordance with the specifications of the Town Standard Detail SD-5A, for all new curb inlets for private, Town and State rights-of-way.

33. On-Site/Adjacent Stormwater Features : That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the final plans shall locate and identify existing site conditions including all on-site and adjacent stormwater drainage features on the plans. The final plans must provide proper inlet protection for the stormwater drainage inlets on or adjacent to the site to ensure the stormwater drainage system will not be obstructed with construction debris.

Water, Sewer, and Other Utilities

34. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval : That the final utility/lighting plan shall be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Duke Energy Company, Time Warner Cable, Public Service Company, AT & T, and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The property owner shall be responsible for assuring that these utilities can continue to serve the development. In addition, detailed construction drawings shall be submitted to OWASA for review/approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

35. Lighting Plan : That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall submit site plans and other required documents to satisfy the lighting requirements of Section 5.11 of the Land Use Management Ordinance including submission of a lighting plan, providing for adequate lighting on public sidewalks, including driveway crossings, and beneath awnings, demonstrating compliance with Town standards, sealed by a Professional Engineer, for Town Manager approval.

36. Overhead Power Lines : That prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy all proposed or relocated utility lines other then 3-phase electric power distribution lines shall be located underground.

37. Sewer Line Construction : That all public water and sewer plans be approved by OWASA and constructed according to their standards. Where sewer lines are located beneath drive aisles and parking areas construction methods approved by OWASA shall be employed, to ensure that sewer lines will not be

damaged by heavy service vehicles. That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, final plans shall be approved by OWASA and the Town Manager.

38. OWASA Approval : That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, easement plats and documentation as required by OWASA and the Town Manager, shall be recorded. No easements shall be required on University of North Carolina property.

Fire Safety

39. Fire Sprinklers : Any required fire sprinklers are to be installed under the NCFC prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the plans shall show all proposed fire department connections to such systems.

40. Hydrants Active : It will be necessary to have active fire hydrant coverage, acceptable to the Fire Department, for any areas where combustible construction materials will be stored or installed, prior to having such materials delivered to the site. All required fire hydrants must be installed, active, and accessible for the Fire Department use prior to the arrival of combustible materials on site. That fire protection systems shall be installed according to Town Ordinance, the NC Fire Code, and NFPA 13.

41. Fire Hydrant and FDC Locations : That the Final Plans indicate the locations of existing and proposed fire hydrants and Fire Department Connections (FDC). Fire Department Connections shall be located on the street side of the building within 100 feet of a hydrant. Hydrant spacing shall comply with the Town Design Manual. Design shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

42. Firefighting Access during Construction : That as require by NC Fire Code (Section 1410.1 Required Access) vehicle access for firefighting shall be provided to all construction or demolition sites including vehicle access to within 100 feet of temporary or permanent fire department connections and hydrants. Vehicle access shall be provided by either temporary or permanent roads capable of supporting vehicle loading under all weather conditions.

43. Fire Flow Report : That the Final Plan application shall include a fire flow report sealed by an Engineer registered in the State of North Carolina. An OWASA flow test must be provided with the report. Fire flow shall meet the 20 psi or exceed the requirements set forth in the Town Design Manual. The Fire Flow Report shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

44. Heavy-Duty Paving : That prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall provide heavy duty paving designed and built to withstand fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds..

Solid Waste Management and Recycling

45. Solid Waste Management Plan : That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit a detailed Solid Waste Management Plan, including a recycling plan and a plan for managing and minimizing construction debris, shall be approved by the Town Manager. The plan shall include dimensioned, scaled details of any

proposed refuse/recycling collection areas, associated screening, and protective bollards, if applicable. Each bulk waste container shall be labeled as to type of material to be collected.

46. Preconstruction Conference : Prior to any demolition or construction activity on the site the applicant will hold a pre-demolition/pre-construction conference with the County’s Solid Waste staff. This may be the same meeting held with other development officials.

47. Construction Waste : By Orange County Ordinance, clean wood waste, scrap metal and corrugated cardboard, all present in construction waste, must be recycled. By Orange County Ordinance, all haulers of construction waste must be properly licensed. The developer shall provide the name of the permitted waste disposal facility to which any land clearing or demolition waste will be delivered.

48. Refuse Area Access : The following notes shall be included on the plans prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit:

a. any gate design will include gate retainers; b. the shed for recycling carts shall not be locked; c. the user will be responsible for opening gates to the refuse/recyclables area on collection days of any material(s) to be collected from this location; d. if any vehicles are parked in the refuse or recyclables collection vehicle access area, the containers will not receive service until the next scheduled collection day; e. adequate site lighting shall be provided in/around the solid waste storage shed and staging area; f. all recycling roll-carts shall remain in the storage shed on collection days and the collection truck operator will retrieve and replace the roll-carts from the shed; and g. solid waste containers shall be rolled out to the staging area on the designated pick-up day.

49. Cardboard Recycling : Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant shall provide for corrugated cardboard recycling, addressing compliance with Town of Chapel Hill and Orange Regional Landfill cardboard recycling requirements. Alternatively, the applicant may propose an alternate method of cardboard recycling. If conditions change, the alternate method may prove insufficient.

50. Deconstruction/Demolition : The applicant shall re-use or make available for re-use deconstruction materials to the extent possible. The applicant shall hold a deconstruction assessment meeting with Orange County staff (919-968-2800) concerning the materials and build portions to be removed from this site and a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plans. Prior to issuance of a Demolition Permit, the developer shall provide a demolition waste management plan, showing how deconstructed materials will be re-used to the extent possible.

State and Federal Approvals

51. State or Federal Approvals : That any required State or federal permits or encroachment agreements shall 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.

52. North Carolina Department of Transportation Approvals : That plans for any improvements to State- maintained roads shall be approved by NCDOT prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Miscellaneous

53. Temporary Construction Access Agreements : Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant shall provide construction agreements with adjacent property owners, where necessary, subject to Town Manager approval. If the abutting property is to be used a part of construction access, provide documentation of permission from the owner of said property.

54. Construction Management Plan : That a Construction Management Plan, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The construction management plan shall: 1) indicate how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, 2) identify parking areas for on-site construction workers including plans to prohibit parking in residential neighborhoods, 3) indicate construction staging and material storage areas, 4) identify construction trailers and other associated temporary construction management structures, and 5) indicate how the project construction will comply with the Town’s Noise Ordinance.

55. Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plan : That the applicant shall provide a Work Zone Traffic Control Plan for movement of motorized and non-motorized vehicles on any public street that will be disrupted during construction. The plan must include a pedestrian management plan indicating how pedestrian movements will be safely maintained. The plan must be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. At least 5 working days prior to any proposed lane or street closure the applicant must apply to the Town Manager for a lane or street closure permit.

56. Historic District Commission Approval : That the applicant obtain Historic District Commission approval of building elevations and lighting, including the location and screening of all HVAC/Air Handling Units for this project, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The elevation drawings shall include details on materials, color, and fenestration. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the Commission shall approve a lighting plan for this site and shall take additional care during review to ensure that the proposed lighting plan will minimize 1) upward light pollution and 2) offsite spillage of light.

57. Construction Sign Required : That the applicant shall post a construction sign at the development site that lists the property owner’s representative and telephone number, the contractor’s representative and telephone number, and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Building Permit, prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities. The construction sign may have a maximum of 32 square feet of display area and maximum height of 8 feet. (§5.14.3(g) of LUMO). The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background. That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit a detail of the sign shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.

58. Open Burning : That the open burning of trees, limbs, stumps, and construction debris associated with this development is prohibited.

59. Detailed Plans : That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit final detailed site plans, grading plans, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plans (with hydrologic calculations), landscape plans, and landscape maintenance plans shall be approved by the Town Manager. Such plans shall conform to

plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations and the design standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and the Design Manual.

60. Certificate of Occupancy Phasing Plans : That a Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until all required public improvements are complete; and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plans and plats. If the Town Manager approves a phasing plan, occupancy shall not occur for a phase until all required public improvements for that phase are complete; and no construction for any phase shall begin 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 and plats.

61. As-Built Plans : That prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide certified as-built plans for building footprints, parking lots, street improvements, storm drainage systems and stormwater management structures, and all other impervious surfaces. The as-built plans should be in DXF binary format using State plane coordinates and NAVD 88.

62. Vested Right : This Special Use Permit constitutes a site specific development plan establishing a vested right as provided by N.C.G.S. Section 160A-385.1 and Appendix A of the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance.

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

64. 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 the Chapel of the Cross.

This the ___ th day of___, 2011.

RESOLUTION B (Denying the Special Use Permit Application)

A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CHAPEL OF THE CROSS (FILE NO. 9788-57-0788)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit proposed of the Chapel of the Cross on property identified as Orange County Property Identifier Number 9788-57-0788, if developed according to the Site Plan dated December 28, 2010 and revised April 14, 2011 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;

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

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby denies the application for a Special Use Permit for the Chapel of the Cross.

This the ___ day of ___, 2011.

SUMMARY OF PLANNING BOARD ACTION

Subject: Chapel of the Cross Special Use Permit

Meeting Date: September 20, 2011

Recommendation: The Planning Board unanimously recommended that the Council enact proposed Ordinance A, with the following addition:

Phase I be completed within 5 years of Special Use Permit approval .

Vote: 7-0

Ayes: Del Snow (Chair), John Ager, Jason Baker, Michael Collins, Kimberly Brewer, Deborah Fulghieri, Amy Ryan.

Nay: None

Other Issues: None

Prepared by: Del Snow, Chair Kendal Brown

SUMMARY OF ACTION HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMSSION

Subject: Chapel of the Cross Special Use Permit

Meeting Date: June 29, 2011

Recommendation: That the Council adopt Resolution A approving the application.

Ayes: Cho, Rummel, Scheer, Stanton, Mihovilovic(vote placed absence in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order, left early)

Vote: 5-0

Prepared by: Garrett Davis (Planner II)

SUMMARY OF ACTION HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMSSION

Subject: Chapel of the Cross Special Use Permit

Meeting Date: June 29, 2011

Recommendation: That the Council adopt Resolution A approving the application with conditions, with the following recommended changes:

• Stipulation #3 – add “that fire access plan shall be acceptable to the Town’s Fire Marshal, and, if applicable, documentation shall be provided regarding UNC’s acceptance of the fire access plan;

• Stipulation #50 re: building deconstruction to include “provision for re-use of deconstruction materials to the extent possible”;

• Stipulation #56 re: Historic District Commission review of final plans to include “details on exterior building elevations, including materials, color, and fenestration.”

Ayes: Lopez, Kopp, Smith, Preddy, Reckford, Spencer, Rody

Vote: 7-0

Prepared by: Jim Spencer, Chair, Chapel Hill Historic District Commission Kendal Brown, Staff

SUMMARY OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY BOARD ACTION

Subject: Joint Advisory Boards/Commissions Meeting – Chapel of the Cross at 304 East Franklin Street- Zoning Atlas Amendment and Special Use Permit

Meeting Date: June 29, 2011 (No Quorum)

Recommendation: At the June 29, 2011 Joint Advisory Boards/Commissions meeting, members of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended that the Council adopts Resolution A in the staff report with the following comments:

• Because of ancillary uses typical of some churches (daycares, afterschool programs, events, etc), the number of bicycle parking spaces needed could exceed the number of spaces required by Ordinance.

• Installation of Class I bicycle facilities should be explored with the Special Use Permit application

Members present at presentation : Rainer Dammers, Teressa Jimenez*, Ray Magyar, Dylan Sandler* (*) Members present during at Board meeting

Prepared by: Rainer Dammers, Chair, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Ryan Mickles, Transportation Planner

83 Guidelines: Additions

1. Introduce additions in locations that are not visible from the street-usually on rear elevations, inset from either rear building comer. Locate additions carefully so they do not damage or conceal significant building features or details. It is not appro priate to introduce an addition if it requires the loss of a character-defining building or site feature, such as a porch or mature tree.

2. Minimize damage to the historic building by constructing additions to be structurally self-supporting, where feasible, and attach them to the original building carefully to minimize the loss of historic fabric.

3. Limit the size and scale of an addition to minimize its visual impact. It is not appropriate to introduce an addition if it will visually overpower the building or site or substantially alter the proportion of constructed area to unbuilt area on the site.

4. Design an addition so it is compatible with the historic building in roof form, massing, and overall proportion.

5. Design an addition and its features so they are compatible in scale, materials, proportions, and details with the historic build ing. Select exterior surface materials that are compatible with those of the historic building in terms of module, composition, texture, pattern, color, and detail.

6. Design an addition so it is compatible with yet discernible from the historic building.

7. Maintain and protect significant site features from damage during or as a consequence of related site work or construction.

Design Guidelines Chapel Hill Historic Districts 55 84 Additions

Over the years, buildings are often expanded and altered to accom modate changes in occupancy, use, or lifestyle. However, within Chapel Hill's historic districts, proposed new additions must be· carefully considered in terms of their potential impact on the historic and architectural integrity of the district. It is essential that any new additions within the historic districts do not visually overpower the original building, compromise its architectural integrity, misrepresent its chronology, or destroy significant features of the building or site. A small one stOI)l addition connects a new screenedporch Wllh the original house along the rear elevation ofthis distn'ct house. Considerations Preliminary considerations for an addition include location and size. The size of the addition is critical. It should be kept minimal so it does not visually compete with the original building and the footprint of the addition should not significantly alter the site's ratio of built mass to unbuilt area. Equally important is the sensitive siting of an addition. Usually rear elevations provide an inconspicuous location for a modest addition that is not visible from the street. Insetting the addition a foot or more from either rear comer helps to differentiate it from the existing side wall plane and further diminishes its visibility from the street. It is also important not to locate additions where they will damage or conceal significant building or site features. A substantial rear addtlion to this district building repeats the form ofthe original Other critical considerations in designing new additions include house Wllhout enlarging the front facade as overall form, proportion, and massing. An addition's roof form and it extends the depth ofthe building. height should be compatible with and deferential to the original building. Additions should also be visually differentiated from the original building so the original form and massing is still apparent. At the next level of design considerations are the selection of compat ible finish materials and the careful selection and placement of windows and, if applicable, doors that are compatible with the original building in terms of their proportion, scale, and configuration. In terms of architectural style, additions that introduce a compatible, contemporary style as well as additions that echo the architectural style of the original building are both appropriate approaches in the historic districts.

Ultimately, the combined result of all these considerations must lead to an addition that is compatible with but differentiated from the original building. In terms of construction, the connections of the addition to the original building should be minimized so that the removal or destruction or historic fabric is limited and, when feasible, the addition should be structurally self-supporting. As with any A small rear addition expands the second construction within the historic districts, it is important to limit any floor wtlh a central bay and encloses a excavation, regrading, or ground disturbance and to protect significant space behind the screened porch. Like the site features so they are not damaged or destroyed. rear addition on the opposite page, this addition is not visible from the street.

New Construction and Additions 54 85

1/21/09

Chapel of the Cross Concept Plan Review Town Council

Laurin Easthom • Playground? Daycare? Where do the kids play? (Playground shown as requested) • Tree pruning at rear? (Yes, selectively)

Bill Strom • Likes the building model • Thinks the Town can create the zoning opportunity to accomplish the plan • Likes the tower on the back

Sally Greene • Likes it; agrees with previous comments • Any driveway comments by HDC? (No) • Think about creating a “preservation easement” for the existing building(s)

The entire Church property is, or will be, encumbered with several forms of protection against improper land use or building alterations. These include Town zoning regulations, Special Use Permit conditions, Historic District restrictions, and implicit diligence related to the older Chapel being listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Church feels that these protections, as well as the parishioners' own deeply-seated conservatism about the property, are adequate to preserve the essential character, appearance, and use of the property and facilities, without providing additional preservation strategies.

Matt Czajkowski • Loss of parking will be an issue. He thinks more is needed, even now. • Pedestrian traffic thru site to Franklin St. Will we maintain it? (Yes) • Incoming driveway is too narrow at Franklin St. (personal experience) (widening proposal) • OK to pursue widening the driveway separate from (before) the SUP process. Feels strongly about this. (Agreed)

Ed Harrison • Very sympathetic to the need for the more assembly space

CHAPEL OF THE CROSS Concept Plan Review Historic District Commission Nov. 13, 2008

Commission Comments

(Applicant responses in italics.)

I. Commissioner Susan Smith said it looks like a good plan for the building and that she will expect to see the parking and the driveway reconfigured. Acknowledged.

2. Commissioner Sarah David said she appreciated the articulation on the back near the arboretum, but expressed concerns about widening the driveway. Acknowledged. The driveway widening has been subsequently approved, and is being implemented separately from the Special Use Permit application.

3. Commissioner Elizabeth Preddy indicated that creative work had been done with the spacing ofthe driveway, and suggested that if the applicant does propose two lanes entering the site, to consider the outbound lane as right-tum only lane. The two-lane driveway will provide only one lane for vehicular entry, and one for exit.

4. Commissioner Louise Winstanly expressed that the applicant had done a great job with the massing and architectural design. Acknowledged.

5. Commissioner Martin Rody indicated that the massing is fine, but there is a pro blem wi th the parking and driveway. He recommended that the applicant contact the church's parking committee, which previously found additional room for parking on site. Onsite parking has been optimized, considering physical and zoning constraints, program requirements, dimensional standards for parking spaces, and the needfor emergency access,

6. Commissioner Joseph Reckford said he was impressed with the appearance ofthe building, despite the fact that it is a very large building for the site. Acknowledged.

7. Chairperson Stephen Rich said that the articulation in the back was a nice feature, but expressed that parking is a question mark and is in favor of a one-way travel pattern for the driveway. Parking issues are discussed in the Statement ofJustification. Altering the circulation pattern on the site would require vehicles to turn from the onsite parking area into the historic cG>Tiage drive (or vice versa). This pattern would require significant additional tree removal and paved area, in order to provide turning radii for these movements. The Church does not wish to alter the front portion of the site in this way. 87

EXEMPTION FORM

Rcquestforcxcmptionreceivedfrom: Civil Consultants, 370SLYckanP"rkway, Soite 201, Durham,NC 27701; Telephone: (919)490-1645

Date: March 16, 2010 T~'Pe of.exemptionregueSted:·(rRAJ'1Bl("'rMgAe1'AJ"S!;!}.t~h

Type of instification submitted: a) Written Request with Trip Analysis b) Site Plan

Key reasons why we support thisexcmption: ...... a) The proposed expllnSion of the Church is expected to generate 102 new trips per day. " 'Existing trips per day: 510; proposed total trips perday;612 .j,*) Meets the Town TlA Guidelines for an Exemption. . ,;'" ' , Based upon the attached request for exemption and supporting information, we rerommend thafthe Town Manager approve an exemptlonforr

Altachment(s): a) Written request from the ApplicantIDeveloper b) Site Plan and Fee

RETURN TO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WHEN SIGNED 88

TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL SPECIAL USE PERMIT Planning Department 405 Mattin Luther King Jr. Blvd phone (919) 968·2728 fax (919) 969·2014 APPLICATION www.townofchapelhill.org

Parcel Identifier Number (PIN): 9788570788 Date: 12/29/1 0

Project Name: Chapel of the Cross

Property Address: 304 E. Franklin SI. Zip Code: 27514

Use Groups (A, B, and/or C), B Existing Zoning District: 01·3 with ZAA request for TC-I(C)

Project Description: Re-development of existing church property in t\\lO phases of construction,

Name: Civil Consultants, Inc.

Address: 3708 Lyekan Parkway Suite 20 I

City: Durham State: NC Zip Code: 27707

Phone: 919·490-1645 Email: tony. whitaker@civi{-consultants.com

The undersigned applicant hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, all information supplied with this application is true and accurate.

~ »,i' / Signature: ~~. '41J~~~~ ?d;~~~::~~.~'t::;~;~~~ti~~~:- ,.". Date: TO~~ I"V\. W H ITFlJ<.~ Owner/Contract Purchaser Information: x Owner o Contract Purchaser

Name: Chapel of the Cross

Address: 304 E. Franklin SI.

City: Chapel Hill State: NC Zip Code: 27514

Phone: 919-929·2193 Email: [email protected]

The undersigned applicant hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, all information supplied with this application is true a~;ccuraJi" \ Slgnature: \-f '). vJ'\vG Date: I - S - z.o 1/ 1=O,e..o WOI2.,..n+~ Revised 11.30.10 Parcelldentitier Number (PrN):_9788570788 ____ PRO]ECf FACf SHEET 89 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Plunidg J)q)artme.t

~r('tloll .\: Pmjf<'t Inrormation - . ~ _. ~ - -- - _. - , - ~~ ------_. - --- -" --" - - - _.

Application type: Special Use Permit Applicatioo Date: 4/4/11

Project Name; Chapel of the Cross

UK Type: (checkllist all that apply)

o Residenlial MixOO-Use 181 Other. Place of Wo","p Oflicellnstitutiooal o o

Overlay DUtrict; (cheok all those that apply) C8l Historic District 0 Neighborhood Conservation District o Airport Hazard Zone

Set'lioll H: Llllld ,\fell

Net Land Area (NLA): Area wilhio zoning 1m boundaries NLA= 67,49!! sq. ft. a) Credited Street Area (total adjacent frontage) x 14 width of public right-of. Choose one, or both, of CSA= 6,749 sq. ft. way the following (8 or b,) not b) Credited Pennanent Open Space (total adjacent frontage) x !.4 public or to exceed 10% ofNLA COS: 0 sq.ft. dedicated open space

TOTAL: NLA + CSA andIor COS z Gross LaDiArea (not toexcc:ed NLA + 10%) GLA= 74,244 sq.ft.

S('('tio'n C: Sprri:tl Prot('clioll.\n':I". I and Oi"illlrbanc('. and '1I11flrn ioU'; .\rea --

Special PnMctioD Areas: (check all those that apply) o Iordan Buffer o Resource Conservation District o 100 Year Floodplain o Watershed Protection District

Laad DisturbaDCe Total (sq II) Area of Land Disturbance (Includes: FClCltpint ofpropo!led activity plus wad:: area envdope, staging area b materials, accessIequiprnent paths. 42,000 all . mel. off-sile clearing) Area of Land Disturbance w;thin RCD 0 Area orland Disturbance within Jordan Buffer 0

Impervioul Areas EsiotiDg (sq II) Demo!:", (sq ....."....r (sq II) Total (sq ft) ImpeMous Surface Area (ISA) 42,485 25,000 31,300 48,785 Impervious Surface Ratio: Percent Impervious 57% 66% Surface Area of Gross Land Area (ISNGLA)". Iflocated in Watershed Protection Dislrict. 0/. of impervious surface on 7/111993 DI. DI. DI. DI.

Page 2 oflO Revised 11.30.10 Pan:elldentifier Number (PlN):_ 9788570788 90

PROJECT FACT SHEET TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Planning Department

Section D: Dimensions

Dimensional Unit Existing Demolition Proposed Total Number of Buildings 5 3 3 5 Number of Floors 3 3 4 4 Recreational Space 2000 sf 2000 sf 1600 sf 1600 sf

Residential Space Demolition (sq Dimensional Unit (sq ft) Existing (sq ft) Proposed (sq ft) Total (sq ft) ft) Floor Area (all floors – heated and unheated) Total Square Footage of All Units Total Square Footage of Affordable Units Total Residential Density Number of Dwelling Units Number of Affordable Dwelling Units Number of Single Bedroom Units Number of Two Bedroom Units Number of Three Bedroom Units

Non-Residential Space (Gross Floor Area in Square Feet) Use Type Existing Proposed Uses Existing Proposed Commercial Restaurant # of Seats Government Institutional Medical Office Hotel # of Rooms Industrial Place of Worship 39,000 80,000 (total) # of Seats 538 No Change Other- Caretaker CCa 400 400 Residence (2 beds)

Section E: Dimensional Requirements] Required by Dimensional Requirements Existing Proposed Ordinance Street 20’ (R-6) 102’ 102’ Setbacks Interior (neighboring property lines) 0’ 0.5’ 0.5’ (minimum) Solar (northern property line) 0’ 102’ 102’ Height Primary 44’ 44’ 70’ (maximum) Secondary 60' 81’ 81’ Frontages 12’ 227’ 227’ Streets Widths Page 3 of 10 Revised 11.30.10 Parcel Identifier Number (PIN):__ 9788570788______91

PROJECT FACT SHEET TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Planning Department

Section F: Adjoining or Connecting Streets and Sidewalks

(Note: For approval of proposed street names, contact the Engineering Department) Right-of-way Pavement Number of Existing Existing Street Name Width Width Lanes Sidewalk* curb/gutter Franklin Street 100’ 51’ B-B 5 X Yes X Yes Yes Yes

List Proposed Points of Access (Ex: Number, Street Name): 2 (existing), E. Franklin St.

*If existing sidewalks do not exist and the applicant is adding sidewalks, please provide the following information: Sidewalk Information Street Names Dimensions Surface Handicapped Ramps Yes No N/A Yes No N/A

Section G: Parking Information

Parking Spaces Minimum Maximum Proposed Regular Spaces 0 n/a 14 Handicap Spaces 0 n/a 2 Total Spaces 0 n/a 16 Loading Spaces 0 n/a 1 Bicycle Spaces 0 n/a 12 Surface Type Bituminous pavement, except concrete for bicycle spaces H: Section H: Landscape Buffers

Location Minimum Width Proposed Width Alternate Buffer Modify Buffer (North, South, Street, Etc.) North C - 20’ Varies 0’-20’ Yes Yes East B - 15’ Varies 0’-15’ Yes Yes South B - 15’ 0’ Yes Yes West B - 15’ Varies 0’-5’ Yes Yes

Page 4 of 10 Revised 11.30.10 Parcel Identifier Number (PIN):__ 9788570788______92

PROJECT FACT SHEET TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Planning Department

Section I: Land Use Intensity

Existing Zoning District: OI-3 Proposed Zoning Change (if any): TC-1 (C)

Note: Refer to Table 3.8-1 (Dimensional Matrix) in the Land Use Management Ordinance for help completing this table. Minimum and Maximum Zoning – Area – Ratio Impervious Surface Thresholds Limitations Minimum Maximum Recreation Low Density High Density Non- Recreation Zoning Floor Area Floor Area Space Ratio Residential Residential Residential Space (MSR) District(s) Ratio (FAR) (MFA) = (RSR) (0.24) (0.50) (0.70) = RSR x FAR x GLA GLA TC-1(C) 1.97 N/A N/A 0 (proposed) (max.) 146,260

TOTAL 1.97 146,260 0 RCD 0.01

Streamside RCD 0.019

Managed RCD Upland

Section J: Utility Service

Check all that apply Water X OWASA Individual Well Community Well Other Individual Septic Sewer X OWASA Community Package Plant Other Tank Electrical X Underground Above Ground Telephone Underground X Above Ground Solid Waste Town Private

Page 5 of 10 Revised 11.30.10 Parcel Identifier Number (PIN):__ 9788570788______93 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Planning Department

The following must accompany your application. Failure to do so will result in your application being considered incomplete. For assistance with this application, please contact the Chapel Hill Planning Department (Planning) at (919)968-2728 or at [email protected]. For detailed information, please refer to the Description of Detailed Information handout. x Application fee (refer to fee schedule) Amount Paid $ 18,374.00 x Pre-application meeting - with appropriate staff x Digital Files - provide digital files of all plans and documents x Recorded Plat or Deed of Property x Project Fact Sheet waiver Traffic Impact Statement - completed by Town's consultant (or exemption)

InSOJ Description of Public Art Proposal x Statement of Justification x Response to Community Design Commission and Town Council Concept Plan comments n/a Affordable Housing Proposal, if applicable n/a Provide existing Special Use Permit, if Modification x Mailing list of owners of property within 1,000 feet perimeter of subject property (see GIS notification tooll x Mailing fee for a bove mailing list Amount Paid $ 71.40 x Written Narrative describing the proposal n/a Resource Conservation District, Floodplain, & Jordan Buffers Determination - necessary for all submittals n/a Jurisdictional Wetland Determination - if applicable n/a Resource Conservation District Encroachment Exemption or Variance (determined by Planning) n/a Jordan Buffer Authorization Certificate or Mitigation Plan Approval (determined by Planuing) x Reduced Site Plan Set (reduced to 8.S"xU")

a) Written narrative describing existing & proposed conditions, anticipated stormwater impacts and management structures and strategies to mitigate impacts b) Description of land uses and area (in square footage) c) Existing and proposed Impervious surface area in square feet for all subareas and project area d) Ground cover and uses information e) Soil information (classification, infiltration rates, depth to groundwater and bedrock) f) Time of concentration calculations and assumptions g) Topography (2-foot contours) h) Pertinent on-site and off-site drainage conditions i) Upstream andlor downstream volumes j) Discharges and velocities k) Backwater elevations and effects on existing drainage conveyance facilities I) Location ofjurisdictional wetlands and regulatory FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas m) Water quality volume calculations Page 6 oflO Revised 11.30.10 Parcel Identifier Number (PIN):_ 9788570788, ______94 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITIAL REQUIREMENTS TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Planning Department

n) Drainage areas and sub-areas delineated 0) Peak discharge calculations and rates (1, 2, and 25-year storms) p) Hydrographs for pre- & post-development without mitigation, post-development with mitigation q) Volume calculations and documentation of retention for 2-year storm r) 85% TSS removal for post-development stormwater run-off s) Nutrient loading calculations t) BMP sizing calculations u) Pipe sizing calculations and schedule (include HGL & EGL calculations and profiles)

Plans should be legible and clearly drawn. All plan sets sheets should inclUde the following: • Project Name • Legend • Labels • North Arrow (North oriented toward top of page) Property Boundaries with bearing and distances • Scale (Engineering), denoted graphically and numerically • Setbacks • Streams, ReD Boundary, Jordan Riparian Buffer Boundary, Floodplain, and Wetlands Boundary, where applicable • Revision dates and professional seals and signatures, as applicable

a) Project name, applicant, contact infonnation, location, PIN, & legend b) Dedicated open space, parks, greenways c) Overlay Districts, if applicable Property lines, zoning district boundaries, land uses, project names of site and surrounding properties, significant d) buildings, corporate limit lines Existing roads (public & private), rights-of-way, sidewalks, driveways, vehicular parking areas, bicycle parking, e) handicapped parking, street names. f) 1,000' notification boundary

a) Slopes, soils, environmental constraints, existing vegetation, and any existing land features b) Location of all existing structures and uses c) Existing property line and right-of-way lines d) Existing utilities & easements including location & sizes of water) sewer) electrical, & drainage lines e) Nearest fire hydrants

Page 7 0[10 Revised 11.30.10 Parcel Identifier Number (PIN):_ 9788570788, ______95 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Planning Department

f) Nearest bus shelters and transit facilities g) Existing topography at minimum 2-foot intervals and fmished grade h) Natural drainage features & water bodies, floodways, floodplain, RCD, Jordan Buffers & Watershed boundaries

a) Existing and proposed building locations Description & analysis of adjacent land uses, roads, topography, soils, drainage patterns, envirorunental b) constraints, features, existing vegetation, vistas (on & off~site) Location, arrangement, & dimension of vehicular parking, width of aisles and bays, angle of parking, number of c) spaces, handicapped parking, bicycle parking. Typical pavement sections & surface type d) Location of existing and proposed fire hydrants e) Location and dimension of all vehicle entrances, exits, and drives f) Dimensioned street cross-sections and rights-of-way widths g) Pavement and curb & gutter construction details h) Dimensioned sidewalk and tree lawn cross-sections i) Proposed transit improvements including bus pull-off andlor bus shelter j) Required landscape buffers (or proposed alternate/modified buffers) k) Required recreation area/space (including written statement of recreation plans) 1) Refuse collection facilities (existing and proposed) or shared dumpster agreement m) Construction parking, staging, storage area, and construction trailer location n) Sight distance triangles at intersections 0) Proposed location of street lights and underground utility lines andlor conduit lines to be installed p) Easements q) Clearing and construction limits r) Traffic Calming Plan ~ detailed construction designs of devices proposed & associated sign & marking plan

a) Topography (2-foot contours) b) Existing drainage conditions RCD and Jordan Riparian Buffer delineation and boundary (perennial & intermittent streams, note ephemeral c) streams on site) d) Proposed drainage and storm water conditions e) Drainage conveyance system (piping) f) Roofdrains g) Easements h) BMP plans, dimensions, details, and cross-sections i) Planting and stabilization plans and specifications

a) Rare, specimen, and signifICant tree survey within 50 feet of construction area b) Rare and specimen tree critical root zones c) Rare and specimen trees proposed to be removed

Page 8 of 10 Revised 11.30.10 Parcel Identifier Number (PIN):_ 9788570788. ______96 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Planning Department

d) Certified arborist tree evaluation, if applicable e) Significant tree stand survey t) Clearing limit line g) Proposed tree protection Isilt fence location h) Pre-construction/demolition conference note j) Landscape protection supervisor note k) Existing and proposed tree canopy calculations, if applicable

a) Dimensioned and labeled perimeter landscape bufferyard b) Off-site buffer c) Landscape buffer and parking lot planting plan (including planting strip between parking and building, entryway planting, and 35% shading requirement

a) Classify and quantify slopes 0-10%,10-15%,15-25% and 25% and greater b) Show and quantify areas of disturbance in each slope category c) Providelshow specialized site design and construction techniques

a) Topography (2-foot contours) b) Limits of Disturbance c) Pertinent off-site drainage features d) Existing and proposed impervious surface tallies

a) Public right-of-way existing conditions plan b) Streetscape demolition plan c) Streets cape proposed improvement plan d) Streets cape proposed utility plan and details e) Streetscape proposed pavement/sidewalk details t) Streets cape proposed furnishing details g) Streetscape proposed lighting details

Revised 11.30.10 Parcel Identifier Number (PIN):_ 9788570788------97 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Planning Department

a) Preliminary Solid Waste Management Plan b) Existing and proposed dumpster pads c) Proposed dumpster pad layout design d) Proposed heavy duty pavement locations and pavement construction detail e) Preliminary Shared dumpster agreement, if applicable

a) Construction trailer location b) Location of construction personnel parking and construction equipment parking c) Location and size of staging and materials storage area d) Description of emergency vehicle access to and around project site during construction e) Delivery truck routes shown or noted on plan sheets

a) Description of how project will be 20% more energy efficient than ASHRAE Standards b) Description of utilization of sustainable forms of energy (Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, and Biofuels) c) Participation in NC GreenPower program Description of how project will ensure indoor air quality, adequate access to natural lighting, and allow for d) proposed utilization of sustainable energy Description of how project will maintain commitment to energy efficiency and reduced carbon footprint over e) time Description of how the project's Transportation Management Plan will support efforts to reduce energy t) consumption as it affects the community

a) Detailed exterior elevations showing materials, colors, fenestration, entrances, roof forms, architectural detailing such as lintels, cornices, brick bond, and appurtenant fixtures, such as lighting

Page 10 of10 Revised 11.30.10 Parcel Identifier Number (PIN):_ 9788570788______98

DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE for SPECIAL USE PERMIT and ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT

Chapel of the Cross 304 E. Franklin St. Chapel Hill, NC

Chapel Hill Township PIN 9788-57-0788 December 29, 2010

Chapel of the Cross has been an integral and important part of the Chapel Hill community since the mid-ISOOs. The parish has grown significantly over the years, both in the number of parishioners and the scope of its many ministries. The 1.55 acre Church property contains the original chapel, a larger sanctuary, and about 30,000 square feet of supporting floor area. In recent years, the size and configuration of the existing facilities have become a limiting factor in the Church's ability to carry out its mission. The Church has determined that it needs re-configured and enlarged facilities, in order to support the current parish size, to better conduct its campus, community, and global ministries, and to allow for reasonable growth.

As part of its planning process, the Church has reiterated its commitment to a physical presence in downtown Chapel Hill, and to its current location specifically. The property is relatively small, bounded by Franklin Street along the front, the University campus on all other sides, and is located in a historic overlay district. Chapel of the Cross proposes a significant but responsible expansion of its floor area on the subject property. Specifically, the Church proposes to deconstruct the existing support space, retain the chapel and the sanctuary, and construct about 70,000 square feet of new floor area on four levels, in two separate phases. The new building areas will occur largely within the footprint of the existing building mass or within existing pavement areas.

In order to accommodate this re-development, Chapel of the Cross requests a Special Use Permit (SUP) and a Zoning Atlas Amendment (ZAA) for the subject property. The requested ZAA from 0I-3 to TC-l(C) is necessary to support the amount of floor area needed to meet the Church's identified space needs. 99

STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION for SPECIAL USE PERMIT

Chapel of the Cross 304 E. Franklin St. Chapel Hill, NC

Chapel Hill Township, PIN 9788-57-0788 Revised June 20, 2011

Introduction

Chapel of the Cross requests a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the subject property to allow redevelopment of a portion of the property for expanded Church facilities. The property consists of a single 1.55 acre parcel situated on the south side of East Franklin Street diagonally across from Pickard Lane. The UNC-Chapel Hill campus adjoins the property to the east, south, and west. Morehead Planetarium lies to the southwest, with its front parking lot situated immediately west of the church property. To the east is Spencer dorm, which is bounded by Raleigh Street further to the east. Coker Arboretum lies directly to the south. Several sorority and fraternity houses are situated across Franklin Street opposite the church property.

The property is currently zoned OI-3 and lies within the Franklin-Rosemary Historic District. No other overlay zoning district exists on the property. In conjunction with the SUP application, the church also requests a Zoning Atlas Amendment for the property from OI-3 to TC-1(C), in order to accommodate the necessary floor area for the proposed facilities.

The subject property is currently used intensively for Church, Church outreach, and community activities. The Church has been an integral and important part of Chapel Hill since the mid-1800s, even before the existing chapel was consecrated in 1848. As the parish has grown and required larger facilities to serve its parishioners and carry out its prolific ministries, new structures were added in 1916, 1925, 1958, and 1993. Also, significant renovations to the facilities were made in 1979 and again in 1993. In 2001, the Church identified the need for additional planning and implementation for facility improvements which would bring all non- worship facilities into an adequate proportional space relationship to the two existing worship spaces and the congregation size. The 2001 study emphasized the need for a fellowship hall which could accommodate a reception following a service, wedding, or funeral in the larger church. The current SUP application reflects these identified needs, and represents the collective planning efforts over several years by scores of people who are intimately familiar with Church needs, programs, and mission.

In planning for the future, Chapel of the Cross has affirmed its long-term commitment to downtown Chapel Hill. The Church’s downtown location is integral to its identity, conducive to its overall mission, and critical to its specific ministries. Approval of the requested SUP

1 100

application will allow the Church to expand and improve its ability to serve the parish, the University, and the larger world community, from the Church’s current downtown location.

Justification

The Applicant believes that the requested SUP modification is justified by all of the required findings prescribed in The Town of Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) Sec. 4.5.2. Evidence in support of these findings is presented as follows:

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.

General

The proposed improvements to the church property will promote the public’s general welfare in several important ways. The church buildings and grounds will continue to be a safe and healthy environment for parishioners, visitors, workers, and students, in accordance with all applicable zoning, building, health, and life-safety codes. The improvements will consist of the removal or renovation of some existing facilities that do not meet standards applicable to new construction; and the construction of new facilities which will fully meet current requirements. In this way, the improved facilities will provide a higher degree of safety, accessibility, and environmental stewardship than is currently available in the existing facilities.

Church facilities are also used extensively by organizations and for activities not directly related to the Church, such as Alcoholics Anonymous – Orange, the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts of America, and English as a Second Language classes, to name just a few. Over 30 outside groups are provided space to meet free of charge. In addition, the Church has strong ties to the University’s students, faculty and staff through a number of University and related ministries. These provide numerous means of positive impact on students and others who are affiliated with the University. In these ways, overall public health and welfare are promoted and supported by Church activities, and by the use of Church facilities.

Emergency Services

Fire protection and “first responder” emergency services will be provided by the Town of Chapel Hill. The Town’s Fire Station #1 is located approximately one-half mile from the site, as measured along Columbia and Franklin Streets, the most likely approach route to the site.

The new buildings will be equipped with a fire suppression sprinkler system, and will be designed using conventional fire-prevention and fire-management strategies. The site and building plans will be reviewed and approved by the Town’s Fire Department, to verify conformance to applicable life-safety regulations and standards.

2 101

Utility and Solid Waste Services

The Church facilities will continue to be served with public water and sanitary sewer service by the existing connections to OWASA utility systems, meeting all public health standards related thereto. Solid waste collection for the facility will be provided by the Town of Chapel Hill, and collection of recycled material will be provided by the Orange County Solid Waste Management Department. Solid waste management and recycling methods and facilities will be reviewed and approved by both of these agencies, for conformance to all applicable regulations and standards.

Traffic Generation

General

The Church expects that only a small amount of additional traffic will be generated by the proposed improvements, because seating capacity in the two primary worship spaces will not be expanded. Further, due to the unique conditions associated with this property, and the off- peak demands related to typical Church activities, the additional traffic demands will be adequately accommodated by existing public street infrastructure, public and private parking facilities, and the existing network of pedestrian walkways.

Background Data

The Church currently has two separate sanctuary spaces, which are rarely used at the same time. The larger sanctuary seats a maximum of 400 people, and the smaller chapel seats a maximum of 138 people. Both sanctuary spaces will be retained, and neither space will have increased seating capacity as a result of the proposed improvements.

The Church’s peak attendance occurs on Sundays, which typically include four or five separate worship services at various times throughout the day. Average Sunday attendance is about 850 people, with a maximum of about 400 people in any one service. Weekday activities at the Church are much less intense. They include pre-school activities, mid-week services, and a variety of small-scale meetings for various Church ministries and for community groups loosely affiliated or unaffiliated with the Church.

A significant percentage of attendees are students or other nearby residents who walk or bike to the property. Overall, the Church estimates that about 25 % of attendees walk or bike to services, rather than using an automobile.

Increased Traffic Demand

The estimated number of new vehicular trips generated on Sundays due to the proposed site and building improvements is 102 trips (51 round trips). This increased demand will be dispersed over the multiple services throughout the day, rather than being concentrated for a single service.

3 102

Traffic Modes and Impacts

Since the Church is located on a compact downtown property, a relatively small number of onsite parking spaces are available onsite. Therefore, only a small fraction of the vehicular traffic generated by Church activities actually occurs onsite. As a practical matter, the vast majority of vehicular traffic generated by Sunday Church activities does not present itself to the site as vehicular traffic at all, but rather as pedestrian traffic. In this context, the additional trips generated by proposed improvements will not represent increased vehicular pressure on the site itself, but rather, on the general downtown area surrounding the site. Since the small amount of additional Sunday traffic will not coincide with peak-day or peak-hour background traffic, traffic impacts from proposed improvements will be relatively small and insignificant.

Parking

The site currently provides several bicycle parking spaces onsite. These facilities will be re- designed in appropriate numbers and locations, to encourage and accommodate biking as a viable means of transportation to and from the property.

The proposed improvements will result in the loss of a few onsite automobile parking spaces, but onsite parking is not as critical for this site as it would be for a church located in a more suburban area. For this site, the majority of automobile traffic generated by Sunday activities currently parks in dispersed locations throughout the area surrounding the Church property, including the adjacent Morehead Planetarium parking lot, in designated on-street parking spaces along Franklin Street and other streets, and in various private spaces and public parking facilities within walking distance of the property. After re-development of the site, these offsite parking patterns are expected to continue in approximately the same manner. Since relatively low traffic volumes typically occur in the downtown business district on Sundays, and since the additional parking demand will be spread throughout the day, the existing facilities in the surrounding area can easily be expected to accommodate the small additional need for parking spaces.

Pedestrian Routes

The Church property is completely surrounded by a formal network of pedestrian routes. The public sidewalk along Franklin Street abuts the property frontage. A walkway also exists parallel to the southern property line, within the Coker Arboretum. On the east and west sides of the site, formal walkways extend from the Franklin Street sidewalk all the way to the Arboretum walkway. These pedestrian routes are heavily used throughout any typical day, as a connection between Franklin Street and the University campus. Proposed site improvements for the Church will not affect these walkways.

From Franklin Street, an existing walkway extends from the public sidewalk to the main entry of the Church sanctuary; and other onsite walkways connect the sanctuary with the smaller chapel. These pedestrian routes will remain in place. Along the west side, the existing walkway connection from the Morehead parking lot will be re-configured to reflect the new building entry point, in order to continue this important pedestrian connection. On the south side, an existing walkway from the Arboretum will connect to the rear building terrace at grade

4 103

level, maintaining the existing pedestrian connection between the Church and the Arboretum. This terrace will provide access along the rear of the building to a lower level entry door. Lastly, near the southeast property corner, a new walkway extension is proposed from a lower level doorway to the existing campus walkway in front of Spencer Dorm.

Pedestrian facilities on and around the site will be adequate and safe for users who are arriving or leaving the site, or who may be passing by or through the site.

Public Art

The Church has recently received a generous gift of art in the form of a tympanum, which is a limestone carving located above the principal portal of the main church. This artwork features an exquisite image of Christus Pantokrator surrounded by the four traditional winged creatures produced by well-known artist Paris Alexander from Raleigh. In addition, the Church has recently replaced the main sanctuary’s wooden front doors, which are indeed a work of art. These doors are prominently visible to the public, and permit a view into the building interior. Above these doors, the large traceried stained glass window, currently covered for weatherproofing reasons, will be thoroughly restored and uncovered, reclaiming a wonderful element of ornamental texture and visual interest in the building’s front elevation. These artistic features represent a significant contribution of public art to the community by the Church.

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 contained in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations.

General

The proposed project will comply with all applicable regulations and standards. No supplemental use regulations are identified in the LUMO for a place of worship.

Zoning

With approval of the requested zoning amendment, and with appropriate project-specific modifications to LUMO regulations as described and justified below, the proposed use will conform to all zoning parameters set forth in LUMO Article 3.

Modification to Building Height Regulations

The detailed building design process will determine ceiling heights, structural and utility requirements between floors, roof features, and aesthetic treatments that will influence overall building height at various locations; therefore, exact building heights are not practically determinable at the SUP application stage. The Applicant believes that the Phase 1 building

5 104

will not require any building height limit modifications at all. However, the Phase 2 structure will require building height limit modifications, in order to achieve the project purposes and design criteria. In addition, the tower feature on the existing Church building is about 81 feet tall, which exceeds the stipulated secondary building height limit by 15 feet. Therefore, the Applicant requests that the primary building height limit for the project be modified from 44 feet to 70 feet; and that the secondary (maximum) building height limit be modified from 60 feet to 81 feet.

Without introducing any negative impact to the adjacent University property, these modifications will provide the zoning flexibility to allow the Church project to accommodate defined design criteria and programming requirements, such as minimizing developed footprint area by adding a fourth floor level, optimizing daylighting into interior spaces, providing architectural compatibility with existing Church building elements, and providing a functional but hidden (top level) space for utility equipment in the tower feature. In addition, this additional flexibility will be critical as the Church considers other features that may be incorporated into the final building design, such as improved roof space for rooftop gardens and other recreational uses.

Modification to Landscape Buffer Regulations

The subject property currently contains a generous amount of significant trees, smaller trees, and other types of landscape vegetation, including a memorial garden that fronts on East Franklin Street. Due to the historic nature of the property, and its compact town-center characteristics, this vegetation is not located in strict accordance with the perimeter buffer provisions stated in the LUMO. The existing site conditions do not present any offensive condition to adjoining property (all of which is UNC-Chapel Hill); nor will the proposed site re-development introduce any substantially different land-use condition that would suggest the need for additional buffering. Accordingly, the Applicant requests that the preserved vegetation on the property, along with the additional plantings shown on the SUP application drawings, be considered sufficient in type, size, volume, and location, to fulfill the property’s perimeter buffer requirements. To this end, the Applicant also requests that an appropriate modification to the landscape buffer regulations applicable to this project be approved as an SUP approval condition.

Construction Phasing

The Church expects to proceed quickly with design and construction of the Phase 1 portion of the project, and to have the Phase 1 building and site improvements completed and ready for occupancy within three years after the SUP approval date. Due to practical limitations related to project funding, the Church expects Phase 2 implementation to require a much longer lead time. Accordingly, the Applicant requests that the SUP conditions allow a 15 year period for building permits to be obtained for Phase 2 work, with an additional two years allowed for construction completion.

6 105

Design Development Standards

The proposed use will meet or exceed the requirements of LUMO Article 5. In accordance with this article, the facility will be designed to “protect and conserve environmental resources” such as the vegetated areas along the front portion of the site, and to reasonably “maximize energy efficiency and conservation”. The new building areas will largely be placed where existing buildings or impervious areas are already present. Accordingly, the new facilities will minimize clearing and grading requirements, and minimize the creation of new impervious surfaces. Small retaining walls will be used as needed to avoid impacts to historical walls and the adjacent arboretum property and vegetation. The site does not contain any steep slope areas, floodplain, RCD, streams, wetlands, or other named environmental resource area; and project construction will not impact any such area. During construction, accepted erosion and sediment control practices will be used to mitigate the effects of land disturbance associated with the new facilities.

Rainwater management techniques will be employed to meet or exceed Town standards for runoff rate, volume, and quality control. Landscaping, screening, and buffering will meet the stated purposes in Article 5.6.1, with the requested modifications to the landscape buffer regulations discussed above. These purposes will be accomplished by the preservation of existing trees, and by providing new plantings and other landscape features as needed.

The new facility will continue to provide adequate access and circulation for pedestrians, and for both motorized and non-motorized vehicles. A minimum number of onsite parking spaces will be provided, due to the relatively high proportion of people who access the site by bike or by foot, and due to the availability of reasonably located offsite parking options. In addition, lighting, utilities, signage, and solid waste management facilities will be designed to conform to applicable Town requirements.

Sustainability - General

The new building and site facilities will be designed in keeping with the Applicant’s commitment to environmental responsibility and an emphasis on sustainability for its facilities. The new buildings will have numerous sustainable features, including but not limited to generous daylighting of interior spaces, rainwater management and re-use for irrigation, high- efficiency HVAC equipment, and energy management systems and controls. Consideration will also be given to possible solar energy collection and/or solar-heated hot water systems, and green roof treatment, which will be consistent with the project’s overall design philosophy.

Chapel of the Cross is committed to the principle that the expansion project will result in Church facilities that are as sustainable as practical within the project’s scope and budget parameters.

Building Configuration and Siting

The proposed buildings have been sited and configured in a purposeful manner to provide a proper balance among various needs, values, and constraints. Guiding principles used in siting and configuring the proposed building improvements are:

7 106

• Leave the two sanctuaries intact, as matters of historic preservation, maintaining overall character of the facilities, and maintaining function of the physical spaces; • Conserve and protect the important front yard vegetation/green space and the memorial garden located therein, and maintain the site’s visual character and streetscape appeal; • Preserve the function and character of the historic carriage drive in front of the site; • Build largely within the existing building footprint or impervious areas, in order to minimize new impervious spaces and built-upon area; • Expand and renovate the facilities in a manner that will improve function, flow, and access; that will meet current space needs; and that will accommodate reasonably projected growth in parish size; • Provide an adequate fellowship hall which can safely accommodate large numbers of persons attending receptions after Sunday and special services, weddings, and funerals; • Expand the facilities using the vertical dimension as much as practical, as a way to minimize footprint area, and • Emphasize the building’s visual appeal and functional relationship to Coker Arboretum and the University campus at large.

Conformance to Historic District Design Guidelines

The proposed new building will reclaim and extend the two-story form and design characteristics of the original 1924 Battle building, which links the historic chapel to the larger sanctuary. In order to maintain the site’s overall architecture and rich visual texture, new building elevation elements will be broken into smaller components; and brick, stone, and slate roof elements will be appropriately used to match existing elevation materials. The additional top floor level will be masked into the dormered roof form, maintaining the overall sense of scale of the existing parish buildings. Design of the new facilities will assure that the existing historic chapel and the larger sanctuary building, with their respective towers, will remain the dominant building elements on the site.

Demolition, Deconstruction, and Construction Waste Management

The Church will coordinate with Orange County Solid Waste staff to identify practical ways to deconstruct and re-use or re-purpose existing building materials. The Applicant fully expects to be able to divert a large percentage of removed building materials away from the traditional landfill waste stream. Existing building materials such as bricks, structural steel, and limestone will be re-used in the new facilities or made available for other offsite facilities, as practical.

Solid waste materials generated by new construction activities will be recycled and/or disposed in a manner consistent with Orange County and Town of Chapel Hill requirements. The Applicant intends to divert a large percentage of the waste from new construction activities to sources other than the landfill.

Energy Efficiency

Chapel of the Cross is committed to the concept of sustainability, because sustainability is the equivalent of stewardship. Regarding the design of new Church facilities, the parish has an

8 107

underlying ethic of being good stewards of the environment and natural resources. The parish is also committed to taking the necessary steps to ensure that such a goal is manifest in all aspects of the project, including the selection of the architect, commitments for energy conservation within the new buildings, reuse and recycling of building materials, reduction of greenhouse gases during construction, and other project elements.

The selection of the project architect, Hartman and Cox of Washington DC, was based on a variety of factors including their experience with working in the context of historical buildings. They also have extensive and award-winning experience in the design of such additions to historic facilities that meet LEED standards for silver, gold and platinum levels.

In the past, the parish has embraced and endorsed energy management. In 2007 an energy management study was conducted of the Church facilities, and decisions were subsequently made to modify a variety of systems to ensure the most efficient use of existing resources and the reduction of energy consumption. The goal of the Energy Management Plan, supplied as part of the SUP application, will be to continue that tradition by designing the new facilities to further reduce energy use and strive to develop a facility which could achieve a minimum of a LEED Silver standard. Accordingly, this project will accomplish the following:

• Employ design features to ensure a highly efficient building envelope; • Implement a design which ensures energy efficiency exceeding ASHRAE 90.1, 2004 by a minimum of 20%; • Evaluate potential utilization of solar energy; • Continue participation in the NC Green Power program; • Adhere to standards which will ensure the use of natural lighting to the extent practical; • Ensure high quality indoor air; • Implement operational and management standards that will ensure continued commitment to energy efficiency, and • Implement strategies to reduce both the water footprint and the carbon footprint of the facility.

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.

The subject property has been used as a church for over 160 years. The existing land use is well established in the neighborhood, and integral to it. Only one contiguous property exists, which is the main campus of UNC- Chapel Hill. The Church has a symbiotic relationship with the University, with the Church site acting in many ways as an adjunct to the campus, rather than a mere “contiguous property”.

The adjacent campus property is subject to a highly specialized zoning designation, does not regularly change ownership, and does not have reasonable “comparables” for land valuation purposes. The property’s essential value is derived from its ability to serve the public purposes

9 108

of the University. This purpose will not be diminished in any way by the proposed improvements to the Church property.

One might reasonably expect that the new facilities will increase the value of University property, by enhancing services and venues that support students, faculty, staff, and other persons and groups who are formally or informally affiliated with the University. Viewed this way, the proposed improvements to the property will add to the substance and vitality of the University, enriching campus life, and thereby making the physical campus property more valuable as a place to learn, work, visit, and live.

For these reasons, the Applicant believes that continued usage of the property as a church facility, and appropriate re-development of the property for this purpose, will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.

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.

General

The proposed project will conform to the general plans for physical development of the Town, and for development within the Town’s historic downtown area.

LUMO and Comprehensive Plan

• Conserve and protect existing neighborhoods: The site lies within the Franklin- Rosemary local Historic District. The site is situated on the southwest boundary of the district, and is more of an appendage to the district than an integral part of it. The Church pre-dates most of the buildings and homes in the Historic District. Along a two-block stretch of Franklin Street, the Church property is the only parcel located in this district on the south side of the street. Building improvements to the site are proposed on the south side of the property, which is the furthest part of the site from the balance of the historic district. These improvements will not directly abut nor impact any other property in the district. For these reasons, property re-development is not expected to have any negative effect on the Franklin-Rosemary neighborhood at large, and will therefore conserve and protect the existing neighborhood.

10 109

• Conserve and protect the Town’s existing natural setting: The proposed project design will conserve the existing vegetation in the front yard of the church property. This area is significant in its visual appeal, and in its function on the site as a memorial garden. Maintaining the character of this important area will contribute to the goal of conserving and protecting the Town’s existing natural setting.

• Identify areas where there are creative development opportunities: Although this site is not specifically listed in the CP as one of the special areas identified for future development opportunities, the site nevertheless has untapped potential for sensitive and responsible expansion. The subject development application illustrates how this expansion may be achieved, having more dense and more vertical characteristics than the current facilities. Moreover, these new facilities will be located appropriately to the rear of the site, preserving historic resources, while meeting the Applicant’s expansion needs. The new facilities will also be designed to embrace the Coker Arboretum with a broad new terrace. In these ways, the proposed site improvement program will employ creative and appropriate re-development solutions for this unique site.

• Promote the vitality of downtown: The proposed facilities expansion will sensitively add an incremental amount of additional floor area and density to the downtown area, and will increase the capacity and quality of the services that the church provides. In these ways, re-development of this site will have a positive effect on the vitality of the downtown area.

• Provide quality community facilities and services: Chapel of the Cross is well- established and recognized as a high-value community asset. Expansion of its facilities as requested will allow the Church to expand and improve its service to the local community and beyond.

Conformance to Downtown Design Guidelines

The proposed project will conform to the content and spirit of the Downtown Design Guidelines in the following ways:

11 110

fully in keeping with the 1924 building. Also from the Arboretum side, the new building will be taller than the existing building, but still below the heights of the adjacent Planetarium and Spencer Dormitory.

Summary Statement

The Applicant believes that approval of this SUP request is justified by all of the required findings prescribed in LUMO Sec. 4.5.2; and further believes that these findings are supported by the materials contained in the SUP application, including the written evidence as presented herein.

Approval of this SUP request will assure the continued vitality of an important and historic element of downtown Chapel Hill and the larger Chapel Hill community. In planning for the future, Chapel of the Cross has affirmed its long-term commitment to its downtown location. This location is integral to the Church’s identity, conducive to its overall mission, and critical to its specific ministries. The requested Special Use Permit is required to allow Chapel of the Cross to expand and improve its ability to serve the parish, the University, the Chapel Hill community, and the larger world from the Church’s current downtown location.

END

12 111

Chapel of the Cross Chapel Hill North Carolina Energy Management Plan

Background

The Chapel of the Cross has been an integral and important part of Chapel Hill since the mid-1800s, even before the existing chapel was consecrated in 1848. The property consists of a single 1.55 acre parcel situated on the south side of East Franklin Street diagonally across from Pickard Lane.

As the parish has grown and required larger facilities to serve its parishioners and carry out its prolific ministries, new structures were added in 1916, 1925, and 1958. In addition, significant renovations to the facilities were made in 1979 and again in 1993. In planning for the future, Chapel of the Cross has affirmed its long-term commitment to downtown Chapel Hill. The church’s downtown location is integral to its identity, conducive to its overall mission, and critical to its specific ministries.

In each stage of its development, the Chapel of the Cross has made every effort to adhere to the very best building standards in effect at the time. As demonstrated in this current application, the Chapel of the Cross continues to adhere to that standard of continuous improvement in the context of the development of this Energy Management Plan.

Goals & Objectives

The Chapel of the Cross is committed to the concept of sustainability, because sustainability is the equivalent of stewardship. From the perspective of the design of the new facilities for the Chapel of the Cross, the parish has an underlying ethic of being good stewards of our environment and natural resources. The parish is also committed to taking the necessary steps to ensure that such a goal is manifest in everything from the selection of our architect to the commitments for energy conservation in the construction of the new buildings, reuse and recycling of building materials, reduction of greenhouse gases during construction and other elements.

The selection of our architects, Hartman and Cox of Washington DC, was based on a variety of factors including their experience with working in the context of historical buildings. This is quite important for Chapel of the Cross. They also have extensive, award winning, experience in the design of such additions to historic facilities that meet LEED standards for silver, gold and platinum levels.

In the past, the parish has embraced and endorsed energy management. In 2007 an energy management study was conducted of the church facilities and decisions made to modifiy to a variety of systems to ensure the most efficient use of existing resources and the reduction of energy consumption. The goal of this Energy Management Plan will be to continue that tradition by designing the new facilities to further reduce energy use and strive to develop a facility which could achieve a minimum of a LEED Silver standard.

Broadly speaking, this project will accomplish the following: • Employ design features to ensure a highly efficient building envelope • implement a design which ensures energy efficiency exceeding ASHRAE 90.1, 2004 by a minimum of 20% • evaluate potential utilization of solar energy

Chapel of the Cross Energy Management Plan Page 1

112

• continue participation in the NC Green Power program • adhere to standards which will ensure the use of natural lighting to the extent possible • ensure high quality indoor air • implement operation and management standards that will ensure continued commitment to energy efficiency • implement strategies to reduce both the water footprint and the carbon footprint of the facility

Methods and Elements

The following represents specific measures, or in some cases a category of specific measures, that will be implemented to achieve the goals outlined above.

Employ design features to ensure a highly efficient building envelope - Hartman and Cox have indicated that the new construction should qualify for the LEED Silver rating, although the church has not determined if they will seek the actual certification because of the costs associated with that process. This effort is important, because there is the constant interplay and the balance between the LEED standards and historical preservation.

Every effort will be made to recycle and reuse either on site, or elsewhere, the existing building materials. To the extent possible, a process of deconstruction will be followed to enhance this material recovery.

Implement a design which ensures energy efficiency exceeding ASHRAE 90.1, 2004 by a minimum of 20% - there is a great deal of embodied energy within the building materials selected for use in the new buildings. Some authors note that this embodied energy can be anywhere from 15 to 30 times the annual energy costs to run the building. Therefore, material selection, including all fenestration, will be critical to achieving the energy efficiency required to meet town standards. Fortunately, inherent in the design of the new facilities will be thicker wall sections because of the stone and other masonry used for construction to match the existing buildings. Adherence to these envelope building standards, as well as the steps outlined below, should easily achieve the minimum energy efficiency exceeding 20%.

Other steps taken to achieve this objective will include: • utilization of as much locally produced building materials as possible • utilization of the most energy-efficient windows available with low – E glazing • an evaluation of ground source heat pumps • an evaluation of the existing boiler system which may result in the deployment a similar, but higher efficiency system to handle all building facilities • replacement of existing air conditioning and air handling equipment after examination of loads to a high-efficiency system pending upon the base system selected • installation of programmable thermostats throughout the facility as appropriate and in light of the existing computerized system utilized in the facility – it should be noted that such thermostats are currently employed in the existing facilities where the computerized system s not deployed. The new system will handle all facilities.) • provide high-efficiency fluorescent, and where practical, LED lighting with occupancy sensor controls deployed as appropriate – it should be noted that such occupancy sensors are currently employed in the existing facilities • utilize master control switches where appropriate, to reduce the "phantom load" associated with electronic equipment • conduct a new energy audit (2011) to look at retrofitting the existing building space that will not be deconstructed to determine what energy efficiency strategies might be employed.

Chapel of the Cross Energy Management Plan Page 2

113

Evaluate potential utilization of solar energy - the Chapel of the Cross is committed to evaluating the use of solar energy for supplemental heat, or water heating purposes. The feasibility of such use of solar must be determined during final design.

Continued participation in the NC Green Power program - the Parish currently subscribes to NC Green Power through a program run by Duke Power. This participation will continue as long as the program exists.

Adherence to standards which will ensure the use of natural lighting to the extent possible – Hartman and Cox have made a commitment to utilize as much natural lighting as possible in the design of the facilities (achieving a minimum of 2% daylighting factor). Such strategies could include skylights in the Fellowship Hall, etc. There is, however, a trade-off between appropriate daylighting and energy conservation. These trade-offs will be examined during the design process

Ensure high quality indoor air – indoor air quality is a function not only of the building process, but also the long-term quality of that air during the building use. During construction, low VOC paints, carpets made from recycled material, and other low impact building materials will be utilized. After construction, ventilation systems in the large common areas will be tuned to occupancy (in part based on carbon dioxide concentrations in the air), and trigger increased ventilation, which will pass the re-circulated air through energy recovery devices, to provide increased quality indoor air and achiev energy reduction.

Implement operation and management standards that will ensure continued commitment to energy efficiency – presently, the church utilizes energy management software to control the HVAC in the sanctuary and the Chapel, as well as selected programmable thermostats. It is anticipated that the new construction will utilize a fully computerized system for energy management throughout all of the facility. Such systems have dropped significantly in cost, and can be utilized to control not only heating, but lighting, security and a variety of other functions. The Chapel of the Cross will deploy a system to controlnot only energy management but lighting, security, etc.

Implement strategies to reduce both the water footprint and the carbon footprint of the facility – the water footprint of the addition will be implemented in a variety of ways. Low volume fixtures (sinks, toilets, urinals and showers) will obviously be utilized. Dual flush toilets, where appropriate, will be utilized to further reduce water consumption.

External to the building, runoff will be captured through porous pavement in the parking lot and directed into ground storage. These waters will be utilized for site irrigation as appropriate, and supplant the current potable water which is utilized for site irrigation.

The reduction of the carbon footprint of the church will include a variety of factors, most of which have been noted above but include:

• utilization of as much local building material as possible • reduction in energy use (electrical and gas) through the many opportunities identified above • reduction in potable water use from that obtained from OWASA • recycling of appropriate building materials

Chapel of the Cross Energy Management Plan Page 3

114

The objective in the design in the new facility is to meet and exceed in every design criteria category and in all equipment and material specifications that will in aggregate provide in excess of the 20% required energy reduction in the facility.

At the time of submission of the building plans and specifications, a detailed analysis of all of the programs utilized to reduce energy consumption, increase daylighting, improve air quality, reduce the water footprint, reduce the carbon footprint and other factors will be developed. The objective will be to set a new standard for buildings of this type in the town of Chapel Hill.

Chapel of the Cross Energy Management Plan Page 4

115

proposed addition - west elevation scale: 1/16"= 1'-0"

chapel of the cross hartman-cox architects phase 1 - north & south june 13, 2011 A.M.G. TOP OF NEW TOWER

116 A.M.G. TOP OF NEW GABLE 60'-0" A.M.G. 44'-0" A.M.G.

proposed addition - south elevation scale: 1/16"= 1'-0"

chapel of the cross hartman-cox architects phase 1 - west, phase 2 - east june 13, 2011 A.M.G. EXISTNG CHURCH EXISTNG TOWER TOP OF NEW TOWER 117 60'-0" A.M.G. 44'-0" A.M.G.

proposed addition - EAST elevation scale: 1/16"= 1'-0"

chapel of the cross hartman-cox architects phase 2- south june 13, 2011 118 .,r- .... '"N tJ ... Z II 0 ,: .. IU'" .. * E ROSEMARY STREET U ...0 I Z . .. ~:! :E :0: ~j I < < EAST FRANKLIN STREET II: '" •0: . l- !:) 0 UJ i- ..... W W ex 0 MOREHEAD SITE w z .. ~ PLANETARIUM « .< Ul I- -' w '"Ul ..... W 0", .... ARBORETUM -' :!: I- :;) OJ (0 .... I I: II 11 f- II :1 il II I II ~ ; '" UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA III GJ w" :::> -' .... C? . I I .J 1:;1 I __---=--_-1 I ____ -- , __ . 1__ -= __ 11 ---=-b I 1--""-~-4b-=--,,,-~--=-.=:-=--""- - - '"-' AT CHAPEL HILL '" IU 0 '" u '" -::10.. > • ----.~~--- =-j ~~ L -- ~--- -"....."".., ,J"",-L_ - - - - [ -j '" C------CAMERON AVENUE "''' "0> * >..- Q w ______J~~ L_-=--=- ____ IL______------II:w a w ~ :o:z :z: U)'" u. .,,,: 1.00:::* 00> 0'" . .... N't"" .!! .,.,. '" '" .. DRAWING INDEX:

CO COVER SHEET C1 AREA MAP C2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C3 DEMOLITION PLAN C4 DETAILED SITE PLAN C5 GRADING. STORM DRAINAGE & STEEP SLOPE PLAN C6 UTILITY PLAN C7 LANDSCAPE PROTECTiON & PLANTING PLAN C8 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN C9 BUILDING ELEVATIONS C10 BUILDING ENVELOPE

lfJ. lfJ. ::z:: 0 H H U 119 ~ ~ P-c

~-=------

Chapel of the Cross SITE DATA: NAME OF PROJECT: CHAPEL OF THE CROSS

OWNER/APPLICANT: CHAPEL OF THE CROSS Special Use Pennit Application 304 E. FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL. NC 27514 LEGEND Chapel Hill, North Carolina CONTACT: CIVIL CONSUL TAN TS. INC. TONY M. WHITAKER. P.E. EXISTING NEW 3708 LYCKAN PARKWAY, SUITE 201

DRAINAGE STRUCruRE IllJ 1m @ ~ !::;. 0 0 0 /'::.. DURHAM, NC 27707 PHONE (919) 490-1645 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ® ~ w ~ ~ ~ eo eo ~ ~ ~ C . . L . . • • • SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT PIN: 9788570788 ~ 0 0 ~. (') ~" '"~ .t WATER VALVE ® " 7.73.12 :> '" FIRE HYDRANT TMBL: w ~ ~ a: ~ co '" OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE OH -'OH- TRACT It: 745175 DATE: HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"",20' UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE -

SURF ACE ELEVATION CONTOUR 400 -400-··-· COPYRK">HT 2010 CIVil CONSULTANTS. INC. x 356.44 SURFACE SPOT ELEVATION <\l 356.44

CLEARING LIMIT/TREE LINE t"'o t"'o t"'o t"'o n t"'o t"'o t"'o n SHEET NO.

LIMIT OF DISruRBANCE ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER PAD III STEAM LINE --XSTM ---- XSlM -- co

P:\15003\dwg\15003.dwg, COVER SHEET CO, 4/18/2011 5,25:35 PM .... 9788- • to 9788- 48-3723 • III,... 48-2649 • OJ 9788- • () I- 48-1671 9788- SITE DATA: Z uJ I------~------_T 9788- 48-6961 ,.: W 48-1512 R-3 III 0::: LAND USE: W I- 9788- LOW DENSITY (f) '~ __--L-.-_-j 9788-48-6757 '"Q C' 48-2589 RESIDENTIAL U.N. .. NAME OF PROJECT: CHAPEL OF THE CROSS w 9788- It 48-3588 "'"1H .....ItI •. '"t~~-,-,-~~~~~y-~~-,--Q:7~:R~T~~~I! • ~9-7-8-8-~-,----'.tI1I'''-.L-''-9788_48J~ 2 : ; 9788- ii 48-0314 9788- 9788-48-6676 ~ . p 9788- 48-9]48 OWNER/APPLICANT: CHAPEL OF THE CROSS 5559 9788- 48-3428 9788-58-1803 HD-1 CO®:O~ 58-3996 304 E. FRANKLIN STREET U.N. 9788-59-5021 CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 (f) 9788-58-2889 i' - ___ ~ I): 9788-38-9102 .. ;:u , . ' LAND USE: CONTACT: CIVIL CONSULTANTS, INC. HIGH DENSITY 9788- 58-4843 TONY M. WHITAKER, P.E. R-6 ,-- 3708 LYCKAN PARKWAY, SUITE 201 ZONING 9788- 9788- 97,1a=:48-1291 Z!'!141~~5U.l ~~~:~~. 58-3783 • DURHAM, NC 27707 I 01-1 R-+i6 PHONE (919) 490-1645 ZONING I i LAND USE: OFfICE r .J . I SOUTHERN _'=;::~~'''' 9788-58-6802 PIN: 9788570788 '--Y" .. 4'

E. ROSEMARY F"" ~~. "~" ~~~ _ ~~~" < 0 ~~, < ~ ,,~,,~~~ &~~~~" ~ ~"""~~~~~"~ ~ >' ~''', ,,~. ~~"~~""'~~',~, ~ ,~~~ ~~"'w~~~, ',."'", " TMBL: 7.73.12 ·"-' . · 9788-48-8291 9788- ,r~ ·, 58-2491 91788--:J 4jg · LAND USE: 58-'--44-79 .. TRACT #: 745175 LAN U': ·: INSTITUTIONAL OFFI , ZONING .J PRIVATE 978a= LAND USE: 9788- EXISTING ZONING: 01-3 'PRIVATE',] 1' ..... L~~t-I PARKING HIGH DENSITY 58-3333 ; PARKING ~ 5FQ1J33~ L __ ~_,_~~~J r'~NI1~~.~ c.,J' 788 t ZONING Do Not Use for C_on 19 =J 'SIGMAI I 9788-58-1261~ LAND USE: PROPOSED ZONING: TC-l(C) I 47,:::~6j iSIGMAI I EPSILON BETA: I LAND USE: ~IGM~ L -_.1' i."~'N~~~} 97 8- INSTITUTIONAL; 9788-58- , 58 950 ZONING OVERLAY DIST: HD-1 Franklin-Rosemary Historic District

--~·FRANKLIN-ROSEMARY HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY ON-STREET PUBLIC PARKING (TYP.) ACREAGE: 1.55 AC. alialiBli I I laligHall.UBI: ".,.,~t{j:n. IBIlBllBllBliallal,B!I.iIBUBH_UBIIBI,BIIB.IBIIBHBUBliBI• B[I. '.'·,".",011111",111,111.'111111., •• " ,'I".. ''''I.'~' ~I.'i.' 1 '_".II.II.".".".II.".".I"'.".'~.. ".".'II FR AN K LI N STREET ."1"8,1.".,'."1"0"8".,1."."_"8"""0"" ,l!o ,III 1111111'110 rzz,/.//z/////zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzze

01-3 PLAYHO~ -~-2 ZONING GATTLEJ r91B&- r-l r-, (I ~ Z0N IN G ~8-02~9 00 I I '-I I iff, :~J.G;~{~if~RUES:3~IIJ:E:~TIA2LJ:N~ N wi I G) I I I 0 I 1 I §E I I ;; I I 9788-58-9249 I ~ I I ~I »1 I _.J J, I I I ;;:: I 00 I 9788-68-0270 \;; I , L_.J I I I 9788- UNITED , L--L...J PARKING 68-0187 HY'DE 'HALL1 01-4 ~~ii~~P~RI~VA~TE METHODIST CHURCH J ZONING LAND USE: 120:Ju INSTITUTIONAL LEGEND o r 9788-57-9971 o<0 - .1 f 9788- 1 r--' ------l UNIVERSITY OF '"<0 1 r 9788-54-5304 9788-67-1844 o I • 0> PEDESTRIAN WALK 0> • N ii R-2 9788- ZONING ,...1 BUS STOP ~ IL __ -" • 67-0718 <0 I PERSON I PEDESTRIAN WALK (TYP.) ARBORETUM '! LAND USE: L...r--"L...J LOW DENSITY ~ PUBLIC PARKING (INCLUDES HC PARKING) _ • RESIDENTIAL U.N. ,... • 0> I - ...r - - '- - '1 SENLAC ROAD PRIVATE PARKING (INCLUDES HC PARKING) _ I MC IVER I L _____._J Ii (AVAILABLE FOR CHURCH PATRONS ON SUNDAYS) 9788-67-2508 ~f··""··"", .... .,·j,· .. ··· .. , .... ·.. _,, .. ·_l,,·,,·"··--'·"""I : • ZONING .11.flUll.lJaliEI 81181181181181181181 .11.'J.Hanlln.UBIIS,I.'). 01-4 • 10 ~- --- '._-L- ii ;:0 ZONING ;< r NEW EAST I LAND USE: FRANKLIN-ROSEMARY '! I", L ____ .J R-2 FRANKLIN-ROSEMARY HISTORIC DISTRICT HD-1 III •• i •• ,.111,1111111.111111111 ,»'0;; INSTITUTIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT • .-< ,------, BOUNDARY ~...... -III • ZONING I I • LAND USE: I DAVIE I 01-4 • INSTITU TIONAL L ______-.l ZONING '!•

CAMERON AVENUE ::=====;C;;:;;C;;:;;C':;:;;~IN~L:~;~'~~~~~~~:~;:A~L=J ~ .... , .... >w n::::,-C\J(f) .. _,_r-~ ! .\. • I • - BOUNDARY STREET DATE: DECEMBER2S, 2010 '--1 If/it ~9BgONTAl SCALE; 1~ .. 20' SOUTH I V!=.ATICAl SCAlE; NfA ,---,-l I ' ... 9788-54-5304 OPEN PROJECT MANAGER: JMfL I R:;E -.. ~ I DRAWN BY: RAM .r· I PROJECT NO: t5003 DRIVEWAY & ZONING DRAWING NAME: 15003.DWG 01-4 I PRIVATE PARKING - ~ ---- -, -. "-,, I' LAND USE: THIS QRAWItJG A~li) TrlF PESfGNHEREON I ~ I ZONING I OPEN SPACE ARE THE PROPERlY OF CIVILCONS!JLTANTS. INC. THE INFORMATI8NO'< THIS DRAWB'

~~~;;~;;;.~~"L::.=._~~ ...~.~?~;;~_;_;~ ... =...;.; ;;:;;;";~ .... , ...... o<,,.; COPYRIGHT 2010 CIVllCON$lilTANTS, INC. 9788-54-5304 SHEET NO. GRAPHIC SCALE 110 0 55 110 220 AREA MAP ~1iiIi_1~5!_~I ( IN PlIIII' ) Cl 1"=110' 1 inoh = 110 It.

P:\15003\dwg\15003.dwg, AREA MAP Cl, 4/15/201112:13:16 PM r il ""I____ -_-_--_-_ ~ __ --:-1::±_:.:::_~~~~_:.:::_....:::__:±_--:_t:::=- .L. __ -:::::-:..:....~_ t ~-==--=-=-~- I -- -:± __ ..L. - -=-=----=--:= -:.:..:-=:-±:i:---: III '"r r- --- II N , ------u ~------~-r------I-~---- Z E ROSEMARY STREET ..: z I w &l~ '" Ei~ o -i"=-______WJ I ..'" is EAST FRANKLIN STREET t~ ______~~ ~~ _=_".-~.~l ______l ___l ___ ._ ------~ f- W f- _xw----xw----·xw--,-·--- w W zW __ --xw----xw---~XW~-~-XN---==-±-XW-----~---xw'------~~-----XW----xw----xw----XW----XW MOREHEAD SITE w « to PLANETARIUM .J en enf-'" )-__ XSS----XSS------'('4r--=---XSS..=-----XSS---~-)(SS--=---XSS-=----XSS--~-=-xss----xss----xss--_1----·xss- W « ARBORETUM .J I >- ___ -xss-- jjj co >- _-xss- UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA W « :> .J m .J'" AT CHAPEl. HILL 0 « I E DRIVEWA. Y CONSlRUCTION 0

459.04 ~ VICINITY MAP -=-_ .... ----..- '---- -~ -=-= NTS

/"'-~\ SLOPES: GENTLE SLOPES (LESS THAN 10%) IN ALL EXISt. -- } 3" HOITY LOCA llONS ON THE SITE. THE SITE GENERALLY DRAINS TOWARD FRANKLIN STREET, EXCEPT FOR A SMALL AREA AT EX. 18" BLACK THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, WHICH DRAINS LOCUST TOWARD THE UNC ARBORETUM. "" ~-- -- SOILS: ACCORDING TO THE ORANGE CO. SOIL EXIST. CATCH , SURVEY, THE SOIL CLASSIFICATION FOR TOP 466.76 I , > \ 15" MUl.B~R:RY··r I / /'\ \ INVERT IN 464.11 .c~/···.-. / EX\, 16" RED CEDAR THE SITE IS ·URBAN." EXISTING INVElll IN ! ABEllA HEDGE ! INVERT OU.·HI,W) 463.66 { // / 1 ,-- THERE ARE NO NATURAL DRAINAGE ( ~ - -1------STREAMS: / 1 (, " j! ITATURES, WA TERBODIES, FLOODWA YS, / I 1- -- • .- EXIST ~ : / r------FLOODPLAIN, RCD OR WATERSHED / \ 24" OAK \'"'' j 'I ~ /~/"/.' BOUNDARIES ON THIS SITE. -l' -.. I r- I . )<~~C'\ \ ~?I I I 10" MIA"LC -" I WATERSHED: THIS SITE IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A I I t--- ~-~~ -I~ (\ \")- /\/ I r'--l------PROTECTED WATERSHED. I ~~ ~~//-~--~ I \ I ~ I /~.. ,.~ \ "c" -- i-- I ~ I I I 1 L __ I '-EX. 8" DOUBLE I I I HOLLY J I I , "r ,! , 1 1 I I ''':, EXIST.. 8" REDBUD t .. I I I I I I ··1 , 1 1 I I 1- - .. --- I I 1 ;<~ 1 1 , EXISTING / L __ , '1 I (\ I NOTES 121 l ,I CHAPEL , '1 • 1 r- I TO REMAIN '. I I 1 1. PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS INfORMATION I \\. TAKEN FROM A FIELD SURVEY BY SUMMIT CONSULTING I ~ I r---- I I I ENTiTUED TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS DATA. DAlEO AUGUST 8. EXISTING I 1 2008. I EXISTING ABEllA HEIJGE. .,-,-'-c--m- EX. 14" 1 ~-- CHURCH CAROLINA I l 2. THE FIElD SURVEY INfORMATION DESCRIBED ABOVE HAS BEEN ~ TO REMAIN CHERRYLAUREL SUPPLEMENlEO IMTH ADDITIONAL FIElD LOCATION Of SOME STORM DRAIN LINES BY ROTO>-ROOlER. ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE " I ~-- I PIPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN SHOWN BY ENGINEER AS • ASSUMED LOCATION. NOT FIElD LOCATED. , } ~---- THE UNIVERSITY OF I '" '" NORTH CAROLINA 3. CONDITIONS SHOWN AT THE WESTERN DRIVEWAY CONNECTION PIN 9788545304 I TO FRANKLIN STREET, REPRESENTS WORK IN PROGRESS (BUT ------,, ...... TMBL 7.73.. 1 NOT YET COMPLETE) UNDER SEP ARA TE PERMIT APPROVAL '" -J 1--- .... TRACT 11739768 '" '" I I ,------. USE: INSTITUTIONAL I :> / I ' (SPENCER DORM) /,' i ..... •.------, d LAPPROXIMATE LIMIT OF :'" I I ----- ~ \ EXISTING BUILDING TO BE : ~ REMOVED IN PHASE 11 ' ~ \ \ (SEE BUILDING PLANS) l..~ ~ I : \ \ EX. ;k ASH EXISTING / : ~ 2" OAK ,\ \ \ .if--+- EXISTING / ' 4" VC DRAINS I HOLLY MYRTLE _~~~~~~:~~~~a \ \ " -- r- r-_-_ g~!c~~~~D .~c=...... ~ \ \ / OF EXISTING -t-- 4" 1.£ / EXISTING CATCH~!3A.SlN 'I '" ~LlMIT BUILDI~G / TOP 466.51 " TO BE R[MOVED IN PHASE 2 ~ I r-- \ \ > Y 1/ INVERT IN (NW) 463:?1 I L l---- / INVERT IN (W) 463.51\ I • ----4h6 \--\:, ,I ' ~ i INVERT OUT (SE) 463.4~, ;J-..-.'>5-- OAK/-.. --- , - I. / \. EX. 24" MAGNOllA\ i / I : I I / .;.., PROPERTY Of \ EXISTING 1--4[;0"- l / U )1 THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA / !=o. HORIZONTAL SCALE: TMBL 7.73 .. 1 TRACT 11739768 I '-"l~ .... USE: INSTITUTIONAL / I I : £2 • VERTICAL 8CALE: NIA , I (j to \\, (MOREHEAD PLANETARIUM) , EXISTING /~------. PR.oJcC r MANAGER: TMW \ 4" c, __ ___ , / "- // " DRAWN BY: RAM , '~'" // I EXISTING·.GATCH BASIN~ PROJECT NO: 15<>03 ,.- TOP 464.04 ..._ ..... \ r- DRAWING NAME: tSOOS.DWG ~?--,--.-~,~------~-- 462.30 \_-~ ------460.48 THIS DRAWING AND TI-lE OI::SIGN !u:nCON ARE THE PROPERTY Of'CIVJL CONSULTANTS, INC. THE INFORMATION ONT!ll$ DRA!MNG ~ NOT FOR USEON ANY OTHER SHeO,., PHOJi:CI. mE [1[POODucnON OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING IN WHOLE OR IN "Alil, WlIHOUI WAITTENCQN:SENT Of C!\ilL CONSULTANTS. INC .• IS PHOHISffi:.O.

COPYAIGHI 2010 CIVI:"'CONSULIANTS,!NC.

SHEET NO. EXISTING LARGE JUNIPER EX. 6" & 8" EX. 13" (2) EX. BUSHES _i'-- MAPLE MAPLE GRAPHIC SCALE - SlIGAR _eL"~ ------(3) EX. WOW W ~ EX. DOUBLE 4" ""-::E~X~.-. ~~~~~~ BUSH VETCH LEAF NORWAY SPRUCE SOPHORA EX. 6" JAPANESE EX. MULTI-TRUNK ~~_I~!iiiiiiiiiiiiii~1 C2 WHITE PINE CRAPE MYRTLE ( III PBBT ) L.. 1 inch = 20 It.

P:\15003\dwg\I5003.dwg, EX COND PLAN C2, 4/16/2011 5:25:15 PM r I .. L- I Ii il I eo r- s '"N ::-=-==-~--=-:::::::::-=-==-~-r::.:-.r::=-=-==-~ -- l: ~ ~ :i EXISTING BRICK WALl< II ------u ------~A/y l:gj!:! ------, ------Z E ROSEMARY SllREET ..: I w 5 '" EXlSllNG /'Y' )1 s:: ~!2! 0: ARE H'tDT. ffi'S o ~~ ~ m I u. 0 EAST FRANKLIN STREET ~ w ~------~-~-~-~------~- - -B-1 ~/ ,.. ill: W ... W ______XW ____XW ____ ..!-----'':_------XW ______W W .. XW~---XW----+_--.XW-----XW----\,..EXI~S~TI~N~G~6~·:..~D.:':I-_~~~l!'~--xw----XW----XW------·xw--.--- MOREHEAD SITE W z ~ g: PLANETARIUM < if) f" --' \-----.!---xs,,------xss------'<40-.------<:"'-----XS5----XS5--__xss ______'(SS ____--\ ___ XSS----_-xss------xs:s----j----xss- Ul « ARBORETUM w __-xss--- iIi i§ ;:!,.. _xss- UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA Q « EAST FRANKLIN _ '"::0 AT CHAPEL HILL .. m ...0 « 0 '" CAMERON AVENUE EXISTING BUS Srop '-EOXlS-nNG PA..a.tENT EXISTING DOMESTIC WAllER WA -)"CD LINE Wi BENCH 459.04 SERVICE UNE AND MEllER. LIMIT OF r LIGHT LIMIT OF DEMOLITION ~ ------VICINITY MAP -. -----;r 4,,), NlS

.__ -' -40':> I r-1 I I ~~ EXISTING H'I'OT. -+-'1. __~.M--"'Y'-i C _L-J-.l !Ii ____ --1 --11 ~ EXISTING EXISTING WAll 10" EXISW~ ,: rj ~ ELM . 24" ELIM ------~~----.-.-ir-..... ~~,'--.- ~~·~--Rl~~r_r~--~·~~- ---- )1 EXIST. /~ EXIST, = ~ IS"Rep _'42" CEDAR T "I I -I -I ~ I ~x''''-..::::::=: () I I I I EXIST· ~?'4~~.g --=c-='i~~~-+il+tr/r:l I , IN\£RT IN I(SW) 460.12 I INVlj:RT OU, (N) 460.02 I EXIST IPROP INLET (PIPES DILAPIDATEO) , ,/ SLOPES: GENTLE SLOPES (LESS THAN 10%) IN ALL TOP 463.66 i . LOCATIONS ON THE SITE. THE SITE INVERT IN (SE) 459.66 ~/ (IN OBSCURED-LOOKS CL()GGED;k. GENERALLY DRAINS TOWARD FRANKLIN INVERT OUT (NE) 459.56 =--=--~I STREET. EXCEPT FOR A SMALL AREA AT MAGNOLIA PREIJMINARY . EXISTING EX. 18" 8LACK THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, WHICH DRAINS LOCUST Do Not Use for Constructton '--.. SHRUBS TOWARD THE UNC ARBORETUM.

-~ - "'-- SOILS: ACCORDING TO THE ORANGE CO. SOIL EXIST. GATCH SURVEY, THE SOIL CLASSIFICA nON FOR » \ REMOVE 15" MUI.B~RR'( ~-'. TOP 466.76 INVERT IN 464.11 d"~c. __ EX\ 16" REO CEDAR THE SITE IS ·URBAN.· / /~ \ EXISTING INVERT IN ABEllA HEDGE -< INVERT 463.66 "'llf __ L!U _1 STREAMS: THERE ARE NO NATURAL DRAINAGE /~/ \ I -< UMITS OF DEM:lnON REMOVE EXISTING FEATURES, WA TERBODIES, FLOODWA YS, -4-~ItI- STONE WAll /." / I ,-- FLOODPLAIN, RCD OR WATERSHED r BOUNDARIES ON THIS SITE. I r- -- I REMOVE 10" M""Lt.-ff -_ ..... WATERSHED: THIS SITE IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A I f--- PROTECTED WATERSHED. I ~ _!A I L __ x-L_ I I EXlSllNG PUBUC FFE 470_67 EXIST. 8" REOBUD I SANITARY MAIN I I I , TO REMAIN I I J, , I I ,--- EXISTING r' ,, L __ , (0 122 CHAPEL I I NOTES I r- TO REMAIN I I J, 1. PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND EXISllNG CONOI11ONS INfORMATION I TAKEN FROM A FIELD SURVEY BY SUMMIT CONSULllNG I i-- ENTI11UED TOPOGRAPHIC CONDI11ONS DATA, DAllED AUGUST 8. EXISllNG ili~LROOF DRAIN 2008. ABEllA HE[)GE~'-:-':-l/t COLLECllON EX. 14" I SYSllEM. ASSUMED r - CAROLINA 2. THE AELD SURVEY INFORMATION DESCRIBED ABOVE HAS BEEN REMOVE PIPE LOCATION. I NOT AELID VERlAEO. CHERRYLAUREL SUPPLEMENllED WITH ADDI110NAL FIELD LOCATION OF SOME " I ~-- EX. S11EP~ STORM DRAIN UNES BY RDTO-ROOllER. ADDI110NAL ORAiNAGE ------I I PIPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN SHOWN BY ENGINEER AS '-... "ASSUMED LOCATION, NOT AELID LlDCAllED. )CREMOVE EX. THE UNIVERSITY OF I ''-... '-... ) ~ - - J1 NORTH CAROLINA .3. CONDITIONS SHOWN AT THE WESTERN DRIVEWAY CONNECTION " " I I ABANDON SECTION OF PUBUC STONE WALlc~'- ._ PIN 9788545304 I TO FRANKUN SllREET, REPRESENTS WORK IN PROGRESS (BUT " "v I-- - _SEWER MAIN IN PLACE. --?l-.4;:tf:fl-.JC R~~~f:~L~ L___ .___ ..t._+'>....; /' ~ TMBL 7.73 ..1 NOT 'lET COMPLIEllE) UNDER SEPARAllE PERMIT APPROVAL llRACT 11739768 :> / -/~ l\:Il--~(\;ll~[~~:~~~ING4' REMOVit EX. USE: INSTITUTIONAL I - /'\ it (SPENCER DORM) ____ A \ I "'''''''...... zzzwww :;;::;;::;;: \ \ I : :;;::;;:::;: 000 \ \ PlIASE 1 000 EXISTING / : zzz ELEC. PANEL !!:!!:!!: \ \ ~r-i--EXISTING / I z 200 4" VC DRAINS I O ~ ...... i=0:c:c: \ \ ' EXlSllNG GRAllElN a..Www WlND.OW.WEll cr~a...n. .. - o > .. toP .1;1.; 465.36 'l---ffiif~_I-_~51J'~EI~C~TR:G~0~D_ . Ie / .~.~ ~ '. ~I (f)w» \ \ ',- / wa: WW '-llIlIT ()F EXISTING BUILDING EX. 4" 7// 'I' EXISTING CATCrkBASIN o 0:0: WALK-- - TOP 466.51 '-', I REt,lOVED lNPHASEz \ \ > ~OLLY r'~ INVERT IN (NW) 463'~1 I /-'·-·A:i"'. "'~. / .. / INVERT IN (W) 463.51\ I REMOVE EX. REMOVE v- I INVERT OUT (SE) 463.46 \-~ STONE WAll 36" OAK ,--.--__ . I Q 1 '\.EX. 24" MAGNOLl~\: ,! I / ABEllA HED'GE-Y : I I PROPERTY OF , ! - -- , <> / ',J Ii \ \PlIASE EXISTING ,7---. / ij§ I' THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA TRANSFORMER···' - II fo BE - -- ,"_' __ - I DATE: DECEMBER 28, 2010 PIN 9788545304 ! TMBL 7.73.. 1 TRACT 1fl39768 EX. GROUND FLOOR' HOR1ZQi>lTt'l SCALE: _" _____ USE, INSTITUTIONAL - [LEV, 462.10 • /8/" //L ______.. VERTiCAL SCALE: NlA (MOREHEAD PLANETARIUM) PROJECT MANAGER: < 10% EXISTING TMW ~"--'c >~\~ /"'/' DRAWN BY; SLOPE RAM EXISll"NG.J;:ATCH BASIN/' PROJECT NO: (5003 TOP 464.04----··' DRAWING NAME: 15003.DWG I 46230 INVERT 460.48 THIS DRAWING AND THE DESIGN H~EON ,. INVERT AH" I Hi:. PRQPi::HTY OF CNI~CONSULT.\NTS, I I INC. THE INFOAMATIONON THIS DRAWINGIS I EXISllNG BOTTOM OF 459.74 NOT FOR USE ON ANY OTHER SITE DR PROJECT. EX. ABEllA HOLLY TREES THE REPRODUCTlOtlOR OTHER USE OF THIS 1 I DRAWING IN '!VHOlE OR IN PART, WlTHour I HEDGE WRITTEN CONSfNT Of CIVIL CONSULTANTS.INC~ I IS PROHIBITED. I OLD STEAM UNES IN I I NO LONGER IN USE. COPYRIGHT 2()tQ CIVIL CONSULTANTS, INC. VERIFY THAT UNES I ARE NOT ACTIVE AND I I REMOVE OR ABANDON I -

P:\15003\dwg\15003.dwg, DEMO PLAN 0, 4/18/2011 5:24:02 PM r eo ------rIII N (J Z - - - -/"--

SHOWN AT IN PROGRESS (BUT /"" UMITS Of CONSlRUCTION EXISTING PIPING COMI'U:.fE).tlNIDER SEPARATE PERMIT APf'ROVAlS: .~ '<1EWEO BY ..,OEO TO EXIST. -_._._---_ .. _... ------.------DETERMINE 15" RCP --_._._.-- ~------~.------/~-=) -~ ___~\__,DN! ..>l. R~::TIClN ~-.l___,_::::;_/ , I APPROXIMATE INVERT IN (NW) 463$1 I THE OWNER'S OPTION, THIS WATER \I1ll BE REClAIMEO FOR LANDSCAPE ,/1 , INVERT IN (W) 463.51\ I IRRIGATION PURPOSES, USING A SUMP PUMP CONTAINEO \I1THIN A < 10" j , UMIT OF / STANDARD MANHOLE, THAT IS PIPE-CONNECTED TO THE DlSlRlBUTION w,...... -... SLOPE INVERT OUT (SE) 463.0\.6 t-"'-"""""" \->( NEW FLOOR CHAMBER. «c,c,-¢ ~~-. PHASE 2 461.0 / \EX. 24" MAGNOLlA\: O'?C?~ I (') '" " ABELlA HEOIGE-Y I Of (l!ONSTRUCl1ON J Ii PROPERTY OF \ 1 THE UNIVERSITY Of NORTH CAROUNA ,1 II \ /"' , I PIN 9788545304 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS DATE: DECEMBER28 2010 1MBL 7.73.. 1 TRACT 6739768 I ~J \ L ___ _ HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" .. 20' USE: INS1l1UTlONAL \ DESCRIPTION: EXISTING PROPOSED (MOREHEAD PLANETARIUM) EXISTING CONDITION CONDITION VERTICAL SCAlE: NrA 4" DI-fr=::::J PROJECT MANAGER: TMW PA VEO AREAS: 23052 SF 20790 SF DRAWN BY: RAM (DRIVEWAYS. WALKS & PARKING AREAS) PROJECT NO; 15003 DRAWiNG NAI'.r1E: 16003.DWG WALK BUILDING AREA: 19433 SF 26422 SF THIS Of!AWlNG AND I HE DESIGN HEREON 459.74 ALLOWANCE FOR ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS 1573 SF ARE THE PROPERTY OF CNiLCONSULTANTS, NA INC, rHE1NKlAMAIIOtJONTHISORAW1NGIS AREAS NOT GRAPHiCALLY SHOWN Nor FOR USE ON ANY OTHER SITE OR PROJECT

EX. 13" SHEET NO. (2) EX. 12" MAPLE - StJSI\R ,"",'Lc-'~ GRAPHIC SCALE (3) EX. EX. DOUBLE 4" 20 o 10 20 40 VETCHLEAF NORWAY SPRUCE SOPHORA 6" JAPANESE EX. MULTI-TRUNK I 7.73.. 1 TRACT 1f739768 I 1IIIIIj-~1~L.:J __~I WHITE PINE CRAPE MYRTLE C5 -. ··--n~". INSTl1UTIONAl (UNC ARBORE1UM) ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 fL

P:\15003\dwg\1S003.dwg, Grading & STORM CS, 4/16/2011 5:22:23 PM r- :/-I-i~--~-- eo -1: --- .... I '"N (-1-1 -- - (J Z .... ,.: \ I I of< til ..'" III .. IX U 0 "'J-=---=~ J Z .."- -.."..",...--- -l< ~ ,..•• .. III I- .."'''' .., j .... til ~ . ... III -:3",.. > "' .... IX >-. ..'" C EXIST. <'" w ~W 0", !itZ t; e", z'" 0 M. EX. BRICK WALK ..... :",U I .,~ cO~*= r--~ 0",...... '"N,...!! '" . I I, "'''' """ ... EXIST. , 42" CEDAR l o EX. I II i \ I II I II I \ I \ I \ I I' " \ \ I III ~L I I '\ I \ I , 'l~- I "-- I I ,I I \ \ / > y I I '" \ I I \ !\ I /~ \ )< I I //. \ \... ___ .J I, ~/ I 1 / , \ I EX. BRICK WALK EXISTING PUBLIC \ I I SANITARY SEWER 10' I' ,------1 I ,I (NO EASEMENT) , I \ I I I I I I I I I I \ I i'--l------~ I I ~-·------i I 20' WIDE PUBLIC I I WA 11ERLINE EASEMENT -1----4-1 I I I I I I I I ,I I 'to \ I : : I I: : I ::I fA. I I ~ I ------I I : ~ __ l_l ___ J : I w , I I I I I I ~ I lfI I I I L __ ---; _-.--1 NEW SANITARY SEWER x: EXIS1lNG '"r' I I I I w 1t--'Int----fr,7-thl-H+ I I I MANHOLE125 SET OVER CHAPEL I I i EXIS1lNG LINE. (END OF TO REMAIN I OWASA MAIN1lENANCE) I I EXISTING I RIM = 467.48 RELOCATE pi GAS METER I : iNV. IN 458.5; EX_ LAMP I I iNV OUT 458.31± '" I POLE EXISTING I I FIRE DEPARTMENT CHURCH ~ I TO REMAIN I CONNECTIONUTiUTY BUILDII~G.---r--Hc>"!>:I'~'ON FACE OF \ I I I '~~~~~~2;;~~~~}J~ I '------f - - -I , I ~ ~-NEW RPZ !HE UNIVERSITY OF I , I } I NOR!H CAROLNA PIN 978854-5304 I I I TMBL 7.73.. 1 TRACT #739768 rL--i : ~ /1 'I USE: INS1lTU1l0NAL I '------J NEW 6" SANITARY (SPENCER DORM) SEWER SERVICE /\ J I I LINE I'.1TH I CLEAN OUTS. I I ~ \ / , APPROXIMATE I LIMIT OF I I \ \ NEW BUILDING U]UTY NOTES RELOCAV I EX. LAMP PHASE 1 \ \ / I' EXIS1lNG I 1. ALL WAllER SYSllEM AND SANITARY SEYo£R WORK SHALL BE IN POLE I ACCORDANCE WI!H !HE REQUIREMENTS OF ORANGE WAllER \ \ r-- ELEe. PANEL I AND SEYo£R AU!HORITY. INCLUDING !HE LA1lEST EDI1lON OF I / CONSTRUC1lON STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, /--- EXISTING / ( -.J CONSTRUC1lON DETAILS. POLCIES AND PROCEDURES. AND \ \ "" ~CHnE"ASH IN / / ~ UNDERGROlfND I FIELD DIRECTIVES BY THE UllUTY INSPECTOR. \ \ Y. 471.39 I / I ELEC1RIC/ I 2. FIRE PR01lEC1lON SYS1lEM COMPONENTS SHALL BE IN ~_ OLD STEAM LINES I APPROXIMATE s / ACCORDANCE WI!H REQUIREMENTS OF !HE TOWN OF CHAPEL \ \ // I / NO LONGER IN USE. E / ~ I HILL FIRE DEPARTMENT. / LIMIT OF d / I / NEW BUILDING-'GRiRrnOU;;;N;D-;:FL~;00R;;:;1~::~~ I 3. NO NEW DOMESllC WAllER SERVICE IS PROPOSED. _\- -\'\ ~ / PHASE 2 461.0 /$/ / my. I / /0 I EXIS1lNG PROPERTY OF l ~ I !HE UNIVERSITY OF NOR!H CAROLINA '-. /' / PII'I 978854-5304 '- J / fiRST FLOOR I TMBL 7.73.. 1 TRACT 1fl39768 '--- USE: INSllTUllONAL - / ELEV. 471.0 / RE-CONFIGURE 3 EXISTING L --- . (MOREHEAD PLANETARIUM) II / ELECTRICAL SERVICE UNES TO A SINGlE CONSOUDA TED / SERVICE TRANSFORMER IN PROPOSED llERRACE (PHASE 1) THIS LOCATION. THIS DRAWING AN!) f HI:o Ui:SIGN HI:.Hi:QN. , I ARE THE PROPERTY Of CIVIL CONSULTA1"lTS, ,-- INC. THE lNFOfIMAHONON IhlS DHAWlNGIB NOT FOR USE ON ANY OTHER SITE OR PROJECT IHi: H\:;PRQDL;CfION OR OTHER USE OF THIS I DRAWING IN WHOLE QR lrlPART, WlTHOI.JT I WRITTEN CONSENT OF CIVIL CONSUL IAN t $, INC., I N 787775.02 IN IS PROHIBITED. , I E 1 ~B5:'56&: 0 6 COPYRIGHT 231 Cl CIVIL CONSULTANTS, INC. I ( , \I I I I I ------\~"'_u __ ~~) " , SHEET NO. GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 I "Ill DD""~"'rv OF THE ~NI\IERi,ITY' CAROLINA ~iiiiiiiiiiiiiii!~liiiiiiiiiiIiiii~! PIN 9788545304 ( IN FEET ) C6 I I 7.73..1 TRACT #739768 1 inch = 20 ft. r----' INSllTUTIONAL (UNC ARBORETUM)

UTIUTY PLAN C6, Consultants SWANSON 00, "III andASSOCIATES PA ...'" I N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE -~ ======.======~ =~ ~ ~ ~------r--T------r--r 1-~_o~_:_L_E_R_Y_A_R_D_S_C_H-IEI-Dp_~o--=--;_:_~_B_ufli_e_rw_id_th--J U 100 E. Carr street Carrboro, NC 27510 c::: z Ph. (919) 92HOOO Fax (919) 929-1500 " ~ ..... III TREE STANDS: lnI_andocapeerchlleclure.eom cO! I- III I 'e!" N 0:: ~ ~,...... _~~ j~" l~ __~__ __~~_~ __ ~_ _~_L __ I-:a-o:-e-:-:-(:-:-:-~-:-ti~-:-~-:-i-:-ry-)---II---:-:-::-~-:-:----j 0 ______T An evaluation of the existing tree canopy was mode and plan shows the shaded I u ills :II: ... area of existing trees with a canopy of 5,000 s. f. that are contiguous as iii defined by 5.7.5 in the Tree Protection Ordinance. However, this site is an urban -z lI: ______------xw--1 ---.~-__ Southern (Coker Arboretum) 0 ft =.J~ ::Ii ±__ ---_------.0: .0: site and does not contain 'woods', There are single trees that have been 00 1.1"::: ~ 2; I C-:FFER ,_ N:1H ~D; (FRANKUN S1R:~--=--xss--=---...."..:=--EAs~-----.:::....xss--=---xss-=----xss---- X55--- I-'w-e-st-e-m-(-M-O-re-h-e-a-d-p-Ia-n-e-ta-ri-u-m-)+---o-ft-to-5-ft-----1 identified with 0 total canopy of approx. 11,336 s.t. The canopy for the :> III -- _-=-----=-xss----=--xss ::I 0 hardwood trees shown hatched represent the 'continguous' conopy, however the + ~ 1:1)( 0 c:: ",0 trunks are separated by existing pavement. wall edges and playground, Other <.l .cc .. (MODIACAllON REQUESlED) iii ploces where trees are over 24" col. inciude evergreen trees (I.e. Magnolias 111-III .:...... Proposed buffer width varies from 0 ft. to 20 ft. o > .. .. t ond/or Cedars) and also ore not ·continguous'. z N" :::l 1- U Zl!- w" III -BUFFER' REQUlllEMENTiEXISllNG 'lEGETA 110N IS -MIX mD~~16~ ! __-+_-----~.~~~~ • -0:: Areo of Significant tree canopy "~Q "01 >" -.. -"-,, /' r--=-~====:===~-~::;-:-==:::;;~:=w=~=-~===!_====:'==_~.= (48" Oak, 24" Elm, 36" Oak, 24 and 36"Ash) .0:01 "iii --~~~II-.:;;",;;;;;; >~ I iii ------~---- i -- I ~:::\ ~-' "W'"~ Total Area = 11. 465 s.f. .. lI:Z 0:: 1:0 0 I I" I --+-'0+-- Area of significant trees to be cleared - 10,690 s.f. .o::a: 1-2; I I II I U __ -465- ____ .JI 1L __ _ (approx. 100% of the identified trees) .... w'" 1 C:J I j • '''~,;;j~Ofl;tr\ - -I - "_ ... ---= .~ • EJ(JSTlNG ~z~~: =...... 0 / 10" TREE PROTECTION NOTES: O::NO / 24-" ELM U" iii ... • )00 .." ==~_------L= ~ ~_----:I~-~-i- ~.-~~~.-----.~---~;-r--~·~--.""----~;~.... '.. ~'.-·---~t-~---- : ... U I 1. A preconstruction conference must be held with the Town's Urban Forester • -'01co'!: \II'!:~ .. 01 ,:". . )1 I before any site work begins...... N .... ,2 I ... I'> 01 ..I 2. A Landscape Protection Supervisor who is registered with the Town of Chapel I Hill must be present on site ot 011 times when the following activities ore taking T,,-I-' I place: cleoring, grUbbing, excovation, grading, trenching, moving of soil, installation TYPE B lREE PROTECliON - I I I I I FEN \ Medium height evergreen shrubs /' PROPOSED IN THIS PORll0N I / NO NEED FOR ADDIllONAL 1 5. Any limbing of trees to remoin shall be performed by a certified arborist. I yo,Ad. Holly IN THIS AREA. // /// ~ \ '--\;~~~~~~~~~E~X~.~'5~"~~i~1i-~ - Cedar Trees .;; F ,----J 1 000000 ./ 1 ---- /-t- -- , I I I 000000 I I 000000 \ 4 ft, hgt. semi-opaque I I ..... I 1 /\ EXISTING 469 -- 000000 ------\ \ decorative fence for, .36" ASH EXISllNG 1 I playground enclosure. BUILDING / BICYCLE I ==DDDDDD~ :-r PARKING 1 (TO BE EXISTING BUILDING BUFFER - SOU I EAST SIDE 1 C 0 \ \ EX. 24" AS~I-;L REMOVED) _J- r466-~~-- / (M IFICA TION REquESlED) Proposed I @ Type A ORANGE TREE PROTECTION FENCE \ \ lREE PROTE~CE ' / Bu Width to bfIJ 0 ft. I C-7 NlS (TYPE B) ALON~ STONE WALL -.,""~:-= ~------~~ ~-'\I / \ AS NEW BUILDING IS IN SAME GENERAL I tJNS: POST eN' ," IAESH \ EXIST. I ,. F"~t>TPRII,T AS EXISTING BUILDING AND ALSO I re,IPE MYRTLE HIIAC \ "'\ )/ \ I _~_. ALIGNIW WITH EXISTING SANC1UARY, NO L \ I PHYSICAL SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR ADDIllONAL ------, NEW I BUFFER PLANllNGS. 1 \ \ '/ APPROXIMATE ELEClRlC E I I I 1 - Shumard Oak LIMIT OF I I I .. ------Oecldou.Sh.deTr.... . NBW flOOR I £V 2'" "4G1110UAI; I I PHASE 2 ELEV. 461.0 / \A. ~ .... : : PROPERTY Of \ THE UNI'lERSiTY OF NORTH CAROLINA \, " I PIN 9788545304 ..... I TREE PROTEC) N II II TMBL 7.73,.1 lRACT 1139766 ...... _ J FENCE (TYPE ~ L______J USE: INS111UlIONAL -- (MOREHEAD PlANETARIUM)

- -- ..., D,..,...... ~.;;=:..>""""",;:::::.::r=~"" Proposed fohrfc covarlng Q\'8I" '-..", ... SELVIoGE chaJnlInk fendng I I'~~~~r~~~~ IlNUCI . 0: 0 0 > .... 0 c(0 w iGw Ow )l:Z c(z ",0 0: 0 c(:C '"":c =~ pi - I '~1\ ..... w ... ZII) 1:1", c('Ot « .... I CJ I I )1:'" !: M t'? c.>": W ..... _~_-L~: )00 '" '" 0 -I'" :z: '"'.U) c.> ",,,! U) ~:& 00 '" ...... Nor- .2 ---~--- .,'" 10m -I } EXIST, 4-2" CEDAR 1-"-1-'1 o CONSTRUCTION ACCESS THROUGH THIS I I I /cc AREA WILL BE CONFIGURED AND LIMITED TREE PROTECTION FENCE j / TO PROVIDE MINIMAL IMPACT TO I I I TYP~ B AR?UND TREES ~ ----i----f,~H~ I I EXISTING TREES. DETAIL TO BE PROVIDED , , L --j Bh-L---i //( AT TIME OF PHASE 2 ZCP PLANS 1/ REVIEW. ! I -l ;I I I I I TREE PROTECTION FENCE " (TYPE B) AT EDGE OF J TREE PROTECTION'\ I I "'--- STONE WALL ------!--UI FENCE (TYPE A) \ I

\ \ I I I B - PHASE 2 1\ I I \-- -- ACCESS, I ifJ. E-t I OFAND I I Il", I ifJ. Z 1-- '~l I < ~ __ 0 Z ~'1"-- ..... ~ I 1- I ~ ....:l --I I ~ I 0 /' - J U ~ 0 I r-- ----1 < I u <: I ~-- ./ r::-.r~7.J"-\, I ~ -----1 I z 'I ,.. ::q <: ~ CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL PARKING E-< I TYPE A - 2 SPACES AS NOTED BELOW :::c: I I I ~ ~z L TYPE B - OFF-SITE SPACE~U:) :J I E-1 0 I ~ I Z zj TYPE A CONSTRUCTION -0--1 I I___ PERSONNEL PARKING (2 SPACES) ~ . OP-4 I EX. CO\IEREO WAU I I --l I I \ ) I I I ...:I 127 CHAPEL I ~ ~ ~ TO REMAIN I 0... I rl t, ~ E-t ~ ,.. I ::q< if1 I < u I I --I EXISTING I z CHURCH I ,------, :::c: 0 I f------I ~ TO REMAIN '"u- I U u r ~ r .. .) I I I f------1 I LrL EXISTING \ \ ., I (J COURTYARD \ \ I THE UNI\lERSITY Of ) ~-- -~~ .' I I TO REMAIN I NORTH CAROliNA I, I PIN 9788545304 1 I L_____ LL ___ J !MBl 7.73.. 1 L - - I I I; 1tl-f=Vrr===" TRACT 6739768 [1 USE: INSllTU1l0NAl / CONSTRUCTION TRAILER I I NOTES '\ _ _ (PHASE 1) 1'" (SPENCER DORM) I I ~ \ --'" I I I 1. TREE PROTECTION FENCE SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON SHEET C7, APPROXIMATE I I \ \ ----II LIMIT OF I I 2. TYPE B TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL INCORPORATE I I SOLID FABRIC SCREENING MA TERJAl, AND BE USED TO NEW BUILDING I I I I PROVIDE VISUAL SCREENING, WORK AREA SECURITY AND \ \ ----I I PHASE 1 / I PRIVACY. AND DUST-CONTROL FOR THE PROJECT. J I \ \ ----; I r- I I I I 3. A MORE DETAILED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN WILL BE \ \ ,,"V I ~/ I- - _-.J I PREPARED FOR EACH PHASE AT ZCP STAGE. I L-----i TREE PROTECTION \ "/ , I (TYPE B) AT EDGE I I STONE WAU. -.--.:"'-____~" I / / APPROXIMATE I I LIMIT OF / ,./ I I --_\- NEW BUILDING--'OR~OO~N~D~~~OO:R~1b====J I I PHASE 2 ELEV. 461.0 / / I I I I PROPERTY OF \ THE UNI\lERSITY Of NORTH CAROUNA " JI' / / I I PIN 9788545304 "- I I ARST ~OOR '!MBL 7.73.. 1 TRACT #739768 ...... L______USE: INSllTU1l0NAl J illV. 471.0 I (MOREHEAD PLANETARIUM) /1 / PROPOSED TERRACE (PHASE 1) lOWER LE'IEl. WALK / THIS DRAWING AND THE i)€S/GN HEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF CIVIL CONSULTAm$, INC. THE INfORMATION ON THISORAWINQ IS Nor FOR USE ON ANY OTHER SITE OR PROJECT. THE REPRODUCTION OR OThER USE OFTHl." 1 \ i'''-''''''EtJE £~,"'~'421,qsf%';:PH[lY:;;:_. .., __ " ,~.Y:~t';i:~;""'f'0""P/""J:y·"",q~·Hk;'>~z,J;:J,"- 6,"""t.:;;:::;: :s"'~ ,f.,,,,;,,.z","0,.·A...6~'2'0"0'""h;":'""d,,~'"S"y?; DRAWlNG !NWHOlE OR IN PART, 'NITHOUT WRITTE:-I CONSENT OF ClVlL CONSUlTANTS, lNG, IS PRaHlBITED.

CQPYRIGHl2010ClVIL CONSULTANTS,INC.

--':??~== ------_11_1- ______~

/ '" <-.... SHEET NO. \. /f::;";;;"~'--"~~~~~ '. r~ ,''I ==---+---"-"';~ - -rr--('-c."'1------'-/ - -\ - - - A \ / V 'f l' 1"\ ------GRAPHIC SCALE "'". t- cO» .... III '; I 1.'>"- N Zo 0 • <, I u '" III~ Z .. I ...J l- III \ '"z :Il I' ~ ;: 11) .. - "'~ c Q Z >.'" .. '" 1:1", ...J 3:w "'''-\:I", 0 0 '" .,...... • '" u .....",

PRELIMINARY Do Not Use tor CODBtl'ucUOIl

rn. rn.

z o ~ a: o S3o w ~o ::> w a:

DATE~.,-___ ~ANUAR_Y 13, .?O1! HORIZONTAL. SCALE:-.- . !'ItA VERTICAL SCALE: NfA PROJECT MANAGER: TMW DRAWN BY: RAM PROJECT NO: 150'" I.)HAWING NAME: 15003.DWG

1HIS ORAWING AND THE DESIGN HEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OFeN!L CONSULTANTS, INC. THE INFORMATtON ON WlS DRAWING IS NOT!=OfI USE ON ANY OTHiOR StTE OR PRC>JECT. THE REPROOUCTION OR OTt 1m USE Of TrliS DRAWING IN WHOLE OR IN PART, \'wITHOUT WRiITEN CONSENT Of CIVIL CONSULTANTS, INC .. ISI-'HOHII:lIl!::O.

SHEET NO. REAR, ELEVATION C9

P:\15003\dwg\15003.dwg, Building Elevations C9, 3/31/2011 4:47:31 PM .,...... "' '" "z .... 0 ,.: .... V) .... W N 0 "II. "Z :s '"0: :z: ,~ .:'" '". :I 0 ~X 0 ·C ~ ...... W O~ I- ..... ::l "," V) I-C! . W -:10.. ,-i > 111'1; ------" --- ... "0 > .. ", .. w ------.------~W Ow 0:% C z .:0 "0I-:z: LL"':I: w ... ZUl c'" ",-r "' .. 0 0:'" tMf1 u": =",0w .... >" ...... % '" u - :l! .. 'I; to ~ :a: - ..: 0 .. :; ...... N",,".!!o '" . IU .... j Z ~ '" '" .. ~ ~

. 0' .. " 0' PRELIMINARY Do Not Use for Conatru.cUon PROPOSED ADDITION - WEST ELEVATION SCALP: 116"= fO" PROPOSED ADDIlJON-SOUTH E'LEVATION . . .. scALP: lA6"~r ~(J' . w. w. ~ E-< ~ Z E-4 0 !";z;:1 Z ~ 0 H - 0 H Z -::r:1 -Q ....:l H ~ ~ 129 p.."'" -:::> ~ :=:

• 't!r

oz ;:: a. 1i' &5 w Cl

;;;. cr:w DArE: APRIL 14, 2011 HQAIlONTAl SCAlE: V!;RTICAl. SCALE; SOUTH PROJECT MANAGER: TMW f'UA'ilS 2- DRAWN BY: RAM PROJEcrNO; 15003 DRAWING NAME: 15003,OWG

PROPOSI:D ADDITION - EASTELEVA110N THIS DRAW!NG AND THE DESIGI,fHEREON ARE THE PROPERTY Of CMt COt'/sULTANTS. SCALE: 1!l6"= NY' INC. THE !NFORMA1IO»ON THIS DRAWlNQ IS NOT FOR USE ON ANYOTHER SITE OR ?AOJECT< THE REPRODUOTION OR OTHSR USE OrllUS fJRAWltm IN wt;OlEOR IN PART, W;THOUI WRlTTEN CONSENT Of CIVtLCONSULTANTS. NC~ IS PROHIBITED.

CHAPa OF THE CROSS HARTMAN-COX ARCI I1TECTS SHEET NO. PHASE 2- SOUTH APRJL 4, 2011 C10

P:\15003\dwg\15003.dwg, Building Envelope (10/ 4/18/2011 11:45:56 AM r eo ------rIII N (J Z - - - -/"--

==~======~====~======~E=A=S=T=FRANKLINSTREET [§] SIGNAL CONGRETE 8US STOP DRIVE:WAY ,..--'---.------.--"'-.·-----rs------~~~-~-=~-~-~~-:~~~~~~:~:o.~.------... ------.. --,-~--.+------::-:-=-.+ .. -~,-.-~--1 CURBCUT~ ------/- SIGN &: BENCH ~~------\- ~:.;;;:;.-~-";;;:~::...'-;-.,;-;;:-;::.-~--~-::;-::-~-;;:.-;;-;:..-;;:-:~~~~~~~:~~~~:~;~:;;.~~-:--- .. -----:---...... -... -.. '..... ~--- .. -.. ------.... i-.. -Im----.. ------=-~~.:='~----.:..... ~-- ::::.----r··-+ ~~" / /f --II ~ -.:::..-- - - = I -~-~,7IY4 EXISTING 036" OAK -+__ O~!,STIM.!l!:NG:J,.<.1 '--- _O"~iThi('_ L ______*---- ~ L ------m J L 1\ ~ L - - -- ~- If --.l_D-L ~: ------~EX. 8':1: WIDE BRICK WAU<- __...,..~ ___.... _,,",,,,""'''-, .. , ... __ ~ - - 11 I -11 ~- I r ---=.-;;-....=; • wo.---~- ----Ii""-'",,. .... ~.----:= ;====1~~~~ ~~~:7F~m~~~Q~~i:OWsTI ------.. ------1 ~------!I I I: ill• jl rr==~r 4l?!~6AR I 1'+ I ~ 60' RAY:' I .1/' 1-1-1-,1 o \ II 25' BIB II 1 \ I :I I ~" I: I I I 1 1/ I I: Gr- IN ll---_ _=_ ]~ \ 3. I ---j i I I (~-~ J 1 I I ALL lOCATIONS ON lHE SITE:. lHE SITE: GENERALLY DRAINS TOWARD FRANKUN \ I STREET, EXCEPT FOR A SMALL AREA AT lHE SOUlHEAST CORNER, WHICH DRAINS I ~ PAVEMENT EXIST. CARRIAGE DRIVE: / I (J 1... _ .r "\. ,-7...r .", ~ TOWARD lHE UNC ARBORETUM. NO SlREAMS, STREAM BUFFERS, OR DRAINAGE ~ ~ I CHAN"'ELS EXIST ON lHE SITE:. CD (PA\IE:D) -- - ,J ffi I '1 \ 4. ACCORDING TO lHE ORANGE COUNTY SOIL SURVE:Y, lHE SOIL ClASSIflCATION FOR lHE I l -J ~ I - ~ r STONE I CD ~ '-l PAVE:RS I I I SITE IS ·URBAN." - BOI.I.ARDS.-J L, 5. lHE SITE IS WEU.-VE:GETATED WllH MATURE OAK, WALNUT, AND RED GEDAR TREES, I L I 6 J I ~ ~ I IN ADDmON TO YOUNGER TREES AND UNDERSTORY \/E'GETAllON. lHE SITE ADJOINS UMliS OF I - -~~~~~~ ~ I I I I lHE UNC ARBORETUM AND THE: MOREHEAD PLANETARIUM. I 6. lHE PROPERTY GONTAiNS EXISTING STONE WALLS ALONG lHE STREET FRONTAGE. I I 1, I 7. lHE WESTERN AND SOUlHERN PROPERTY UMliS ARE BOUNOED BY EXISTING STONE ~":~W~1 ___ ~ I WALLS lHAT ARE lOCATED ENTIRELY ON lHE ADJOINING PROPERllE:S. 1- EXISTING I CHAPEL I " ,J I I I 130 TO REMAIN I KEYED NOTES - SITE PLAN I r "1 ? J l; ~ I I I r--;:;. -'l .., ~ OJ 18" STANDARD CONGRETE CURB AND GUTTER. I I -j L-£'STING COURTYARD -.,J I EXISTING I I I ------.---, ~ ,r- I CHURCH I ,------, STANDARD CONGRETE WALK, WlDlH VARIES, SEE: PLAN. I t- -l1181+- ? I I I m I \ \ ",. "U' TO REMAIN Lv- I I ~- \ I @] CONGRETE: STEPS I ~"aLY I ~----I I I LrL EXISTING ", I I ------? COURTYARD \ \ lHE UNIVE:RSITY OF I I [il HANDICAP RAMP TYPE A. yi SOUD I TO REMAIN I I I I J I- WASTE: NORlH CAROUNA I I STORAGE LL ___ PIN 9788545304 I I I l _____ J 1MBl 7.73.. 1 rL __ ~ ~ L __ f51 2' ~DE COBBLESTONE BAND INSTAUED ADJAGENT TO AND FlUSH WllH -J i---~ TRACT {f739768 t.::J EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT, WllH NEW STONE WALL TO MATCH EXISTING. USE: INSllTUTlONAll '------l I ------(SPENCER DORM) Ii I I I I I [II NEW BITUMINOUS PAVING (SEE: NOTE 15)· I /,,- 111 I -cc:::::-==-----~-~--~~~------I I I 12] NOT USED. ~ \ -- -/ I I APPROXIMATE I LIMIT OF ~~~===~~~~~~~~~~-~~= \ \ / I f81 SAW CUT EXISTING PAVEMENT AND MATCH NEW PAVEMENT TO EXISTING NEW BUILDING I SITE NOTES: I.!:J WllH SMOOlH TRANSITION. ------,- \ \ ~--J II PHASE 1 / I 1. PHASE 1 WORK IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN VoIlHlN 3 YEARS OF lHE [[) PAINTED PARKING SPACE: STRIPING USING 4" WIDE WHITE STRIPES. I DATE: OF SUP APPROVAL. ------~~--.-.-----~------UMliS OF I \ \ c--; Iii CONSTRUCTION / 2. PHASE 2 WORK IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN WllHlN 15 'l'EARS OF II2I ~~~~~~ HANDICAPPED SYMBOL AND HANDICAPPED ACGESS lHE DATE OF SUP APPROVAL CEXCEPT FOR --~ \ \ ,,"v I~I PHASE 2 I! I 3. lHE PERIOD OF VAUDITY FOR IMPLEMENTING VE:STED RIGHTS !ill HANDICAPPED PARKING SIGNS ON POST. CONSTRUCTION I ACCESS, UNDER lHE PROJEcl'S SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHALL BE 15 SEE: YEARS, UNI.E:SS EXTENDED FURlHER BY lHE TOYoN OF CHAPEL \ \ "" / 1:1 SHEET CS). I I I @ BRICK WALK AND STEPS TO MATCH EXISTING BRICK WAU III ~------, ..-,-- LIMIT OF III I 4. lHE APPUCANT WILL WORK VoIlH TOYoN PUBUC WORKS STAFf TO @ PAINTED GROSSWALK, USING 6" WIDE WHITE: SlRIPES. NEW BunnING--~~~~~OOR~:n~===4 I ASSESS lHE CONDI1ION OF lHE EXISTING BRICK SlDEWAU< ELEV. 461.0 ALONG FRANKUN STREET AT APPROPRIATE: lIMES (ZCP STAGE, PHASE 2 I I I I NEAR THE: END OF PHASE 1 CONSlRUCTION, ETC.): AND WILL 1141 CONGRETE CURB CURB CUT AND POROUS PAVE:R ORIVE:WAY. CONDITIONS ~rr~-\\ ~ I WORK IN CONJUNCTION WllH TOWN RESOURCES TO PROVIDE: SHOYoN AT lHlS DRlVE:WAY REPRESENT WORK IN PROGRESS (BUT NOT -- : YET COt.IPL£TE:) UNDER SEPARATE: PERMIT APPROVALS. I I I SlDE:WAU< REPAIRS AS NEEDED. lHE UNIVE:RSITY OF NORTH CAROUNA "- I I fi51 NEW ARE H'IIlRANT. MAY BE lOCATED ELSEWHERE SUBJECT TO PIN 9788545304 '- J 1 flRST ~OOR t.:.::J APPROVAL BY APPUCABlE: AUlHORIllES. 1MBl 7.73•. 1 TRACT {f739768 ~ ARST FLOOR /1 L ______5. lHE PAVEMENT SlRUCTURE FOR lHE MAIN DRlVE:WAY VoILL BE USE: INSTITUTIONAL - 471.0 ELEV. 471.0 DESIGNED TO ACCOt.IMODA TE: lOADING FROM WASTE: COIJ.ECTION ~ EXISTING ARE HYDRANT. (MOREHEAD PLANETARIUM) I / / VEHIClES. .. ------I----~"- / 6. lHE SOUD WASTE AND RECYCUNG COIJ.ECTION AND STORAGE !ill 'NO PARKING' PAVEMENT MARKINGS. I PROPOSED TERRAGE (PHASE 1) ELEV. 471..0F==rrrrrrr AREAS WILL BE AOEQUA TEl. Y ILLUt.IINATED USING :-:::-c:-c=:~-:-=~-c-= .. --~------ PROPOSED lOWER LE:VEI. WAU< BUILDING-MOUNTED UGHllNG. DETAILS OF lHlS UGHTING WILL I ~ BICYCLE PARKING AREA (12 SPACES). THIS OfIAWlNG AND lHE ~SlGIi HEREON BE PROlllDED VoIlH BUILDING DESIGN AT BUILDING PLANS RE:1IIEW ARE THE PROPERTY Of CIVIL COOSUl TANTS, I r------_~ l STAGE. INC. THEINFORMAHONON Il-DSDRAWINGIS - ,------NOT FOR USE em AN( OTHER SITE OR PROJECT. I I \ fi9l AREA USED FOR STAGING SOUD WASTE: AND RECYCLED MATERIALS Thl::: ACPHQOUCTION OR OTHER use OF THIS I I I ' t.:.::I CARiS FOR PICK-UP. ORAWlOO lNWHOlEOR tNPART, WITHOUT - -, ::::-=:- WRITTEN C(JII$ENT 0;:: CIVIL CONSUL fAN"f S, INC., ~~ 1201 SOUD WAS,TE AND RECYCLED MATERIALS STORAGE SHED, DESIGNED TO IS PROHIBITED. ACCOMMODATE 8-10 CARiS AND CARDBOARD STORAGE SHELVING. I I : \ ~~_ EXISTING PARKING SUMMARY COPYRIGHT 201() CML CONSULTANTS, INC_ BRICK ..,..,,- ,--- -=--=-c-=c-=~:c-=c=_:~_=_, ---,-- 1211 CGL£ARATESANANCED OOORTRWAANYSspWlORLLTBOFE '1f.'S~QUCOLLEATE:C~~~ AND ~DlH FOR r II \ ---' ------_1_1- ______. AND ,,~ ,~ ..un CARiS. lHE I MOREHEAD PLANETARIUM - - EXISTING PARKING: 31 STD. SPACES - EXISTING BRICK WAU< TRANSPORT ROUTE SHALL NOT HAVE: ANY STEPs, CURBS. OR STEEP 4 COMPACT SPACES INCUNES. SHEET NO. 5 BICYCLE SPACES Ii:I I I ~~------PROPOSED PARKING: 14 STD. SPACES GRAPHIC SCALE I I I \ PROPERTY OF 20 0 10 20 40 lHe: UNIVE:RSlTY OF NORlH CAROUNA 2 HC SPACES I PIN 9788545304 12 BICYCLE SPACES ! I I 1MBl 7.73•• 1 TRACT #739768 -.J ~I' C4 L, L,~~ ( IH J'lIB'I' ) ____ I L_ L-,- , i USE: INSTITUTIONAL (UNC ARBORJE:lUM) 1 laoll = 20 it. Consultants SWANSON 00, "III andASSOCIATES PA ...'" I N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE -~ ======.======~ =~ ~ ~ ~------r--T------r--r 1-~_o~_:_L_E_R_Y_A_R_D_S_C_H-IEI-Dp_~o--=--;_:_~_B_ufli_e_rw_id_th--J U 100 E. Carr street Carrboro, NC 27510 c::: z Ph. (919) 92HOOO Fax (919) 929-1500 " ~ ..... III TREE STANDS: lnI_andocapeerchlleclure.eom cO! I- III I 'e!" N 0:: ~ ~,...... _~~ j~" l~ __~__ __~~_~ __ ~_ _~_L __ I-:a-o:-e-:-:-(:-:-:-~-:-ti~-:-~-:-i-:-ry-)---II---:-:-::-~-:-:----j 0 ______T An evaluation of the existing tree canopy was mode and plan shows the shaded I u ills :II: ... area of existing trees with a canopy of 5,000 s. f. that are contiguous as iii defined by 5.7.5 in the Tree Protection Ordinance. However, this site is an urban -z lI: ______------xw--1 ---.~-__ Southern (Coker Arboretum) 0 ft =.J~ ::Ii ±__ ---_------.0: .0: site and does not contain 'woods', There are single trees that have been 00 1.1"::: ~ 2; I C-:FFER ,_ N:1H ~D; (FRANKUN S1R:~--=--xss--=---...."..:=--EAs~-----.:::....xss--=---xss-=----xss---- X55--- I-'w-e-st-e-m-(-M-O-re-h-e-a-d-p-Ia-n-e-ta-ri-u-m-)+---o-ft-to-5-ft-----1 identified with 0 total canopy of approx. 11,336 s.t. The canopy for the :> III -- _-=-----=-xss----=--xss ::I 0 hardwood trees shown hatched represent the 'continguous' conopy, however the + ~ 1:1)( 0 c:: ",0 trunks are separated by existing pavement. wall edges and playground, Other <.l .cc .. (MODIACAllON REQUESlED) iii ploces where trees are over 24" col. inciude evergreen trees (I.e. Magnolias 111-III .:...... Proposed buffer width varies from 0 ft. to 20 ft. o > .. .. t ond/or Cedars) and also ore not ·continguous'. z N" :::l 1- U Zl!- w" III -BUFFER' REQUlllEMENTiEXISllNG 'lEGETA 110N IS -MIX mD~~16~ ! __-+_-----~.~~~~ • -0:: Areo of Significant tree canopy "~Q "01 >" -.. -"-,, /' r--=-~====:===~-~::;-:-==:::;;~:=w=~=-~===!_====:'==_~.= (48" Oak, 24" Elm, 36" Oak, 24 and 36"Ash) .0:01 "iii --~~~II-.:;;",;;;;;; >~ I iii ------~---- i -- I ~:::\ ~-' "W'"~ Total Area = 11. 465 s.f. .. lI:Z 0:: 1:0 0 I I" I --+-'0+-- Area of significant trees to be cleared - 10,690 s.f. .o::a: 1-2; I I II I U __ -465- ____ .JI 1L __ _ (approx. 100% of the identified trees) .... w'" 1 C:J I j • '''~,;;j~Ofl;tr\ - -I - "_ ... ---= .~ • EJ(JSTlNG ~z~~: =...... 0 / 10" TREE PROTECTION NOTES: O::NO / 24-" ELM U" iii ... • )00 .." ==~_------L= ~ ~_----:I~-~-i- ~.-~~~.-----.~---~;-r--~·~--.""----~;~.... '.. ~'.-·---~t-~---- : ... U I 1. A preconstruction conference must be held with the Town's Urban Forester • -'01co'!: \II'!:~ .. 01 ,:". . )1 I before any site work begins...... N .... ,2 I ... I'> 01 ..I 2. A Landscape Protection Supervisor who is registered with the Town of Chapel I Hill must be present on site ot 011 times when the following activities ore taking T,,-I-' I place: cleoring, grUbbing, excovation, grading, trenching, moving of soil, installation TYPE B lREE PROTECliON - I I I I I FEN \ Medium height evergreen shrubs /' PROPOSED IN THIS PORll0N I / NO NEED FOR ADDIllONAL 1 5. Any limbing of trees to remoin shall be performed by a certified arborist. I yo,Ad. Holly IN THIS AREA. // /// ~ \ '--\;~~~~~~~~~E~X~.~'5~"~~i~1i-~ - Cedar Trees .;; F ,----J 1 000000 ./ 1 ---- /-t- -- , I I I 000000 I I 000000 \ 4 ft, hgt. semi-opaque I I ..... I 1 /\ EXISTING 469 -- 000000 ------\ \ decorative fence for, .36" ASH EXISllNG 1 I playground enclosure. BUILDING / BICYCLE I ==DDDDDD~ :-r PARKING 1 (TO BE EXISTING BUILDING BUFFER - SOU I EAST SIDE 1 C 0 \ \ EX. 24" AS~I-;L REMOVED) _J- r466-~~-- / (M IFICA TION REquESlED) Proposed I @ Type A ORANGE TREE PROTECTION FENCE \ \ lREE PROTE~CE ' / Bu Width to bfIJ 0 ft. I C-7 NlS (TYPE B) ALON~ STONE WALL -.,""~:-= ~------~~ ~-'\I / \ AS NEW BUILDING IS IN SAME GENERAL I tJNS: POST eN' ," IAESH \ EXIST. I ,. F"~t>TPRII,T AS EXISTING BUILDING AND ALSO I re,IPE MYRTLE HIIAC \ "'\ )/ \ I _~_. ALIGNIW WITH EXISTING SANC1UARY, NO L \ I PHYSICAL SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR ADDIllONAL ------, NEW I BUFFER PLANllNGS. 1 \ \ '/ APPROXIMATE ELEClRlC E I I I 1 - Shumard Oak LIMIT OF I I I .. ------Oecldou.Sh.deTr.... . NBW flOOR I £V 2'" "4G1110UAI; I I PHASE 2 ELEV. 461.0 / \A. ~ .... : : PROPERTY Of \ THE UNI'lERSiTY OF NORTH CAROLINA \, " I PIN 9788545304 ..... I TREE PROTEC) N II II TMBL 7.73,.1 lRACT 1139766 ...... _ J FENCE (TYPE ~ L______J USE: INS111UlIONAL -- (MOREHEAD PlANETARIUM)

- -- ..., D,..,...... ~.;;=:..>""""",;:::::.::r=~"" Proposed fohrfc covarlng Q\'8I" '-..", ... SELVIoGE chaJnlInk fendng I I'~~~~r~~~~ IlNUCI

Existing Conditions The two trees under evaluation are Ash trees located along the western edge of the property, toward the rear of the property. It is believed these trees are American Ash (Fraxinus americana) and their condition is as follows:

These two trees are approximately 4 feet apart. The root systems of the trees are most certainly intermixed and growing under the existing asphalt paving, under the existing stone wall, and into the easternmost part of the adjoining property (the Morehead Planetarium). The northernmost tree, a 36” Ash, has evidence of ash borer. This tree has not leafed out at the same rate as the smaller 24” Ash and has evidence of some die-back in the upper structure. Two major trunks and branches have been previously cabled by a professional arborist, indicating safety concerns on the part of the church with possible risk of fallen branches. The presence of Mistletoe indicates the tree may be under stress.

According to Michael Dirr in his “Manual of Woody Landscape Plants” (rev. 2009), the Ash Trees are susceptible to many problems and the following is applicable to White Ash: leaf rust, leaf spots, cankers, dieback (probably mycoplasms), ash borer (which can be very destructive), emerald ash borer, and other insect diseases.

Subject trees Fraxinus americana

Existing church addition to be removed

Site Plan of Existing Conditions showing subject trees not to scale 1 133 Chapel of the Cross Report on Existing Ash Trees

Existing Trees View 1 Existing Trees View 2 showing apparent die-back showing proximity to existing stone wall and property line

Existing Tree showing existing cabling Existing Mistletoe Branching structure

2 134 Chapel of the Cross Report on Existing Ash Trees Proposed Impact The proposed new addition and new storage building and playground will signifi cantly encroach into the existing tree drip line. Due to the expected construction staging and actual construction of the addition, the root systems of these trees will be signifi cantly impacted. In addition, the planned construction work associated with the addition and expansion for the Morehead Planetarium will further impact the existing root system. The Grading Plans associated with this project indicated cutting approx. 12” of existing grade with additional excavation required for the storage base under the planned pervious paving parking area. This may result in excavation of approx. 2 ft., which will further signifi - cantly impact the two trees on all sides.

In view of the proposed construction of the addition and associated site work for the Chapel of the Cross, as well as the site work and grading associated with the adjacent site, the trees will be signiﬁ cantly impacted. The overall condition of the existing trees (current cabling and evidence of hemi-parasitic plants) indicates that the trees are already under stress and since this species is susceptible to various diseases and borers, it is our opinion that attempt- ing to save the trees poses a risk in the future. This is especially important since the area around the trees will be the proposed children’s playground.

Site Plan showing Addition and Impact to subject trees not to scale 3 Area Map Chapel of the Cross 304 East Franklin St

135

Coker Arboretum 01-4 01-4

iJNC C Campus Chapel of the Cross 304 E. Franklin 51.

Chapel of the Cross 6. N D 304 E. Franklin St. 200 o 200 Feel Buildings ----- .--~ _ 1 · Chapel Hill Zoning • •11 _2•0 • • GIS Map prepared by E. Fra nklin - E. Rosemary T own of Chapel Hill D Historic District Boundary Planning Department February, 2011 136 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 11/14/2011 AGENDA #4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Title of Agenda Item: Public Forum: Triangle Regional Transit Program Local Preferred Alternative.

Council Goal: Focus on Economic Development, Land Use, and Transportation for a Balanced and Sustainable Future

Background: Triangle Transit has completed an analysis of light rail alignments as part of the development of the Triangle Regional Transit Program. Triangle Transit has released information on the feasibility of a series of corridor alignments and station area alternatives as part of the development of a Local Preferred Alternative (LPA). http://www.ourtransitfuture.com/index.php/get-involved/reports/durham-orange-alternatives-analysis- documents-july-2011/

The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee (DCHC TAC) has released the analysis of the Local Preferred Alternative (LPA) for public review. Staff from the Town and Triangle Transit will offer Council members the opportunity to review and discuss the LPA between 10:30 and 3:00pm on Monday, November 14, 2011.

The Council will have the opportunity to provide the DCHC TAC with comments and recommendations on January 9, 2012. The DCHC TAC is expected to approve a final LPA on February 8, 2012.

Fiscal Note: The final Local Preferred Alternative for the light rail alignment will have a financial impact on the Orange County Transit Plan and the availability of funds for expanded bus service in Orange County.

Recommendations: That the Council receive information and public comment on the Triangle Regional Transit Program Local Preferred Alternative (LPA). We will return to the Council with responses to the comments received at the Public Forum and recommendations for the Council's consideration on January 9, 2012.

ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Staff Memorandum Citizen Comments on LPA Chapel Hill to Durham Corridor Map Hamilton Road Stations A and B NC 54 LRT Corridor Alignment Options

137

MEMORANDUM

TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

FROM: David Bonk, Long Range and Transportation Manager Brian Litchfield, Assistant Transit Director Kumar Neppalli, Engineering Services Manager

SUBJECT: Public Forum: Triangle Regional Transit Program Local Preferred Alternative

DATE: November 14, 2011

PURPOSE

Tonight’s Public Forum is intended to receive information and public comment on the Triangle Regional Transit Program Local Preferred Alternative.

BACKGROUND

Triangle Transit, in coordination with the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organizations, have completed an analysis of light rail alignments as part of the development of the Triangle Regional Transit Program Local Preferred Alternative (LPA). The LPA evaluates alignment options, transit technology and stations locations for a proposed fixed guideway corridor between the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and Alston Avenue in Durham. A map of the corridor is attached. Triangle Transit has released a final assessment of the feasibility of corridor alignment and station area alternatives. The Triangle Regional Transit Program reports are available at http://ourtransitfuture.com . The Triangle Regional Transit Program includes the following documents:

• Volume 1: Executive Summary and Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report Durham-Orange Vol 1 Detailed Definition of Alternatives Durham-Orange Vol 1 Det Def of Alts Appendices A|Station Evaluation & • Volume 2: Detailed Definition of Alternatives-Conceptual Plan and Profile Drawings Durham-Orange Vol 2 Plans and Profiles - Index, Key Index & Typ Sect. ( 21 MB| PDF) Durham-Orange Vol 2 Plans and Profiles - Segments A & B, UNC to Friday Center (6.48 MB | PDF) Durham-Orange Vol 2 Plans and Profiles - Segments C & D Friday Center to Cornwallis 22.19 MB | PDF) Durham-Orange Vol 2 Plans and Profiles - Rail O & M Facility and Bus Rapid Transit (35 MB | PDF) • Volume 3: Capital Cost Estimates, Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimates, Travel Time and Distance Calculations, Ridership Summaries and Station to Station Ridership Forecasts. Durham-Orange Vol 3 Cap Cost Est, O&M Est, Travel Times & Ridership (9 MB | PDF) 138

• Volume 4: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Assessment Report Durham-Orange Vol 4 TOD Assessments (31.8 MB | PDF) • Volume 5: Traffic Analysis Technical Report Durham-Orange Vol 5 Traffic Analysis (5 MB | PDF

In August, 2011 Triangle Transit released an Addendum to the Volume 1, Detailed Definition of Alternatives Analysis Report. The Council was provided a compact disc with all complete versions of the five volume report and associated appendices and a paper copy of the Addendum in September, 2011.

In April, 2011 Triangle Transit released an analysis of the proposed light rail alignment and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee (DCHC TAC) released the Regional Transit Program evaluation for public comment. The Town Council held a Public Forum on May 16, 2011, http://chapelhillpublic.novusagenda.com/Bluesheet.aspx?itemid=1317&meetingid=113 and considered comments from the public, Town advisory boards and staff on June 27, 2011. http://chapelhillpublic.novusagenda.com/Bluesheet.aspx?itemid=1407&meetingid=117

At that time it was expected that the DCHC TAC would approve a final Local Preferred Alternative (LPA) in August, 2011. On June 13, 2011 the Council requested that the DCHC TAC delay final action on the LPA until Triangle Transit released the more complete evaluation of the LPA, expected in July, 2011.

Subsequent to the Council request for a delay in the approving the LPA and the release of a revised Regional Transit Program Local Preferred Alternative analysis by Triangle Transit in July, 2011 the DCHC TAC revised its proposed schedule for review and approval of the LPA. The DCHC TAC has scheduled a public hearing in January, 2012 and is expected to approve the LPA in February, 2012.

DISCUSSION

We have provided the documents related to the Triangle Transit Program Local Preferred Alternative (LPA) for your information. Also attached is a summary document which includes comments received from the public. Town staff and staff from Triangle Transit will be available at tonight’s forum to answer questions. We have identified below several key issues related to the LPA in Chapel Hill.

KEY ISSUES

Selection of Transit Technology.

As required by federal regulations the alternatives analysis evaluated the potential implementation of different transit technologies including light rail (LRT) and bus rapid transit (BRT). The BRT alternative was analyzed under two different operating assumptions, high and low. A description of the technology alternatives is included in the Volume 1 Executive 139

Summary. Volume 1, Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report provides a detailed description of each technology evaluated.

Table ES-1, Executive Summary, provides an overview of the results of the analysis. The comparison of the LRT and BRT technologies evaluated several goals, including ridership, cost, environmental impacts and support for local/regional economic development. Although the technologies are compatible in some aspects and the BRT evaluation resulted in lower capital costs and somewhat higher ridership the analysis concluded that longer term operating costs for LRT would be lower and the impact on economic development higher for LRT. The Triangle Transit LPA recommendation is to carry forward the LRT technology.

Location of the light rail alignment and proposed western terminus station on the University of North Carolina campus .

The Triangle Transit analysis evaluated four possible station locations at the proposed western terminus of the corridor on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill main campus. Alternatives A1(a) and A1(c), located near the intersection of Manning Drive and Hibbard Drive were eliminated from further consideration. Neither alternative would have allowed the possible extension of the light rail corridor to the west as a future phase of the corridor. Alternative A2 was also eliminated due to the inability to extend the corridor to the west as part of a future phase. The proposed station location A3(d) does allow for future extension and could be integrated with future University development near the University Ambulatory Care Center.

The analysis notes that because of the increased walk distance of the A3 station from the UNC Hospital, it is projected to generate 800 fewer daily riders. A summary of the opportunities and constraints between the A1 and A3 stations is provided in Table 3-22, page 3-41 in Volume 1: Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report. The Triangle Transit LPA recommendation is to accept A3 as the station on the University campus. The Town and University agree that station A3(d) provides the best opportunity to both serve the University main campus and allow for future extension to the north and west.

Location of proposed station at the Hamilton Road area .

Option A, which proposes the Hamilton Road Station in a wooded area southwest of Hamilton Road, has been used by Triangle Transit for detailed design and cost estimates. Town staff has suggested that the Hamilton Road Station should be more adjacent to the existing East 54 Development and University Health Care Imaging facility between Hamilton Road and Finley Golf Course Road. Triangle Transit has identified Option B, which would locate the station closer to East 54 and the Health Care Imaging facility. Attached is a map showing the locations of stations options A and B at Hamilton Road. The map is also included in the Volume 1, Appendix A, Section 4.3.

We believe that while Option B is preferable, during the next phase of the process, which will include a more detail environmental analysis, the location of the Hamilton Road Station should be adjusted to make it more accessible to existing development. The Detailed Definition of 140

Alternatives Technical Report, released in July, 2011, does not directly address this issue but reflects the previous identification of two possible station locations, A and B, for further evaluation in the anticipated environmental analysis.

Alternative light rail alignment along NC54 from the Friday Center to George King Road and location of a new station near the Hillmont development.

The Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report analyzed two sets of alignments from the proposed Friday Center station to the Leigh Village Station in Durham. Figure ES-1, page ES-6, of Volume 1: Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report show the two alignments. A more detailed map of the alternative alignments is attached.

Option C1 reflects the alignment adopted in the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Long Range Transit Plan, with the corridor crossing NC54 from the Friday Center in Meadowmont. The C1corridor would utilize a 50’ right of way designated in the Meadowmont Master Plan, with a proposed station at the Meadowmont Village Center. The corridor would continue east, crossing a portion of the US Corps of Engineers property, to the proposed Leigh Village station in Durham.

Option C2 proposes to continue the light rail alignment from the Friday Center along NC54, with a station at the Hillmont (aka Woodmont) area and then along George King Road to the Leigh Village station in Durham.

Table 3-23, page 3-42 of Volume 1: Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report, provides a summary of the Alignment Option Opportunities and Constraints for the C1 and C2 alignments. Triangle Transit recommends carrying both the C1 and C2 alignments into the next phase of preliminary engineering and environmental assessment.

NEXT STEPS

We will return to the Council with responses to the comments received at the Public Forum and recommendations for the Council’s consideration on January 9, 2012. At that time the Council can provide the DCHC TAC with comments and recommendations. The DCHC TAC is expected to adopt a final LPA on February 8, 2012. Mayor Kleinschmidt is the Town’s representative to the DCHC TAC. Council member Harrison is the alternate member. The DCHC TAC is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the LPA on January 11, 2012.

141

Citizen Email

From: Lauren Scott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 10:09 AM To: Town Council Subject: Chapel Hill LRT

Dear Chapel Hill Town Council:

I wanted to voice my concern about the C1 option for the Chapel Hill-Durham Light Rail Transit. I have been a Chapel Hill resident for 3 years and have read articles concerning both the C1 and C2 Light Rail transit routes. I recently attended an open forum further explaining both options which cemented my vote for the C2 route. It seems like a simple solution: less expensive, more rider ship, and less environmental damage. Although I sympathize with the residents in Downing Creek and surrounding areas that are resisting the C2 option, I hope that they will see the benefits and realize it is the best solution for our community as a whole. My family LOVES this beautiful town of Chapel Hill and only want the best for our community.

Thank you for reading this email and considering my opinion.

Best,

Lauren Scott

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:13 AM To: Town Council Subject: LRT Route

We have been studying some material on the proposed route of the LRT line. The cost and other factors seem to make C2 the obvious better choice.

We feel that this is the preference of most of the Meadowmont people, and certainly of the residents of The Cedars of Chapel Hill retirement community.

We urge that the C2 route be chosen.

Sincerely, Willard and Caroline Rupert ______

142

From: Don [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 11:14 AM To: Town Council Subject: PROPOSED ROUTES FOR LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM

CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

My review of the two routes proposed for a future light rail system convinces me, as it must you, that the Route designated as C-2 is the necessary choice because:

It will impact fewer homes in the wonderful Meadowmont Community. C-1 would be very disruptive.

The impact on the wetlands is less intrusive than C-1.

The estimated cost for C-2 is less. It does appear advantageous to use the existing Route 54 right-of-way for the convenience of potential users.

Thank you for your consideration of my viewpoint.

Donald G. Stark 325 Cedar Club Circle Chapel Hill, NC 27517 919 259-7535

From: John Neter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 3:50 PM To: Town Council Subject: Light Rail alternatives Preference for C2

Ladies and Gentlemen: I urge you to support Alternative Route C2 for the Light Rail Route. Alternative Route C1 will have a significant negative impact on The Cedars of Chapel Hill Retirement Community. This route passes directly in front of our DuBose Health Center where 48 ill members are staying. Also Route C1 cuts off the Health Center from the homes of the Retirement Community. Alternative Route C2 does not intrude into the Meadowmont Community. In addition, Route C2 is more environmentally friendly, as it does not cross the adjacent wet lands. Furthermore, it is my understanding that Route C2 is estimated to cost less than Route C1 and is likely to have a higher ridership. For all of these reasons, please support Route C2. Thank you for your consideration. John Neter

John and Dorothy Neter 724 Cedar Club Circle Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Email: [email protected] 143

From: Eleanor Lamb [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 9:39 PM To: Town Council Subject: Light Rail System

Dear Mayor and Council Members:

As residents of the Cedars of Chapel Hill in Meadowmont, we have become increasingly aware of the plans for the Light Rail System between UNC and Duke Hospitals.

In a meeting we attended recently it was, for the first time, carefully outlined and explained to us, along with C2, the alternative option that has been put forth.

After careful consideration and thought given to both plans, we have concluded that C2 seems to be a much better alternative, not only for the Cedars, but 1. for those who would be asked to fund it, because it would be less expensive than C1. 2. for those who would be impacted by noise, vibration, delays on main streets to let trains pass, unsightly tracks below and above, throughout the quiet, residential neighborhood of Meadowmont. 3. for those who have children who could be endangered if they lived or played near a speeding train. 4. for those who have preserved and use the beautiful and unique natural wetlands area near the Rizzo Center that would be disrupted in many ways by trains and tracks passing through.

Please give serious consideration to the C2 alternative route. The Light Rail System is going to have a huge, permanent impact on this unique area, and we urge you to think carefully and long about the decisions to be made.

Thank you very much for the attention and thought you will be giving to this matter of great importance to many people, and to North Carolina.

Sincerely, Eleanor and Hal Lamb 259-7605

144

From: Jane McPherson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 6:05 PM To: Town Council Subject: Light Rail Routes

To: Chapel Hill Town Council

From: Harry T. McPherson, M. D. Jane H. McPherson 244 Cedar Club Circle Chapel Hill NC 27517 919.259.7277

We support Light Rail C2. We strongly oppose C1.

C2 is most cost effective due to probably greater usage. It is also environmentally responsible; we applaud our Town Council's efforts along those lines, and ask you to continue to preserve our environment and especially our wetlands.

We expect you to take the high road and support C2.

Thanks very much!

Muriel Roll 421 Cedar Club Circle Chapel Hill, NC 27517

Saturday, November 05, 2011

Dear Mayor Kleinschmidt and Town Council

Information being circulated about the 2011 Sales and Use Tax Referendums brought attention to a possible light commuter rail to run between downtown Durham and UNC Hospital. As a senior resident of The Cesars of Chapel Hill and also a member of the Meadowmont Community Association, I strongly support the C2 alternative for the following reasons:

1. C2 avoids a major impact on the environment by not having the route pass through the wetlands. 2. C2 is a less expensive alternative with the promise of yielding greater use by commuters. 3. C2 avoids disruption to the quality of life at the Cedars, the DuBose Health Center and Meadowmont.

Your careful consideration of this information is appreciated.

Sincerely, Muriel Roll

145

From: carma burton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 5:23 PM To: Town Council Subject: Fwd: light rail

------Forwarded message ------From: carma burton < [email protected] > Date: Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:21 PM Subject: light rail To: [email protected]

We have over 400 elderly residents living here at The Cedars. Most of us have fairly regular appointments at the DuBose Center for check-ups, physical therapy, lab work and other needs. Many of us have been there for varying lengths of time after a hospitalization for hip replacements etc. One of the joys of life here is that we don't have to drive there. It is a pleasant healthy walk for those going for routine care. For those who have loved ones there,,some permanently, they walk over every day.. We have 48 beds there. Many patients convalescing like to be wheeled or walk as able out to the porches to enjoy the fresh air and quiet beauty of our neighborhood.. This light rail plan C1 shows a callous disregard for this concentration of vulnerable citizens., and for the many cars and children headed to Rashkis Elementary School... Noone disputes the wisdom of trying to implement light rail to handle ever-increasing traffic.However, I beg you to reconsider any bias you may have in favor of C1. It will be destructive to the entire village...to our property and to our lives. Sincerely, Carma Burton

From: L Nolta [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 11:37 AM To: Town Council Subject: Light Rail System

Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt and Town Council Chapel Hill Town hall 405 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Chapel Hill, NC 27514

November 7, 2011

Dear Sirs:

I am a current resident of the Meadowmont community and a member of the Cedars of Chapel Hill. I am 100% behind a light rail system but I AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE C1 ROUTE. It is my understanding that C1Route would cut through the Cedars of Chapel Hill which would separate the 48-bed DuBose Health Center from the rest of the facility.

In addition, C1 would have a negative effect on the wetlands, be more expensive than the C2 proposal and more than likely have less ridership potential. THE C2 PROPOSAL, IN MY OPINION, IS A NO-BRAINER. 146

The C2 proposal vastly eliminates or greatly reduces my concerns.

Sincerely,

William E. Nolta 919 259 7432 432 Cedar Club Circle Chapel Hill, NC 27517

From: Joan Bingham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 12:31 PM To: Town Council Subject: Light Rail

We moved to Durham County in 2003. We live at The Cedars of Chapel Hill. One of the reasons we chose to retire here was the thought that had gone into the planning of the area and community. We think Light rail is needed, but at what price. The C1 route would be a poor choice for little gain. I seems to me that the C2 is a much better option. Please consider it carefully.

Joan Bingham 643 Cedar Club Circle Chapel Hill, NC 27517 (919)968-3213

147 148 149

Leigh Alignment Review Village Durham/Orange Segment B1 Finley Golf Course . Supports access to both Friday Center Options B2 NC 54 . Dropped from further consideration C1 Meadowmont Lane . Serves Meadowmont . Requires structures over wetlands C2 George King Road * . Minimizes impacts to wetlands and federal property C3 . Requires structure over NC 54 C3 Farrington  C1 C3 . Dropped from further consideration *Preferred by Chapel Hill B2 C2 staff and UNC and UNC Hospitals B1 14 150 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 11/14/2011 AGENDA #5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Title of Agenda Item: Public Forum: Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 2014-2020 Transportation Improvement Program Regional Priority List

Council Goal: Focus on Economic Development, Land Use, and Transportation for a Balanced and Sustainable Future Policy Agenda: C- Define the Town's role in Regional Transportation

Background: The North Carolina Department of Transportation has initiated the process for developing the 2014-2020 Transportation Improvement Program. The Transportation Improvement Program guides the allocation of all State and federal transportation funds for a 7 year period. Projects not included in the Transportation Improvement Program are State and federal funding.

Fiscal Note: No fiscal impact has been determined at this time.

Recommendations: That the Council receive information and public comment on the 2014-2020 Transportation Improvement Program Regional Priority List at tonight's Public Forum. This item will return to the Council on November 21, 2011, at which time the Council may provide direction to Chapel Hill's MPO Transportation Advisory Committee or Technical Coordinating Committee members.

ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Staff Memorandum Ranking Methodology Table TIP Priority List Schedule Regional Prioritization Methodology Greenways Commission Recommendation Transportation Board Recommendation Planning Board Recommendation

151

MEMORANDUM

TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

FROM: David Bonk, Long Range and Transportation Planning Manager Brian Litchfield, Assistant Transit Director Kumar Neppalli, Engineering Services Manager

SUBJECT: Public Forum: Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 2014-2020 Transportation Improvement Program Regional Priority List

DATE: November 14, 2011

PURPOSE

Tonight’s Public Forum is intended to receive information and public comment on the Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 2014-2020 Transportation Improvement Program Regional Priority List which includes highway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects in Chapel Hill.

BACKGROUND

The North Carolina Department of Transportation has initiated the process for developing the 2014-2020 Transportation Improvement Program. The Transportation Improvement Program guides the allocation of all State and federal transportation funds for a 7 year period. Projects not included in the Transportation Improvement Program are ineligible for State and federal funding. PROCESS

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has revised the process they intend to use for soliciting and evaluating requests for funding through the Transportation Improvement Program. Attached is a description of the process and an informational PowerPoint presentation summarizing the NCDOT Prioritization 2.0 process. The revised MPO list of highway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects were ranked by the North Carolina Department of Transportation based on their quantitative criteria. A full description of their ranking methodology is attached.

The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO (DCHC MPO) staff then applied its own ranking methodology which was approved by the DCHC Transportation Advisory Committee in June 2011 (Attached). In order to simplify data collection and maintain some consistency with NCDOT on criteria that are common to both ranking methodologies, the DCHC MPO’s ranking methodology uses the state’s data for several criteria and the MPO’s own categories not in the State’s data that it has historically used in evaluating transportation improvement projects: Environmental Impacts, Community Impacts, and Environmental Justice. The attached table summarizes the criteria used by the DCHC MPO in ranking projects.

152

DISCUSSION

At this time, each MPO is being asked to apply a qualitative ranking using a 1,300 point system to reflect regional priority for highway projects. The MPO top 5 bicycle and MPO top 5 pedestrian projects will be submitted. Each MPO has 550 points to distribute to transit projects. Each project can have a maximum of 100 points and a minimum10 points.

Mayor Kleinschmidt is the Town’s representative to the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), which will adopt the final priority list. Council member Harrison is the alternate member on the TAC. David Bonk, Kumar Neppalli, and Brian Litchfield are the Town’s three representatives on the DCHC Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) which provides staff assistance to the TAC.

The DCHC TCC has provided the TAC a recommendation for assigning points to highway and transit projects. The DCHC TCC recommendation for Highway projects is that no DCHC project listed in the statewide tier receives points. The percentage of qualitative points in the statewide tier has minimal impact in the overall score. To efficiently use the total allotment, 600 of the 1,300 points will be assigned to the other tiers/goals. Of the remaining 700 points, 400 points would be allocated to projects listed in the FY2019 or 2020 Transportation Improvement Program. The remaining 300 points will be assigned to subregional projects by MPO score.

For Transit projects, the 550 points allotted would be based on three priorities in order of “Replacement vehicles”, “Expansion vehicles/Fixed guideway Design”, and “Park and Ride/Technology/BRT/BOSS.” The North Carolina Public Transportation Department indicated it will fund as many projects as funding allows. The recommendation to the TAC also noted giving partial points to some projects that span MPO/RPO boundaries as those agencies will be assigning points to those projects as well. The DCHC memorandum explains how points were recommended for allocation.

The table below includes a summary of the NCDOT and MPO scores for projects of interest to Chapel Hill. The MPO score does not include the allocation of either the 1,300 points for highway projects or 550 points for transit projects. The DCHC regional list is attached. The TCC memorandum is also attached which explains how 1,300 points were assigned to highway projects, 550 points were assigned to transit projects, and how 105 points were assigned to the top 5 ranking bicycle and top 5 ranking pedestrian projects.

Highway Project NCDOT MPO MPO Proposed Notes Score Score Ranking MPO Point Allocation 153

1. Barbee Chapel 26.044 85.34 1 100 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Rd/Farrington Rd, NC Priority #15 54 to Stagecoach Rd: Construct bike lanes and sidewalks

2. Estes Drive, 24.653 82.56 4 50 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Greensboro Street to Priority #8 NC 86: Widen to add bike lanes, sidewalks, and transit accommodations

3. Eubanks Road, 23.653 81.31 6 25 2011 Request from Town Rogers Road to NC Resident; Orange Co. Priority 86: Construct bicycle Project lanes, sidewalks, safety and intersection improvements 4. Mount Carmel 24.653 80.06 10 25 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Church Road, US 15- Priority #17; Previous Town 501 to Chatham and Orange Co. Priority County Line: Project Construct bicycle lanes 5. Old Mason Farm 22.436 78.12 12 25 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Rd/Finley Golf Course Priority #21 Rd, NC 54 to NC 54/US 15-501: Construct bike lanes and sidewalks 6. Merritt Mill Road, 22.153 76.31 14 0 2011 Request from Pine Franklin Street to Knolls Neighborhood South Greensboro Street: Construct bicycle lanes and sidewalks 154

7. Homestead Road, 19.936 71.87 19 0 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Old NC 86 to NC 86 Priority #4 to NC 86: Widen to include bicycle lanes, sidewalks, transit accommodations, and safety improvements (design may vary along length) 8. Martin Luther King, 27.672 68.90 23 0 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Jr. Boulevard, I-40 to Priority #2 North Street: Construct Bicycle Lanes and Sidewalks 9. Seawell School 18.827 68.40 24 0 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Road, Estes Dr to Priority #9 Homestead Rd: bicycle lanes, sidewalks, transit accommodations, and Intersection safety improvements (design may vary along length) 10. Estes Drive, NC 86 19.653 67.56 25 0 2011-2017 Chapel Hill to Caswell Road: Priority #16 Widen existing roadway to include two 12-foot travel lanes, four-foot bicycle lanes and sidewalks 11. NC54, US 15/501 27.133 65.3 30 0 2011-2017 Chapel Hill to Barbee Chapel Priority #23 Road: Construct Bicycle Lanes and Sidewalks 12. NC54, I-40 to 30.732 64.53 31 100 Barbee Chapel Road: Widen to 6-lane divided, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities 155

13. US15-501, South 38.032 64.25 32 100 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Columbia Street to Priority #22. Funded for Ephesus Church Road: Construction in FY2019 in the sidewalks, wide- FY2012-2018 Transportation outside lanes, and Improvement Program transit accommodations 14. Erwin Road, US 17.436 60.62 40 0 2011-2017 Chapel Hill 15/501 to NC 751: Priority #20 Bike lanes, sidewalks, and safety improvements (design may vary along length). 15. Fordham 43.627 60.36 41 0 Submitted by NCDOT Boulevard, Ephesus Division 7. An interchange at Church Road to this location is not in the 2035 Manning Drive: Long Range Transportation Upgrade road to Plan "Superstreet" with possible interchange at Manning Drive 16. Carmichael Street, 15.5 59.25 42 0 2011 Request from US 15/501 to Northern Transportation Board Terminus of Roadway: Repave and with bicycle accommodations

17. Fordham 49.924 58.88 43 100 Submitted by NCDOT Boulevard, East Division 7. Lakeview Drive to Sage Road: Upgrade road to "Superstreet" 18. Ephesus Church 15.218 58.67 45 0 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Road/Pope Road, Old Priority #11 and #12 Durham Chapel Hill Road to Orange County Line: Construct bike lanes and sidewalks 156

19. US15-501, 24.065 54.20 55 0 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Ephesus Church Road: Priority #5 Intersection Improvements 20. Franklin 14.638 52.91 57 0 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Street/East Main Priority #5 Street/ Merritt Mill Road/Brewer Lane: Intersection Improvements 21. Mount Carmel 10.216 47.54 65 0 2011 Request from Bicycle Church Road, Bennett and Pedestrian Advisory Road: Construct Board and Town Resident; roundabout and related related to 2011-2017 Chapel safety improvements Hill Priority #17 at the existing intersection Transit Project NCDOT MPO MPO Proposed Notes Score Score Ranking MPO Point Allocation 22. Chapel Hill 27.0 62.5 1 54 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Transit TA-4748: Priority #1 Replacement Van - Paratransit 23. Chapel Hill 19.6 49.8 3 54 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Transit TA-4726A: Priority #1 Replacement Bus 24. Chapel Hill 17.8 37.9 5 28 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Transit TD- Priority #1 4710:Facility - Park & Ride 25. Chapel Hill 14.3 28.8 8 28 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Transit TE-5203: Priority #1 Fixed Guideway - Bus Rapid Transit Operational Improvements (plan 2013, con 2014) U- 5119 Pedestrian 157

Project NCDOT MPO MPO Proposed Notes Score Score Ranking MPO Point Allocation 26. US 15-501, 60 68.3 10 0 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Ephesus Church Priority #13 Road to Elliott Road 27. Cleland 48 50.6 15 0 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Drive/Burning Tree Priority #10 Dr sidewalks Bicycle Project NCDOT MPO MPO Proposed Notes Score Score Ranking MPO Point Allocation 28. Mount Carmel 60 65 3 21 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Church Road, US Priority #17. Would be 15-501 to Bennett included in top five MPO Road bicycle projects. 29. Campus to 52 64.7 4 14 2011 Request from Citizens Campus Connector, and Town Advisory Boards. Broad Street to Would be included in top five Seawell School MPO bicycle projects. Road 30. Morgan Creek 35 61.7 5 7 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Phase 3End of Phase Priority #7.Would be 2 to Carrboro Town included in top five MPO Limits bicycle projects. 31. Bolin Creek 52 61.4 6 0 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Greenway Trail Priority #3 Phase IV, Umstead Park to Carolina North 32. Horace Williams 56 60.8 7 0 2011 Request from Greenway, Greenways/Parks & Homestead Road Recreation Commissions and Carolina North to Chapel Watch Village 158

33. US15-501, 42 55 11 0 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Fordham Blvd, Priority #6 pedestrian and bicycle overpass/underpass across Fordham Blvd between Manning Dr and Old Mason Farm Rd 34. Bolin 52 54.7 12 0 2011-2017 Chapel Hill Creek/Little Creek Priority #25 Greenway TrailEstes Drive Extension at Chapel Hill Community Center Pinehurst Drive

35. Eubanks Road, 54 51.7 13 0 2011 Request from Bicycle Rogers Road to and Pedestrian Advisory Martin Luther King Board and Request from Jr. Boulevard Local Resident 36. Dry Creek Trail 48 37.5 18 0 2011 Request from Phase 1 Perry Creek Greenways/Parks & Road to Erwin Road Recreations Commissions

In the table below, the Town has previously supported the Interstate 40 project, from I-85 to US 15-501 but requested the project be split into two separate projects: I-40, from US15-501 to NC86, and I-40 from NC86 to I-85. The Council’s priority was to complete first the US 15-501 to NC86 project. The Council supported adding one additional westbound travel lane only from US15-501 to NC86 and that a noise wall be considered with the project to mitigate the sound of interstate traffic.

Project NCDOT MPO MPO Proposed Notes Score Score Ranking MPO Point Allocation 37. I-40, I-85 to US 29.426 49.014 63 0 Funded for Construction in 15-501: I-85 in Orange FY2019-2020 in 12-18 TIP. County to NC 147 in Durham County. Add Proposed MPO Point additional lanes. Allocation: 0. MPO score only contributes 10% to final score for the Statewide tier.

159

CITIZEN AND ADVISORY BOARD COMMENTS

Summary of Comments on FY2014-2020 Transportation Regional Projects Priority List

Public Comment

On April 11, 2011, the Council received a citizen petition regarding transportation improvements along Mt. Carmel Church Road and Bennett Road. The request was to expand definition of Mt. Carmel Church Road (US15-501 to Bennett Road) to include as part of safety improvements the intersection with Bennett Road and feasibility of a roundabout at this location

A Town citizen requested bicycle lanes on Eubanks Road (Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to Rogers Road) for the FY2014-2020 priority list.

At a Pine Knolls neighborhood meeting, the residents requested bicycle lanes on Merritt Mill Road (Cameron Avenue to Fordham Boulevard) for the FY2014-2020 priority list.

Town Advisory Boards/Commissions on FY2014-2020 Priority List

Greenways Commission : The Commission met on October 26, 2011 and recommended that the Council consider the following changes be made to the bicycle priority rankings:

1. Bolin Creek Trail Phase IV (current ranking 6). Move this project into the top five bicycle projects replacing the Morgan Creek Trail (current ranking 5).

2. Horace Williams Greenway (current ranking 7). Move this project in front of Morgan Creek Trail Phase 3 (current ranking 5).

The Commission in its motion also voted to support the Mount Carmel Church Road (current ranking #3) and the Campus to Campus Connector (current ranking #4) projects.

Transportation Board : The Board met on October 27, 2011 and provided the following comment:

The Board believes the conditions on Estes Drive from North Greensboro Street to 15-501, and, in particular between Martin Luther King Jr. Bvld. and Caswell Drive, are a serious and pressing problem as regards the lack of bicycle paths and sidewalks. Estes Drive is among the busiest thoroughfares in our town and its deficiencies have a serious impact on transportation quality and safety. Accordingly, we encourage the Council to request that DCHC and/or MPO to reconsider the priority that it has given to these projects and rank them among those of the highest need.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board : Members of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on November 1, 2011 (No Quorum). Members of the Board provided no comments.

160

Planning Board : The Board met on November 1, 2011 and provided the following comments:

The Board requested that innovative stormwater treatments be included in the design of all the transportation projects.

The Board believes an overall design for improvements along Eubanks Road is needed as part of project #3.

The Board agreed that pedestrian and bicycle improvements were needed along Mt. Carmel Church Road, project #4.

The Board supported project #6, Merritt Mill Road and project #9, bicycle, sidewalk and transit improvements along Seawell School Road.

The Board discussed the need for bicycle and pedestrian improvements along NC 54, project #11, and supported provision of off road bikepaths.

The Board supported project #13, US 15-501.

The Board believed project #14, bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Erwin Road from US 15-501 to NC751 in Durham would provide an important link between Chapel Hill and Durham.

The Board did not support the provision of the super street design proposed for projects #15 and #17, improvements to Fordham Blvd.

The Board supported project #19, intersection improvements at US 15-501 and Ephesus Church Road.

The Board supported projects #22 and #23, Chapel Hill Transit paratransit van and bus replacement.

The Board requested more information on the location of proposed park ride facilities associated with project #24.

The emphasized the need for improved pedestrian connections across Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd as part of project #25, Fixed Guideway, Bus Rapid Transit.

The Board expressed support for project #29, Campus to Campus Connector and #30, Morgan Creek Phase 3.

NEXT STEPS

The DCHC MPO Technical Coordinating Committee recommendations were endorsed by the Transportation Advisory Committee at the MPO’s November 9, 2011 public hearing. We will respond to comments or questions raised at tonight’s public forum when we return to the Council on November 21, 2011. After the November 21, 2011 meeting, staff will submit a final set of 161

comments to the DCHC MPO. We anticipate the DCHC TAC will adopt the 2014-2020 Regional Priority List at their December, 2011 meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council receive information and public comment on the 2014-2020 Transportation Improvement Program Regional Priority List at tonight’s Public Forum. This item will return to the Council on November 21, 2011, at which time the Council may provide direction to Chapel Hill's MPO Transportation Advisory Committee or Technical Coordinating Committee members. Mayor Kleinschmidt is the Town’s representative to the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), which will adopt the final priority list. Council member Harrison is the alternate member on the TAC. David Bonk, Kumar Neppalli, and Brian Litchfield are the Town’s three representatives on the DCHC Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) which provides staff assistance to the TAC. 162

MPO Ranking Methodology

Congestion Defined as Volume/Capacity Ratio + Average Annual Daily Traffic Count; scores produced by North Carolina Department of Transportation

Safety Defined as Critical Crash Rates, Density, Severity; scores produced by North Carolina Department of Transportation

Economic Score based on Output from TREDIS (Economic Impact Competitiveness Model); scores produced by North Carolina Department of Transportation

Lane Width Defined as Existing Width vs. Standard Width; scores produced by North Carolina Department of Transportation Shoulder Width Defined as Existing Width vs. Standard Width; scores produced by North Carolina Department of Transportation

Multimodal Bonus Bonus Points if the highway project includes one or more of the following new or additional multimodal components: Multimodal Options, Multimodal Connections, Military Base or Seaport Connections, Multimodal Design Features; scores produced by North Carolina Department of Transportation

Environmental Impacts Points are awarded based on the impact on wetlands, streams, water supply watersheds, wildlife habitat, parks, and air quality.

Community Impacts Points are awarded based on the impact on neighborhoods, communities, schools, parks, and recreation facilities. Since transit projects are community amenities and usually require little right-of-way acquisition, projects that serve more dense neighborhoods and community facilities receive more points.

Right-of-Way Calculated by percentage of total land mass needed to construct the project that has been acquired. For example, if the project length for a greenway is one mile and 0.75 miles of land has been acquired, then 75% of right-of-way has been acquired. No documentation of acquired right-of-way is required.

Connectivity Connectivity is measured by facilities that connect to a common origin/destination and facilities that provide a missing link or expand an existing system. Projects that reasonably 163

border or lead to a transit facility, school, CBD, high density residential, commercial area or park will receive points. Projects that provide a missing link (such as a sidewalk gap) or expand an existing bike or pedestrian system (such as a greenway facility that connects to an existing greenway, bike facility or sidewalk) will receive additional points; scores produced by North Carolina Department of Transportation

Bicycle/Pedestrian Bicycle and pedestrian crash data will be provided by the Crashes NCDOT Safety Planning Group. Local areas may also provide their own data. For facilities that do not exist, crash data for parallel facilities may be used. If project provides a traveling alternative to an existing facility where a crash occurred, then crash data for the existing facility may be used; scores produced by North Carolina Department of Transportation

Demand/Density Projects are further prioritized by residential population density (and employment density depending on data availability). To determine the potential number of people who can theoretically benefit from the project, persons per square mile within 1.5 miles of bike facility is calculated. Project density will be calculated and points will be assigned after project information is provided by MPO/RPO. Projects will be equally distributed to one of the six quantiles. Projects in areas of highest density will receive 12 points (top quantile) while those projects in areas of the lowest density will receive 2 points (bottom quantile); scores produced by North Carolina Department of Transportation

Environmental Justice – Points are awarded based on the impact on low-income and Highway Projects minority populations. This item is designed to penalize projects that may have negative impacts on low income areas or federally recognized disadvantaged groups.

Environmental Justice- Points are awarded based on the impact on low-income and Transit Projects minority populations. Since transit projects are community amenities and usually require little right-of-way acquisition, projects that serve low income and minority areas will receive more points.

Environmental Justice – Points are awarded based on the impact on low-income and Bicycle and Pedestrian minority populations. Since bicycle and pedestrian facilities Projects are perceived as amenities and usually require little right-of- way acquisition, projects that serve low income and minority areas will receive more points. 164 165 TCC 10/26/2011 Attachment 5

SPOT has asked that MPOs submit their local rankings by December 16, 2011 (they extended the deadline from November 30, 2011 on September 14, 2011). The TAC sent a letter requesting an extension to January and other MPOs/RPOs have also requested extensions. SPOT staff has told LPA staff that they cannot extend this deadline beyond December 16, 2011.

In order for the MPO to meet the SPOT deadline, the MPO will have to review and approve the rankings quickly.

September 29, 2011 NCDOT released scores for highway projects Late September LPA Staff applied the MPO ranking methodology October 5, 2011 TCC subcommittee reviewed the application of the MPO ranking methodology and recommended a draft priority list for release for public comment October 12, 2011 TAC reviewed draft priority list and scheduled a public hearing at the November 9, 2011 meeting October 26, 2011 TCC recommends distribution of the highway and transit ranking points and the bicycle and pedestrian top five rankings October 28, 2011 LPA staff releases the TCC recommendation for public comment. Oct 28-Nov 18 MPO minimum 21-day public comment period November 9, 2011 TAC holds public hearing December 14, 2011 TAC approves final priority list December 16, 2011 SPOT deadline for submission of MPO rankings

The tables in the attachment display MPO and the TCC Subcommittees recommendation for rankings and points. There are four tables: Highway (H Results), Bicycle (B Results), Pedestrian (P Results), and Transit (T Results).

Highway

The table of highway projects includes projects carried over from the last prioritization, new projects submitted by the MPO, new projects submitted by the Division, and projects that may have been submitted by a neighboring RPO or MPO that cross over into part of the DCHC MPO. The list includes both capacity widening projects and modernization projects. Many modernization projects are for adding bicycle facilities, sidewalks, transit amenities, shoulders, and/or curb-and-gutter to two-lane roads (over $1 million cost). Each criterion is out of 100 points. The criteria are weighted to produce the total score. The maximum total score is 100. The criteria and weighting vary by tier and improvement type. Grayed-out boxes indicate criteria that do not apply to that project type. The Congestion, Safety, Economic Competitiveness, Lane Width, Shoulder Width, and Multimodal Bonus scores were produced by NCDOT. The Environmental Impacts, Community Impacts, and Environmental Justice scores were produced by the MPO. The State Score is provided for reference.

The MPO has 1,300 points to distribute to highway projects. Each project can have a maximum of 100 points and a minimum of 4 points (projects can have 0 points). For projects that span MPOs/RPOs, the maximum points each organization can submit is equal to the percentage of the project in the organization (if it is a high priority, DCHC would submit 28 points for a project 28% in DCHC). Organizations can donate points to a neighboring MPO/RPO for a project outside of their area that is a high priority. Projects that are partially funded in FY 2019 or 2020 in the current work program should still be considered for points if they are high priorities. NCDOT considers these not committed projects. This applies to projects 531- 534 (the four phases of the NC 54 widening in south Durham) and 527 (modernization on US 15-501 in Chapel Hill).

Page 2 of 6 166 TCC 10/26/2011 Attachment 5

NCDOT MPO D T MPO tier and T NCDOT data, Division points, and MPO/RPO points.

Tier Quantitative Data Division Ranking MPO/RPO Ranking Points Points Statewide 70% 20% 10% Regional 50% 25% 25% Subregional 30% 30% 40%

The TCC subcommittee has developed a recommendation for the distribution of ranking points. The MPO T 1. Assign 100 points to the highest project by state score in each of the six tier/goals. This will maximize the scores for these projects in the final statewide r MPO distributed among all tiers and goals. (600 points) a. Statewide Mobility - #1144 US 15-501, East Lakeview Dr to Sage Rd, upgrade road to superstreet i. The subcommittee noted that this project was requested by Division 7 and was not on MPO M supportive of this project during the public comment period. b. Statewide Modernization - #527 US 15-501, NC 86 to Ephesus Church Rd, sidewalks, wide outside lanes, and transit accommodations c. Regional Mobility #650 NC 54, I-40 to Barbee Chapel Rd, widen to 6-lane divided with bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. d. Regional Modernization - #961 NC 86, US 70A to I-40, wide outside lanes e. Subregional Mobility - #637 Fayetteville Rd, Woodcroft Pkwy to Riddle Rd, widen to 4-lane divided with bike lanes and sidewalks. i. The subcommittee noted that the City of Durham is considering funding all or part of this project. However, City funding may be insufficient to complete the entire project. f. Subregional Modernization - #945 Barbee Chapel Rd/Farrington Rd, NC 54 to Stagecoach Rd, bike lanes and sidewalks i. The subcommittee noted that the result of the NC 54 corridor study and Hillmont project may influence the design at the northern end of this project. 2. Assign 100 points to projects requested by the MPO that are scheduled for funding in FY 2019 or 2020 in the current work program to help ensure that the project schedules for these projects are maintained. (400 points) a. #531-534, NC 54, I-40 to NC 55 (split into four phases). This project was requested by the MPO and has funding in FY 2020 in the current work plan. b. The only other project that this applies to is #527 US 15-501, NC 86 to Ephesus Church Rd, sidewalks, wide outside lanes, and transit accommodations. #527 already would receive 100 points since it is the highest statewide modernization project in the MPO by state score. c. Projects #10, I-40 widening in Orange County, and #6-7, I-85 widening in Orange County, also H MPO I MPO score. 3. Assign the remaining points to subregional modernization projects according to the MPO score. Assign 50 points to the top three projects and 25 points to the next six projects. The top nine projects have the highest state scores for this tier/goal. Skip the two projects shared with TARPO and request that

Page 3 of 6 167 168 169 TCC 10/26/2011 Attachment 5

#1400 is for DATA purchasing 28 replacement buses. Project #1394 is for TTA purchasing three replacement buses. #1400 scores much higher simply because it is a larger project.

The TCC subcommittee NCDOT T subcommittee recommends altering the MPO methodology and NCDOT scores to better reflect the relative merits of each project. The alternate score is provided in the table. The alternate scoring methodology produces a list that logically groups similar projects with replacement vehicles at the top of the list.

The MPO has 550 points to distribute to transit projects. Each project can have a maximum of 100 points and a minimum 10 points. For Triangle Transit projects, whatever DCHC allocates will be added to whatever CAMPO allocates on a 50/50 split.

NCDOT MPO T NCDOT MPORPO

Tier Goal Quantitative Data MPO/RPO Ranking Points Statewide All 75% 25% Regional Mobility 25% 75% Regional Infrastructure Health 10% 90% Regional Safety and Security 25% 75% Subregional Mobility 10% 90% Subregional Infrastructure Health 10% 90% Subregional Safety and Security 25% 75%

The TCC S T T as many points as DATA and CHT projects since Triangle Transit will also receive points from CAMPO. 1. Replacement vehicles: 54/27 points each 2. Expansion vehicles and rail transit design phases: 42/21 points each 3. Park and ride lots, technology, bus rapid transit, bus on shoulder: 28/14 points each

TCC Action: Recommend that the TAC approve the distribution of ranking points for highway and transit projects and the ranking of bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Page 6 of 6 170 H Results TCC 10/26/2011 Attachment 5A

highest state score in tier/goal From / Cross MPO MPO State Recommended SPOTID Tier Goal Improvement Type TIP # Route Route Name Street To Description Score Rank Score Notes Points Reason Barbee Chapel SR 1107 945 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1110 Road/Farrington NC 54 Construct bike lanes and sidewalks. Top Subregional Modernization project by (Stagecoach Road) Road 85.339 1 26.044 100 State Score No points. MPO score only contributes 10% to final score for the Statewide tier. In addition, 1013 Statewide Mobility Capacity 092 I-040 NC 147 Wade Avenue Construct Managed Lanes DCHC's share is 37% of the total MPO score. Submitted by Division 5. Part Division 5 and CAMPO are likely to award 83.201 2 42.465 in CAMPO, DCHC 37% 0 points to the project. SR 1721 (Lystra Jack Bennett Rd (SR 1717) (US 15/501 to Lystra Rd (SR 1721) 632 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1717 Jack Bennett Road US 15/501 Rd) safety improvements. 82.742 3 23.871 50 By MPO Score SR 1772 SR 1772 (Greensboro Street) to NC 86. Widen to add bike lanes, 375 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization U-2909 SR1780 Estes Drive (Greensboro NC 86 sidewalks, and transit accommodations. Street) 82.557 4 24.653 50 By MPO Score SR 1669 (East Club SR 1004 (Old 659 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1666 Dearborn Drive Construct Bicycle Lanes and Sidewalks Boulevard) Oxford Road) 82.274 5 25.762 50 By MPO Score West Cornwallis SR 1306 (Erwin SR 1127 (Chapel 660 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1158 Construct Bicycle Lanes and Sidewalks Road Road) Hill Road) 81.307 6 24.653 25 By MPO Score SR 1777 SR 1727 (Eubanks 950 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1009 Old NC 86 Construct bike lanes and sidewalks and transit accommodations. (Homestead Road) Road) 81.307 6 24.653 25 By MPO Score SR 1009 (Old NC 951 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1727 Eubanks Road Rogers Road Construct bike lanes and sidewalks and transit accommodations. 86) 81.307 6 24.653 25 By MPO Score SR 1729 (Rogers Construct bicycle lanes, sidewalks, safety and intersection 1096 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization 068 SR1727 Eubanks Road NC 86 Road) improvements. 80.339 9 23.544 25 By MPO Score Mount Carmel Chatham County 952 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1008 US 15-501 Construct bike lanes. Church Road Line 80.057 10 24.653 25 By MPO Score No points. Requst that TARPO assign points to Old Greensboro SR 2057 Alamance County 1162 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization 068 SR1005 Add 4-foot paved shoulders this project. DCHC's share is 22% of the total Rd. (Sturbridge Lane) Line 78.807 11 24.653 Part in TARPO, DCHC 22% 0 MPO/RPO score. Old Mason Farm NC 54/US 15-501 949 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1900 Road/Finley Golf NC 54 Construct bike lanes and sidewalks. (Fordham Blvd.) Course Road 78.121 12 22.436 25 By MPO Score Orange Grove No points. Request that TARPO assign points to SR1006, SR 1177 (Dairyland Add 4' Paved shoulders to accommodate bicycles. This route is 958 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization Road, Dodsons I-40 this project. DCHC's share is 28% of the total SR1102 Road) designated as North Carolina Bike Route #2. Cross Road 77.742 13 23.871 Part in TARPO, DCHC 28% 0 MPO/RPO score. 1919 (South 1010 (Franklin 1100 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization 068 SR1927 Merritt Mill Road Greensboro Construct bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Street) Street) 76.307 14 22.153 0 SR 1009 SR 1777 948 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1009 Old NC 86 (Hillsborough Construct bike lanes and sidewalks and transit accommodations. (Homestead Road) Road) 74.653 15 21.327 0 SR 1148 (Eno Mountain Road) and SR 1192 (Mayo Street) at SR SR1148, Eno Mountain SR 1006 (Orange 408 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization U-3436 1006 (Orange Grove Road). Realign Intersection and Make Safety SR1192 Road, Mayo Street Grove Road) Improvements. include bicycle lanes and sidewalks. 72.839 16 21.044 0 SR 1727 (Eubanks 953 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1009 Old NC 86 I-40 Widen outside lanes. Road) 72.557 17 22.153 0 Top Regional Modernization project by State 961 Regional Infrastructure Health Modernization NC086 US 70A I-40 Construct wide outside lanes. 72.016 18 30.489 100 Score. SR 1009 (Old NC 86) to NC 86. Widen to include bicycle lanes, SR 1009 (Old NC 365 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization U-2805 SR1777 Homestead Road NC 86 sidewalks, transit accommodations, and safety improvements 86) (design may vary along length). 71.871 19 19.936 0 North of SR 1919 400 ft south of SR 019 US015, (Smith Level Road) 1103 Statewide Infrastructure Health Modernization 1532 (Mann's Construct either 15' wide outside lanes or 6' bicycle lanes. 019 US501 at the Orange Chapel Road County Line 71.463 20 34.683 0 SR 1111 (Union SR 1006 (Orange 1095 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization 068 SR1104 Dairyland Road Grove Church Construct 4-foot paved shoulders on Dairyland Road Grove Road) Road) 70.339 21 21.044 Part in TARPO, DCHC 44% 0

DCHC MPO Regional Prioritization Methodology - 2011-10-17 Page 1 of 9 171 H Results TCC 10/26/2011 Attachment 5A

highest state score in tier/goal From / Cross MPO MPO State Recommended SPOTID Tier Goal Improvement Type TIP # Route Route Name Street To Description Score Rank Score Notes Points Reason SR 1670 (East Geer 658 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1669 Club Boulevard Ambridge Street Construct Bicycle Lanes and Sidewalks Street) 70.057 22 19.653 0 Martin Luther 663 Regional Infrastructure Health Modernization NC086 I-40 North Street Construct Bicycle Lanes and Sidewalks King, Jr. Boulevard 68.895 23 27.672 0 Seawell School Road (Homestead to Estes) bicycle lanes, Seawell School SR 1777 826 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1843 SR 1780 (Estes) sidewalks, transit accommodations, and Intersection safety Road (Homestead) improvements (design may vary along length) 68.403 24 18.827 0 Estes Drive (NC 86 to Caswell Road) widen existing roadway to 641 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1780 Estes Drive NC 86 Caswell Road include two 12-foot travel lanes, four-foot bicycle lanes and sidewalks. 67.557 25 19.653 0 SR 1008 653 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1721 Lystra Road US 15/501 (Farrington Point Safety improvements. Road) 66.653 26 15.827 0 SR 1146 (South Martin Luther 944 Regional Infrastructure Health Modernization NC751 Hope Valley Road Construct bike lanes and sidewalks. Roxboro Road) King, Jr. Parkway 66.155 27 26.932 0 SR 1171 (Riddle SR 1118 (Fayetteville Road) (Woodcroft Pkwy to Riddle Road (SR 637 Subregional Mobility Capacity SR1118 Fayetteville Road Woodcroft Pkwy Top Subregional Mobility project by State Road) 1171)) widen to 4-lane divided, bikelanes and sidewalks. 65.719 28 19.901 May be built by City 100 Score. NC 54 (I-40 east to NC 55) widen to multi-lane divided with SR 1118 SR 1106 (Barbee 533 Regional Mobility Capacity U-5324C NC054 transit accommodations, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Section C: (Fayetteville Road) Road) Funded for feasbility study and SR 1118 (Fayetteville Road) to SR 1106 (Barbee Road). 65.369 29 26.746 R/W in 2020 in 12-18 TIP 100 To maintain schedule/funding in 12-18 TIP. SR 1110 (Barbee 666 Regional Infrastructure Health Modernization NC054 US 15/501 Construct Bicycle Lanes and Sidewalks Chapel Road) 65.296 30 27.133 0 Barbee Chapel NC 54 (I-40 west to Barbee Chapel Rd) widen to 6-lane 650 Regional Mobility Capacity NC054 I-40 Road divided,bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. 64.531 31 30.732 100 Top Regional Mobility project by State Score. (US 15/501) Fordham Boulevard (NC 86 (Columbia Street)/US US015, NC 86 (Columbia SR 1742 (Ephesus Top Statewide Modernization project by State 527 Statewide Infrastructure Health Modernization U-5304 15/501 South to SR 1742 (Ephesus Church Road)) sidewalks, wide- US501 Street) Church Road) Funded for Construction in Score. Also to maintain schedule/funding in 12- outside lanes, and transit accommodations. 64.251 32 38.032 FY2019 in 12-18 TIP 100 18 TIP. NC 54 (I-40 east to NC 55) widen to multi-lane divided with SR 1106 (Barbee 534 Regional Mobility Capacity U-5324D NC054 NC 55 transit accommodations, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Section D: Funded for feasbility study and Road) SR 1106 (Barbee Road) to NC 55). 64.116 33 27.286 R/W in 2020 in 12-18 TIP 100 To maintain schedule/funding in 12-18 TIP. NC 54 (I-40 east to NC 55) widen to multi-lane divided with SR 1118 532 Regional Mobility Capacity U-5324B NC054 NC 751 transit accommodations, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Section B: Funded for feasbility study and (Fayetteville Road) NC 751 to SR 1118 (Fayetteville Road). 63.801 34 25.707 R/W in 2020 in 12-18 TIP 100 To maintain schedule/funding in 12-18 TIP. New Route - SR 1006 (Orange Orange Grove Road Extension (Orange Grove Road to US 70) 647 Subregional Mobility Capacity SR1006 Orange Grove US 70A Grove Road) with sidewalks and bicycle lanes Road 63.082 35 16.673 0 US015, 366 Statewide Mobility Capacity U-2807 I-40 US 15/501 I-40 to US 15/501 Bypass in Durham. Major Corridor Upgrade. US501 62.572 36 28.802 0 SR1102, SR SR 1100 (Grandale SR 1945 (South 947 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization Sedwick Road Construct bike lanes and sidewalks. 1977 Drive) Alston Avenue) 62.153 37 16.327 0 I-40 to Bridge over Southern Railroad. Widen to Multi-Lanes with South Churton 200 Subregional Mobility Capacity R-2825 SR1009 I-40 Eno River landscaped median, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks, widen Bridge Street No. 240 over Southern Railroad. 60.961 38 18.809 0 Construct 1 Managed Lane per direction (additional 16ft of 1131 Statewide Mobility Capacity 032 I-040 NC 147 US 15/501 pavement - 12ft lanes + 4ft pavement for separation with general purpose lanes) 60.831 39 42.339 Submitted by Division 5. 0 US 15/501 to NC 751, bike lanes, sidewalks, and safety 631 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1734 Erwin Road US 15/501 NC 751 improvements (design may vary along length). 60.621 40 17.436 0 Submitted by Division 7. An Fordham SR 1742 (Ephesus SR 1902 (Manning Upgrade road to "Superstreet" with possible interchange at interchange at US 15- 1143 Statewide Mobility Capacity 068 US015 Boulevard Church Road) Drive) Manning Drive 501/Manning Drive is not in the 60.356 41 43.627 2035 LRTP. 0 Northern 1305 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization 086 SR2008 Carmichael Street US 15/501 Terminus of Repave and with bicycle accommodations Roadway 59.25 42 15.5 0

DCHC MPO Regional Prioritization Methodology - 2011-10-17 Page 2 of 9 172 H Results TCC 10/26/2011 Attachment 5A

highest state score in tier/goal From / Cross MPO MPO State Recommended SPOTID Tier Goal Improvement Type TIP # Route Route Name Street To Description Score Rank Score Notes Points Reason Top Statewide Mobility project by State Score. Fordham East Lakeview 1144 Statewide Mobility Capacity 068 US015 Sage Road Upgrade road to "Superstreet" Chapel Hill Council will provide comments on Boulevard Drive 58.878 43 49.924 Submitted by Division 7. 100 this project. South Roxboro NC 751 (S. Roxboro Rd. to NC 54) widen to 4-lane, bike lanes, and 652 Regional Mobility Capacity NC751 Hope Valley Road NC 54 Road sidewalks. 58.759 44 23.521 May be built by City 0 SR 2220 (Old Ephesus Church Orange County 946 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1113 Durham-Chapel Construct bike lanes and sidewalks. Road/Pope Road Line Hill Road) 58.686 45 15.218 0 Renaissance Widen roadway to four lanes with a median and bicycle, 1033 Subregional Mobility Capacity 032 SR1118 Fayetteville Road NC 751 Parkway pedestrian and transit facilities as appropriate. 58.106 46 15.588 0 1014 Statewide Mobility Capacity 092 I-540 I-40 US 64 Bypass Convert Freeway to Tolled Facility and widen to 8 lanes 57.87 47 21.993 Part in CAMPO, DCHC 2% 0 New Route - T.W. West of Brier 859 Subregional Mobility Capacity Alexander Drive Leesville Road Extension of TW Alexander Drive (4 lanes new location) Creek Pkwy Extension 57.337 48 8.0627 Part in CAMPO, DCHC 46% 0 Widen roadway to four lanes with a median and improve 1036 Statewide Mobility Capacity 068 NC086 US 70 Bypass North of NC 57 intersections at US 70 Bypass and NC 57 . 57.186 49 28.738 0 East End 997 Statewide Mobility Capacity 032 NC147 Durham Freeway I-40 Widen roadway to 6 lanes and rehabilitate pavement Connector 56.822 50 25.192 0 NC 54 (I-40 east to NC 55) widen to multi-lane divided with 531 Regional Mobility Capacity U-5324ANC054 I-40 NC 751 transit accommodations, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Section A: I- Funded for feasbility study and 40 to NC 751. 56.723 51 21.901 R/W in 2020 in 12-18 TIP 100 To maintain schedule/funding in 12-18 TIP. SR 1721 (Lystra 649 Subregional Infrastructure Health Modernization SR1762 Jeremiah Drive End of Road Elevate road for flood control. Road) 56.25 52 12.5 0 SR 1772 Interchange/Interse SR 1780 (Estes Drive)/SR 1772 (Greensboro Street) construct 655 Subregional Mobility SR1780 Estes Drive (Greensboro ction roundabout. Street) 55.115 53 17.81 0 Convert existing grade separation at NC 147 to an interchange SR 1926 (Angier 1005 Subregional Mobility Capacity 032 SR1940 Glover Road NC 147 and widen roadway to four lanes with a median and bicycle, Avenue) pedestrian, and transit facilities asappropriate. 54.428 54 10.186 0 Interchange/Interse US015, SR 1742 (Ephesus 937 Statewide Mobility Intersection Improvements ction US501 Church Road) 54.202 55 24.065 0 New Route - 239 Subregional Mobility Capacity R-3438 Hillsborough US 70 NC 57 US 70 to NC 57. Two Lanes on New Location. Western Bypass 53.647 56 11.603 Not in 2035 LRTP 0 Franklin Merritt Mill Road Interchange/Interse Franklin Street/Merritt Mill Road/Brewer Ln/E Main Street 654 Subregional Mobility SR1010 Street/East Main (SR 1771)/Brewer ction Intersection improvements. Street Lane 52.907 57 14.638 0 Old Oxford 29000501 Old Oxford Highway (Roxboro Road to Hamlin Road) expand 651 Subregional Mobility Capacity SR1004 Hamlin Road Highway (Roxboro Road) capacity, bike lanes, and sidewalks. 52.598 58 15.716 0 New Route - SR 1951 (So-Hi Riddle Road to SR 1951 (So-Hi Drive). Two Lanes on Multi-Lane 372 Subregional Mobility Capacity U-2831B Briggs Avenue Riddle Road Drive) Right of Way. Extension 51.742 59 10.163 0 SR 1158 Martin Luther Widen existing roadway to multi-lanes and construct on new 1034 Subregional Mobility Capacity 032 SR1146 S. Roxboro St. (Cornwallis Rd) King, Jr. Parkway location multi-lane roadway with bicycle, pedestrian 51.217 60 18.02 May be built by City 0 New Route - Martin Luther NC 55 to Cornwallis Road. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit 326 Regional Mobility Capacity U-2405 NC 55 Cornwallis Road King, Jr. Parkway facilities. Extension 50.605 61 16.338 0 Renaissance Widen roadway to four lanes with a median with bicycle, 1011 Regional Mobility Capacity 032 NC751 NC 54 Parkway pedestrian and transit facilities as appropriate. 49.251 62 17.212 0 I-85 in Orange County to NC 147 (Buck Dean Freeway) in Durham 10 Statewide Mobility Capacity I-3306AI-040 I-85 US 15/501 Funded for Construction in No points. MPO score only contributes 10% to County. Add Additional Lanes. Section A: I-85 to US 15/501. 49.014 63 29.426 FY2019-2020 in 12-18 TIP 0 final score for the Statewide tier. SR 1999 (Davis NC 54 (Miami 487 Subregional Mobility Capacity U-4716D SR1978 Hopson Street Widen to multi-lanes. Drive) Blvd) 48.757 64 10.373 0

DCHC MPO Regional Prioritization Methodology - 2011-10-17 Page 3 of 9 173 H Results TCC 10/26/2011 Attachment 5A

highest state score in tier/goal From / Cross MPO MPO State Recommended SPOTID Tier Goal Improvement Type TIP # Route Route Name Street To Description Score Rank Score Notes Points Reason 1008 (Mount Construct roundabout and related safety improvements at the Interchange/Interse 1913 (Bennett 1056 Subregional Mobility 068 SR1771 Carmel Church existing intersection of Mount Carmel Church Road and Bennett ction Road) Road) Road. 47.574 65 10.216 0 I-85/US 70 558 Regional Mobility Capacity US 70 Reconstruct interchange to allow for full movements Connector 46.314 66 10.528 DCHC 98% 0 I-40 at Hillsborough to Durham County Line. Widen to Six Lanes Durham County 7 Statewide Mobility Capacity I-0305B I-085 East of SR 1709 and Reconstruct Interchanges and Structures. Section B: East Funded for R/W in FY 2019- No points. MPO score only contributes 10% to Line of SR 1709 to Durham County Line. 45.827 67 21.122 2010 in 12-18 TIP 0 final score for the Statewide tier. Durham County Not in 2035 LRTP, part in 555 Regional Mobility Capacity NC751 US 64 Widen to 4 lanes with bicycle lanes on existing location. Line 40.588 68 15.643 TARPO, DCHC 60% 0 Renaissance 1118 (Fayetteville Widen roadway to four lanes with a median and bicycle, 1018 Regional Mobility Capacity 032 NC751 Parkway Road) pedestrian and transit facilities as appropriate. 37.648 69 13.147 0 East End Modernization, pavement Rehabilitation and ramp 1097 Statewide Infrastructure Health Modernization 032 NC147 US 15/501 Connector consolidations/interchange upgrades 35.862 70 12.671 0 I-40 at Hillsborough to Durham County Line. Widen to Six Lanes SR 1006 near 6 Statewide Mobility Capacity I-0305A I-085 East of SR 1709 and Reconstruct Interchanges and Structures. Section A: SR Funded for R/W in FY 2019- No points. MPO score only contributes 10% to Hillsborough 1006 near Hillsbourgh to East of SR 1709. 31.773 71 15.229 2010 in 12-18 TIP 0 final score for the Statewide tier.

DCHC MPO Regional Prioritization Methodology - 2011-10-17 Page 4 of 9 174 B Results TCC 10/26/2011 Attachment 5A

Total Cost MPO MPO State Recommended SPOT ID Route Name From To Description Name and Short Description Counties (Sum) Score Rank Score Notes Rank Rocky Creek Greenway Trail Rocky Creek Trail (NC 55 to Rocky Creek Greenway Trail Kelly Bryant Bridge over NC Extension - (NC 55 to Kelly 1493 Current trail terminus at NC 55 Kelly Bryant Bridge) – Shared Durham $1,785,000 Extension 147 (Durham Freeway) Bryant Bridge) – Shared Use Use Path Path 92.8 1 52 Used v/c on NC 55 1 This project was originally N. Greensboro St. corridor 1919 - N. Greensboro St. envisioned as a highway safety from Weaver St. to Shelton St. corridor from Weaver St. to project. The road will be – bicycle and pedestrian Shelton St. – bicycle and resurfaced next year and 1501 1919 (Greensboro Street) Weaver Street Shelton Street Orange $200,000 improvements (paint, median, pedestrian improvements sharrows will be requested. sharows, bicycle signal (paint, median, sharows, Description should be changed to detection, etc.) bicycle signal detection, etc.) add bike lanes, median, and 73.3 2 60 bicycle signal detection. 2

Overlaps with highway project SR 1008 (Mount Carmel Church SR 1008 (Mount Carmel Church 1008 (Mount Carmel Church #952. Subcommittee 1524 US 15-501 1913 (Bennett Road) Rd) (US 15-501 to Bennett Rd) Rd) (US 15-501 to Bennett Rd) Orange $375,000 Road) recommends ranking this project sidewalks and bicycle lanes. sidewalks and bicycle lanes. since the longer/more expensive 65.0 3 60 highway project is unfunded. 3 Campus to Campus Connector Campus to Campus Connector 1497 Campus to Campus Connector Broad Street 1843 (Seawell School Road) Orange $900,000 (Broad St. to Seawell School (Broad St. to Seawell School 64.7 4 52 Used v/c on Estes 4 Morgan Creek Phase 3 in Morgan Creek Phase II (from Morgan Creek Phase 3 in 2054 End of Phase 2 Carrboro Town Limits Orange $3,700,000 Chapel Hill the end of Phase I to Carrboro Chapel Hill - from the end of 61.7 5 35 Used v/c on Fordham 5 Bolin Creek Greenway Trail Bolin Creek Phase IV (Umstead Bolin Creek Greenway Trail 1530 Umstead Park Carolina North Orange $3,100,000 Phase IV Park to Carolina North, follow Phase IV - (from Umstead Park 61.4 6 52 used v/c on Estes 1777 (Homestead Road) and Horace Williams Greenway: Horace Williams Greenway - 1498 Horace Williams Greenway Chapel Watch Village Orange $3,000,000 Carolina North Chapel Watch Village to Chapel Watch Village to 60.8 7 56 Used v/c on NC 86 Morgan Creek Greenway Trail -- Morgan Creek Greenway in Morgan Creek Greenway in 1500 University Lake Existing Trail Orange $3,120,000 Carrboro Section Carrboro - Construct a multi- Carrboro - Construct a multi- 58.9 8 48 Used v/c on Fordham Y east of NC 55 (Avondale Duke Beltline Trail – Shared Duke Beltline Rail-Trail - Shared 1494 Duke Beltline Rail-Trail 1127 (Chapel Hill Street) Durham $2,750,000 Drive) Use Path Use Path 57.5 9 42 used v/c on Mangum/Roxboro NC 54 Sidepath (James St to NC 54 Sidepath (James St to 1522 NC 54 Sidepath James Street Anderson Park Entrance Orange $700,000 Anderson Prk) multi-use path. Anderson Prk) multi-use path. 56.7 10 58 US 15-501 (Fordham US 15-501 (Fordham Blvd) US 15-501 (Fordham Blvd) Overlaps with highway project 1529 1902 (Manning Drive) Old Mason Farm Road Orange $2,300,000 Bvoulevard) Overpass / pedestrian and bicycle pedestrian and bicycle 55.0 11 42 #1143. Bolin Creek/Little Creek Estes Drive Extension at Chapel Bolin Creek/Little Creek Bolin Creek/Little Creek 1531 Pinehurst Drive Orange $3,200,000 Greenway Trail Hill Community Center Greenway (Chapel Hill Greenway Trail (Chapel Hill 54.7 12 52 Used v/c on Estes NC 86 (Martin Luther King SR 1727 (Eubanks Rd) (Rogers SR 1727 (Eubanks Rd) (Rogers 1525 1727 (Eubanks Road) 1729 (Rogers Road) Orange $824,000 Boulevard) Rd to NC 86) bicycle lanes. Rd to NC 86) bicycle lanes. 51.7 13 54 Same as highway project #1096. Scott King Road (Fayetteville 1103 - Scott King Road 1492 1103 (Scott King Road) 1118 (Fayetteville Road) 1100 (Grandale Road) Durham $630,000 Rd. to Grandale Rd.) – On-road (Fayetteville Rd. to Grandale 50.6 14 46 US 70 Business (Hillsborough NC 751 (Erwin Rd. roundabout NC 751 - Erwin Rd. roundabout Durham, 1495 NC 751 1307 (Erwin Road) $860,000 Road) to Hillsborough Rd./US 70) – to Hillsborough Rd./US 70 – On- Orange 49.7 15 48 Cole Mill Road (Rose of Sharon 1401 - Cole Mill Road (Rose of 1496 1401 (Cole Mill Road) 1404 (Rose of Sharon Road) Orange County Line Durham $725,000 Rd. to Orange County line) – Sharon Rd. to Orange County 43.1 16 46 Orange Grove Rd (SR1006), SR 1006 (Orange Grove Road) - 1919 SR 1006 (Orange Grove Road) I-40 SR 1102 (Dodsons Cross Road) Orange $40,920 Orange County, Bicycle 4' Orange County, Bicycle 4' 37.5 17 50 Part in TARPO Dry Creek Trail: Phase 1 Perry Dry Creek Trail Phase 1 - Perry 1499 Dry Creek Trail Phase 1 Perry Creek Road 1734 (Erwin Road) Orange $1,250,000 Creek Road to Erwin Road Creek Road to Erwin Road 37.5 18 48 Used v/c on Erwin

DCHC MPO Regional Prioritization Methodology - 2011-10-17 Page 5 of 9 175 B Results TCC 10/26/2011 Attachment 5A

Total Cost MPO MPO State Recommended SPOT ID Route Name From To Description Name and Short Description Counties (Sum) Score Rank Score Notes Rank Buckhorn Rd Bike Lane Buckhorn Rd (SR 1114) - Bike 1885 Buckhorn Rd (SR 1114) US 70 SR 1146 (Old Ten Road) Orange $470,085 Widening (SR 1114) 4' Paved Lane Widening - (SR 1114) - 4' 35.8 19 35 Part in TARPO and BGMPO Dodson's Crossroads Road; add SR 1102 (Dodsons Cross Road) - 1905 SR 1102 (Dodsons Cross Road) SR 1177 (Dairyland Road) SR 1006 (Orange Grove Road) Orange $364,320 4' paved shoulders. add 4' paved shoulders. 32.5 20 50 Part in TARPO

DCHC MPO Regional Prioritization Methodology - 2011-10-17 Page 6 of 9 176 P Results TCC 10/26/2011 Attachment 5A

Total Cost MPO State Recommended SPOT ID Route Name From To Description Name and Short Description Counties (Sum) Score Rank Score Notes Rank US 501 Business (Roxboro Duke Street (Murray Ave. to US 501 Bypass - Duke Street 1505 US 501 Bypass (Duke Street) Murray Avenue Durham $1,150,000 1 Road) Roxboro Rd.) – Sidewalks (Murray Ave. to Roxboro Rd.) – 85.6 1 57 Only a short portion is within the City City Limits (Research Triangle NC 54 (NC 55 to RTP) – NC 54 (NC 55 to RTP) – limits. Suggest pursuing STPDA or CMAQ 1502 NC 54 NC 55 Durham $380,000 Park) Sidewalks Sidewalks funding instead of Bike/Ped Division 83.9 2 57 Funds. US 501 Business (Roxboro Roxboro Road (Pacific Ave. to US 501 Business - Roxboro 1503 Murray Avenue Pacific Avenue Durham $350,000 2 Road) Murray Ave.) – Sidewalks Road (Pacific Ave. to Murray 83.1 3 55 Streetscape project; Since sidewalks SR 1118 (Fayetteville St) (SR SR 1118 (Fayetteville St) from mostly already exist, NCDOT Bike/Ped 1158 (W Cornwallis Rd) to NC SR 1158 (W Cornwallis Rd) to 1514 1118 (Fayetteville Street) 1158 (Cornwallis Road) NC 147 (Durham Freeway) Durham $775,000 Division would not fund this project. 147) sidewalks and streetscape NC 147 sidewalks and Subcommittee recommends enhancements streetscape enhancements withdrawing the project. 80.6 4 57 NC 98 (Holloway St) (SR 1838 NC 98 (Holloway St) (SR 1838 1520 NC 98 (Holloway Street) 1838 (Junction Road) 1919 (Chandler Road) Durham $810,000 3 (Junction Rd) to SR 1919 (Junction Rd) to SR 1919 78.9 5 57 Horton Road (Guess Rd. to 1443 - Horton Road (Guess Rd. 1506 1443 (Horton Road) NC 157 (Guess Road) US 501 (Roxboro Road) Durham $525,000 4 Roxboro Rd.) – Sidewalks to Roxboro Rd.) – Sidewalks 77.2 6 57 Streetscape project; Since sidewalks 1127 - W Chapel Hill Street W Chapel Hill Street (Kent St to mostly already exist, NCDOT Bike/Ped (Kent St to Buchanan Blvd) 1515 1127 (Chapel Hill Street) 1127 (Kent Street) Buchanan Boulevard Buchanan Blvd) sidewalks and Durham $80,000 Division would not fund this project. sidewalks and streetscape streetscape enhancements Subcommittee recommends enhancements withdrawing the project. 75.6 7 52 Streetscape project; Since sidewalks E Main St (Hood St to NC 55 E Main St from Hood St to NC mostly already exist, NCDOT Bike/Ped 1517 Main Street Commerce Street NC 55 (Alston Avenue) (Alston Ave)) sidewalks and 55 (Alston Ave) sidewalks and Durham $150,000 Division would not fund this project. streetscape enhancements streetscape enhancements Subcommittee recommends withdrawing the project. 70.6 8 57 1118 (Fayetteville Road), near Cook Road (Fayetteville Rd. Cook Road (Fayetteville Rd. 1504 Cook Road Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway Durham $420,000 5 Hillside High School near Hillside High to Martin near Hillside High to Martin 68.9 9 57 US 15-501 (Fordham US 15-501 (Fordham Overlaps with highway project #527 US 15-501 (Fordham Boulevard) (SR 1742 (Ephesus Boulevard) (SR 1742 (Ephesus which is funded in FY 2019 in the 12-18 1523 1742 (Ephesus Church Road) Elliott Road Orange $175,000 Boulevard) Church Rd) to Elliott Rd) Church Rd) to Elliott Rd) TIP. Subcommittee recommends sidewalks. sidewalks. pursuing sidewalk through this project. 68.3 10 60 W. Main St. – Install improved 1010 - W. Main St. – Install 1507 1010 (Main Street) 1009 (Hillsborough Road) 1005 (Jones Ferry Road) Orange $132,480 pedestrian crossings and improved pedestrian crossings 67.2 11 57 SR 1919 (S Greensboro St) (Old SR 1919 (S Greensboro St) 1527 1919 (Greensboro Street) Old Pittsboro Road 1771 (Merritt Mill Road) Orange $635,000 Pittsboro Rd to SR 1771 from Old Pittsboro Rd to SR 62.2 12 52 US 15-501 Business (N US 15-501 Business (N Streetscape project; Since sidewalks Mangum St)-Corporation St Mangum St)-Corporation St mostly already exist, NCDOT Bike/Ped 1519 US 15-501 (Mangum Street) Broadway Street Miosha Street intersection sidewalks and intersection sidewalks and Durham $80,000 Division would not fund this project. streetscape enhancements in streetscape enhancements in Subcommittee recommends Old Five Points area Old Five Points area withdrawing the project. 60.6 13 52 E Main St (Gary St to S Driver E Main St (Gary St to S Driver Existing sidewalks on one side of street. 1521 Main Street Gary Street Driver Street Durham $275,000 St) sidewalks. St) sidewalks. Used AADT on Main in downtown 55.6 14 52

DCHC MPO Regional Prioritization Methodology - 2011-10-17 Page 7 of 9 177 P Results TCC 10/26/2011 Attachment 5A

Total Cost MPO State Recommended SPOT ID Route Name From To Description Name and Short Description Counties (Sum) Score Rank Score Notes Rank US 15-501 at Mann's Chapel US 15-501 at Mann's Chapel 1511 US 15-501 1532 (Mann's Chapel Road) N/A Chatham $300,000 Rd. - Add pedestrian refuge Rd. - Add pedestrian refuge 54.2 15 43 Cleland Drive / Burning Tree Cleland Dr/Burning Tree Dr Cleland Drive / Burning Tree 1528 US 15-501 NC 54 Orange $440,000 Drive (Cleland Dr and Burning Tree Drive - sidewalks. 50.6 16 48 Estes Dr. – Construct a 1782 - Estes Dr. – Construct a 1508 1782 (Estes Drive) 1772 (Greensboro Street) Town Limits Orange $550,000 sidewalk on the south side of sidewalk on the south side of 49.7 17 42 Old NC 86 – Construct a 1009 - Old NC 86 – Construct a 1509 1009 (Old NC 86) 1777 (Homestead Road) 1727 (Eubanks Road) Orange $520,670 sidewalk on the east side of the sidewalk on the east side of the 36.4 18 42 1221 (New Grady Brown SR 1006, Orange Grove Road, SR 1006, Orange Grove Road, 1510 1006 (Orange Grove Road) Timbers Drive Orange $1,010,000 School Road) at Interstate 40: Construct a at Interstate 40: Construct a 27.2 19 32

DCHC MPO Regional Prioritization Methodology - 2011-10-17 Page 8 of 9 178

T Results TCC 10/26/2011 Attachment 5A

Adopted Alternative MPO Methodology Methodology Recomme Transit Partners and MPO MPO MPO State nded SPOT ID GOAL TIER Providers STIP# DESCRIPTION MPO Score Rank Score Rank Score Points Notes

1410 health sub regional CHAPEL HILL TRANSIT TA-4748 Replacement Van - Paratransit 62.50 1 62.18 1 27.0 54 DURHAM AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY / 1411 health sub regional DATA TA-5019A Replacement Van - Paratransit 22.98 13 45.79 2 5.0 54 DURHAM AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY / 1400 health sub regional DATA TA-4923 Replacement Bus - fixed route 62.34 2 41.70 3 26.7 54

1394 health regional TRIANGLE TRANSIT TA-4818 Replacement Bus 18.21 15 40.50 4 3.1 27

1415 health regional TRIANGLE TRANSIT TA-5107 Replacement Van - vanpool 27.11 9 37.50 5 7.9 27

1391 health sub regional CHAPEL HILL TRANSIT TA-4726A Replacement Bus 49.78 3 35.66 6 19.6 54 DURHAM AREA The TIP Subcommittee questioned the need for expansion vehicles TRANSIT AUTHORITY / for DATA in FY 2013-2015 considering the current fleet levels and the 1342 mobility sub regional DATA TA-4755 Expansion Bus 42.34 4 33.41 7 35.4 42 City's ability to provide a local match. Fixed Guideway - Raleigh-Rtp-Durham Design 1385 mobility regional TRIANGLE TRANSIT TE-4903A Phase 1 24.63 11 30.67 8 5.2 21 Fixed Guideway - Chapel Hill-Durham Design 1384 mobility regional TRIANGLE TRANSIT TE-4903B Phase 1 23.38 12 30.06 9 5.2 42

1344 mobility regional TRIANGLE TRANSIT TA-5123 Expansion Bus 31.77 6 29.49 10 19.6 21 DURHAM AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY / 1373 mobility sub regional DATA TD-5267 Facility - Park & Ride, 2 Lots 30.30 7 24.85 11 12.3 28

mobility regional TRIANGLE TRANSIT TD-4941 Facility - Park & Ride Regional Expansion 1372 21.05 14 22.57 12 4.3 14

1368 mobility sub regional CHAPEL HILL TRANSIT TD-4710 Facility - Park & Ride 37.99 5 22.35 13 17.8 28

The TIP Subcommittee questioned if this lot would be considered by TTA as part of their Park and Ride Regional Expansion project. The PIEDMONT AUTHORITY Subcommittee also questioned if BGMPO would be alloting points to FOR REGIONAL Facility - Park & Ride in Buckhorn Economic this project. (TARPO does not get to assign points to urban transit 1370 mobility regional TRANSPORTATION TD-5268 Development District in Orange County 26.19 10 18.93 14 11.2 28 system projects.)

1418 mobility regional TRIANGLE TRANSIT TT-5213 Technology - Regional Fare System Upgrade 17.71 16 18.75 15 12.7 14

Fixed Guideway - Bus Rapid Transit Operational 1383 mobility sub regional CHAPEL HILL TRANSIT TE-5203 Improvements (plan 2013, con 2014)U-5119 28.80 8 14.84 16 14.3 28

1354 mobility regional TRIANGLE TRANSIT TD-4944 Facility - I-40 Bus Bypass Shoulder Project. 16.88 17 13.01 17 7.3 14 maximum points 550

Page 9 of 9 DCHC MPO Regional Prioritization Methodology - 2011-10-17 179

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

FROM: Greenways Commission Christine S. Berndt, Chair

SUBJECT: FY2014-2020 TIP Regional Priority List

DATE: October 26, 2011

At its October 26, 2011 meeting, the Greenways Commission reviewed the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Transportation Improvement Program Regional Priority List and voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend that the Council request that the following changes be made to the bicycle priority rankings:

1. Bolin Creek Trail Phase IV (current ranking 6). Move this project into the top five bicycle projects replacing the Morgan Creek Trail (current ranking 5).

2. Horace Williams Greenway (current ranking 7). Move this project in front of Morgan Creek Trail Phase 3 (current ranking 5).

The Commission in its motion also voted to support the Mount Carmel Church Road (current ranking #3) and the Campus to Campus Connector (current ranking #4) projects.

The Commission notes that the University is beginning to develop the Carolina North site, including construction of a north to south greenway trail that will eventually connect Homestead Road to Estes Drive Extension. The Bolin Creek Trail Phase IV would provide a key connection between the currently planned Phase III trail ending at Umstead Park to the Carolina North site. The Commission believes that it is more important at this time to work toward linking the future campus with the rest of Town in a manner that will allow easy and safe non-motorized transportation for citizens, linking neighborhoods and community destinations. This effort would have added recreational benefits such as walking, running, and bicycling that come with a longer, continuous trail connecting the Community Center with northern Chapel Hill.

The Commission recognizes that the Morgan Creek Trail would also be a very important project, but at this time recommends that the Town’s focus be on providing greenway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities to the Carolina North campus and connecting key sections of the greenway system to provide longer, continuous trails.

Present: Christine S. Berndt (Chair), David Tuttle (Vice Chair), Patrick Crawford, and Paul Ransford Absent: Roger Badrock, Lindsey Hoffer, and Joseph Lowman 180

SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION BOARD ACTION

Subject: Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) 2014-2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Regional Priority List

Meeting Date: October 27, 2011

Recommendation: The Board believes that conditions on Estes Drive from North Greensboro Street to 15-501, and, in particular between Route 86 and Caswell Drive, are a serious and pressing problem as regards the lack of bicycle paths and sidewalks. Estes Drive is among the busiest thoroughfares in our town and its deficiencies have a serious impact on transportation quality and safety. Accordingly, we encourage the Council to request that DCHC and/or MPO to reconsider the priority that it has given to these projects and rank them among those of the highest need. Thank you.

Vote: 8 - 0

Board members : A. Cho, M. Bushell, J. Dehart, Z. Hoover, M. Mihovilovic, M. Parker, W. Rummel, M. Scheer

Prepared by: Augustus Cho, Chair, Transportation Board Ryan Mickles, Transportation Planner 181

SUMMARY OF PLANNING BOARD ACTION

Subject: Draft 2014-2020 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program Regional Priority List

Meeting Date: November 1, 2011

Recommendation: The Board voted unanimously to provide the Council with the following comments:

• The Board requested that innovative stormwater treatments be included in the design of all the transportation projects. • The Board believes an overall design for improvements along Eubanks Road is needed as part of project #3, Eubanks Road, Rogers Road to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd bicycle and pedestrian improvements. • The Board agreed that pedestrian and bicycle improvements were needed along Mt. Carmel Church Road, project #4. • The Board supported project #6, Merritt Mill Road, Franklin Street to South Greensboro Street bicycle and pedestrian improvements. • The Board supported project #9, bicycle, sidewalk and transit improvements along Seawell School Road, noting that it would expand access to the schools along Seawell School Road. • The Board discussed the need for bicycle and pedestrian improvements along NC 54, project #11, and supported the provision of off road bikepaths. • The Board supported project #13, US 15-501, South Columbia to Ephesus Church Road, sidewalks, wide outside lanes and transit accommodations. • The Board believed that project #14, bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Erwin Road from US 15-501 to NC751 in Durham would provide an important link between Chapel Hill and Durham. • The Board did not support the provision of the super street design proposed for projects #15 and #17, improvements to Fordham Blvd. • The Board supported project #19, intersection improvements at US 15- 501 and Ephesus Church Road. • The Board supported projects #22 and #23, Chapel Hill Transit paratransit van and bus replacement. • The Board requested more information on the location of proposed park ride facilities associated with project #24. • The emphasized the need for improved pedestrian connections across Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd as part of project #25, Fixed Guideway, Bus Rapid Transit. 182

• The Board expressed support for project #29, Campus to Campus Connector and #30, Morgan Creek Phase 3.

Vote: 7 – 0

Ayes: Del Snow Chair, Vice-Chair, Andrea Rohbacher, Mike Collins, Deborah Fulghieri, John Ager, Judy Weseman and Amy Ryan.

Prepared by: Del Snow, Chapel Hill Planning Board David Bonk, Long Range and Transportation Planning Manager