20071576 Ver 1_Individual_20070918

EnvirantYie.~ita1 Ga:~isulta.nts, P.A
Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 + Phone; (919} 846-5900 Fax: (919} 84G-9467
www:SandEC.cam
Septernber 17, 2007
S&EC Project # 7352.W3
To: US Arn~y Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Andy Williams
6508. Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
From: Bob Zarzecki & Debbie Edwards
Soil & Environmental Consultants, P.A.
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27614
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
Attn: Cyndi Karoly
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Re: Alamance Crossing, LLC, Alamance West, Burlington, NC
INllIVTDUAL F1:RivIIT APPLICATIQN -AID i~o. 2005201040
On behalf of the owner, Alamance Crossing, LLC {Attn: Jon Meshel), please find attached a complete
application and supplemental information requesting an Individual Permit fram the U.S. Artny Corps of
Engineers {USAGE) and an Individual Certification from the N.C. Division of Water "Quality (DWQ).
Please contact me at {919) 846-5900 if you have any questions or regaire additional information.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Name Alamance West ;
Project T e Commercial Develo ment !
Owner / A licant Alamance Crossin ,LLC (Attn: Jon Meshel
Count Alamance
Nearest Town Burlington, NC
Waterbod Name UT to Back Creek
River Basin /USGS Catalo in Unit Ca e Fear /03030002
Index Number 03-06-03, 16-19-5
_
Class C, NSW
IMPACT SUMMARY
Stream Impact (acres) 0.183
Wetland Impact. (acres): 1.75
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 1:93
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 2,077
Attachments:
Individual Permit Application Fotm, Block Sheets & Supplemental Information
$570 Application Fee to DWQ
CC: Daryl Lamb, DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Office:
236 LePhillip Coutt, Suite C 3817-E 1.awndale Drive
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: {704) 720-9405 Phone: (.336) 540-8234
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Alamance Crossing, LLC-ALAMANCE WEST
Individual Perm it Application S&EC, PA Proj ect No. 7352. W3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... ....................................... 3
2. INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION ................................................. ....................................... 4
3. AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM ........................................................ ....................................... 6
4. BLOCK SHEETS ......................................................................................... .......................................7
5. MITIGATION PLAN .................................................................................. ..................................... 19
6. PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS ............................................................... ..................................... 21
7. VICINITY MAPS ........................................................................................ .....................................26
8. PHOTOS ....................................................................................................... .....................................32
9. IMPACT MAPS ........................................................................................... ..................................... 39
10. STORMWATER ........................................................................................... .....................................48
Attachements
1) Alternatives Analysis
2) Proforma
3) Road Crossing Justification
4) City of Burlington letter (dated 08/28/07)
5) NHP Report
6) SHPO Letter (dated 06/07/05)
7) NCEEP Acceptance letter (dated 09/05/07)
Page 2 of 87

Alamance Crossing, LLC-ALAMANCE WEST September 2007
Individual Perm it Application S&EC, PA Proj ect No. 7352. W3
Executive Summary
The proposed project, Alamance West, involves the commercial development of property
currently owned by the applicant, Alamance Crossing, LLC totaling f 35 acres. The
project is located within the northeast quadrant of the intersection of ST. Mark's Church
Road and Boone Station Road and will connect to the existing Alamance Crossing
Shopping Center (Alamance East) completing the University Drive Retail Corridor in
Burlington, NC.
Specifically, Alamance West is intended to be the completion of a retail shopping center
located on the north side of US Interstate 85/40, Burlington, NC. This open-air "lifestyle
center" campus setting shopping center is planned to have a full range of retail and retail
related businesses, such as financial institutions, restaurants, cinemas, hotels and offices.
The preliminary planning of this project dates back to 2001 and includes evaluations such
as a detailed wetland delineation completed by Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
(S&EC) in September 2002, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment which included a
Threatened & Endangered Species review, a State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
review and a Cultural Resources Archeological Resources review all completed by
Engineering Consulting Services, LTD in June 2005. Furthermore, in June 2005, Mr.
Todd Tugwell of the USACE confirmed jurisdictional wetlands onsite (Action ID#
200520140). In September 2005, Mr. Daryl Lamb of the Winston-Salem Regional Office
conducted an intermittent/perennial stream determination onsite. And on August 30,
2007, Mr. Andy Williams of the USACE confirmed importance stream calls and
mitigation ratios onsite. Total impacts proposed equal 1.75 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands and 2,0771inear feet of stream.
The Alamance West project consists of one (1) stream wetland crossing proposed to cross
the important stream and riparian wetland that bisects Alamance West from the existing
Alamance East and lot fill proposed within the northwest corner and central portion of the
site which includes an old pasture, herbaceous wetland; a drained pond, cattail wetland;
forested headwater wetlands below the old pond dam and important and unimportant
stream systems and associated riparian wetlands that flow southeast through the central
portion of the site.
During the grading activities onsite, a small linear wetland (0.01 acres) was filled with
earthen fill material and is accounted for and represented within the application package.
All proposed stream and wetland impacts are proposed to be mitigated for through the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Additionally, the remaining stream
systems (2,514 linear feet) and wetlands (1.89 acres) onsite where impacts are not
proposed are to be placed into preservation via a restrictive covenant.
Page 3 of 87

APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
(33 CFR 3251 Expires December 31, 2004
The Public burden for this collection of information is sestimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require
5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Direc#orate of information
Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503, Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control
number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection ,Research and
Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a
permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies.
Submission of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit
be issued.
One set of origins! drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application {see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE F/LLED BY THE CORPS
1, APPLICATION N0. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
/!7'XMC RFI nw Tn RF' X11 I ~n Rv spur trenm
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8.. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE fana~entisnorreauireatl
Alamance Crossing, LLC Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
800 South Street, Suite 395 11010 Raven Ridge Road
Waltham, MA 02453 Raleigh, NC 27614
7.. APPLICANT`S PHONE NOS, W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS, W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 781-647-3330 ~ b. Business 919-846-5900
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION -~
hereby authorise, See Attached Authorization Form to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (seeinstructions~
Alamance West
'13, NAME OF WATERBODY. IF KNOWN /ifannli.~+hlP1 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS lifapplicabiel
_- --- -- - -_^ _ _ __ _. __.._ _ - i _... _. _. _.
~~~t~ r.~ rs~~c-K ~ ~r~~~r-
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Alamance North Carolina
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (seeinstructionsl
36.0696 N, 79.5133 W (NAD83/WGS84)
17, DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Raleigh, NC take US Interstate 40/85 West, take Exit 140/University Drive and go north,
take right on Boone Station Drive, project site on left in the northeast quadrant of Boone
Station Drive and ST. Marks Church Road.
NG F RM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW-OR)
Page 4 of 87

18. Nature of Actlvlty (Description oP project, include all featuresl
See Block Sheet 18.
19. Project PurpOSe (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructionsl
See Block Sheet 19.
.~,.,~
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
~_,~~_
20. Reason{s} for Discharge
See Block Sheet 20.
21. Type(s1 of Material Beinq Discharsled and the Amount of Each Tvoe in Cubic Yards
See Block Sheet 21.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled lseeinstructions)
1.75 acres of Wetlands and 0.183 acres of Waters-See Block Sheet 22.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes ~ No IF YES. DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
Impact Area #3, Drawing 6 of 8. See Block Sheet 23.
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental fist}.
See Block Sheet 24.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL" IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
------------- ------------- See Block Sheet 25. ------------ ------------ ------------
' W~+u!d tn~1u@e buf !a R9L festTlct~ t9 ~6`!1fnQ, !~t!!!$!rtg lard flood pfai;~ permit;
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that 1 possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly authorized agent of the applicant.
~/`~D,Z
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE G E DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant} or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
a.rinfR7

09-30-0-r 09:39 Fram-CBL Associates
7919d7l611 T-233 8.002/002 F-102 ~~~
1-1Qltl~ haven Ridge a,.®~d R~4ieigh, PtDtf#t f~noliaa 27b14 + l~oao: (9'I9) 8~'ib•S~QQ Fans; ~9i9) 8+ib-9Af7
~yoyEv.SsudP,~,eant
P,.~Ei'd ]. AT_1'T'l-IOR~ATION Ft;}~.,'iR
l Bl a _ ~ ~ Be ~d illetl~~y 'I'b.~ ~uzr~'o ~r err Mu:ttiaival ~?f£i
Name: ~L~~ ~ ~ f -'
Adclres~z ~~~~i~ ~1 ~
~nfA-- ~1t~ ~~~tA ~ t7.2~t~'~

Project ~(e/I7~~ct~iption;~~ C t 4'~~ ~ ~ • ; ~ -~.. =,
The 17elaa~nent srf the .4'mY
U.S. a'r-Y Carps of F.s~gineers., l~t~'ll~ittsgton I~istiiot
P,O. IBox 169(7
Wilmington, I*1C 2~AQ2

Attn: ~r~,7~ ~ 1 i ~~~
Field OfCce: z~. r.. ; ~~ ~ O{~-t
late; Wetlands ~telated Ct+naulting and Permitting
~'a 1Nhotn ]t I4iay Conoern:
I, tl~e current landowner or municipal official, hereby designate a~ttd authorise Soil ~ Ertvirotitxtental Co~ultants,
PA to act in my behalf as n 1~+ went in the processing +~~ permit applications, tG furnish upon ~ecluest supgleauental
infbt'mation iri support of applications, etc. from. this daY forward. TIXe °,yC~.; _ day of : s4, :. ~ ~=~-
r..,
This noti~iaatian supersedes any pravioua corr+csppndertao conoerning the agent for tkds grQaect.
NCyTICE: This gutborixt~tiEm, far liahiltty and profeQSlctaai e~nurtesy r^easona, is valid only for gavernmen~~ffictials t+u
eater the property when accnml-auied by S&EC staff. Yau should call S&.1;<C to arrutl$p a site meeting p
visiting the alts.
~~` ~
p~ t~l~rap~ er's or Muxuoipal C~fheial's Name
ac: Ms. Cyndi Knroly
NCDENR - DWQ~
2321 Crabtree Bau]evarcE
Raleigh,l~TC 27604
p [3wner~ cipal ficitd's Sigaa e
eo: Mr. Ilob 2arzeeld
Sail & Envirvtunanta[ t~Qnsultsn~ts, ~'A
23b L.cl'hill%p (.hurt, Suite C
~QriL'OCL~y ~~ 28U:5
Rhone: (7p4) 720-9455
Fax; (7{l4) 720-9abd
3817-E Lawndala t3riv~
Greensboro, 3~lC 274SS
Phase: [phone]
Fax; (33fi) 5AR-8235
~- ~ -- - --. - -. Page 6 of 87

Block Sheets
Page 7 of 87

ALANIANCE WEST 2007
BLOCK SHEETS
BLACK 18 -Nature of Activity
The proposed project, Alamance West, involves the development of property currently
owned by the applicant, Alamance Crossing, LLC totaling ~ 35 acres and as depicted on
the attached overall site plan map and impact maps. The Alamance West project is a
planned commercial development consisting of one (1) proposed road crossing and
proposed lot fill necessary for I•etail buildings and parking. The project is located on the
north side of US Interstate 85!40 on the southwest side of Burlington, NC (see attached
vicinity maps).
Impact #1 (Road Crossing}- proposes permanent impacts to 75 linear feet of important
stream (0.005 acres) and 3,645 ft2 of riparian wetlands (0.084 acres) for the purpose of a
road crossing. This road crossing will serve as a connection to the existing Alamance
East pI•oject. See Dra«~ing 4 of 8, in addition to attached letter from the City of
Burlington and attached justification provided by the applicant.
Impact #3 ,Lot Fill- proposes permanent impacts to three (3}streams and riparian
wetlands for the purpose of lot fill necessary for retail buildings and parking. Each
proposed stream impact below within Impact #3 has been separated, quantified and
identified by stream designation. Specifically, Channel A, which consists of Channel A-1
& A-2; proposes the fill of 380 linear feet of unimportant stream (0.035 acres) and the fill
of 475 linear feet of important stream (0.044), consecutively; Channel B, which consists
of Channel B-1 & B-2; proposes the till of 380 linear feet of unimportant stream (0.035
acres) and the fill of 480 linear feet of important stream (0.044 acres), consecutively; and
Channel C which proposes the fill of 2871inear feet of unimportant stream (0.020 acres).
Additionally, Impact #3 requests approval for the already completed permanent impacts
to 429 ft2 of linear wetlands (0.010 acres). See Drawings 6 of 8 & 7 of 8, in addition to
attached Alternatives Analysis.
The materials to be used include earthen fill to construct the base for the roads, buildings
and parking lots. The roads would be paved and use curb and gutter to manage
stormu-~ater runoff. Pavement materials include asphalt, concrete and paver blocks. The
proposed road crossing ~~~ill utilize a 42" RCP pipe and rip-rap dissipater, this pipe will
allow for hydrologic connectivity between the undisturbed stream and wetland area. The
retail buildings will be constructed using concrete, brick, building blocks, paint, plywood,
lumber, wiring and steel.
~A~aters of the US:
There aI•e approximately 4,591 linear feet of streams and approximately 3.64 acres of
wetlands within the project boundaries. These waters are located within the "Back
Creek" watershed. Back Creek is depicted as a tributary stream to Big Alamance Creek
within the Cape Fear River Basin, USGS Cataloging Unit No. 03030002. The N.C.
Division of ~A~ater Quality (D~A~'Q) has classified this section of Back Creek as "C;
NSt~4~"; ("C"-Secondary Recreation; "NSW"-Nutrient Sensitive Waters}.
Page 8 of 87

ALAMANCE WEST 2007
BLOCK SHEETS
BLOCK 18 -Nature of Activity (Continued)
The wetlands onsite consist of 3 main types; (1) herbaceous wetlands, the pasture wetland
above the drained pond; (2) cattail wetlands, the wetland within the drained pond; and (3)
headwater forested wetlands, the wetlands below the drained pond, adjacent to the stream
feature identified as channel "C" and adjacent to the stream feature on the eastern project
boundary of the project. The pasture wetland is dominated by various species of rushes,
sedges and some black willow. The drained pond wetland is dominated by cattails. The
headwater forested wetlands are dominated by black gum, slippery elm, white ash and
various herbaceous species. These headwater forested wetland areas are marginal in
nature and have weak hydrology indicators and weak hydrophytic vegetation. In
addition, there are small areas of potential uplands included within these wetlands for
convenience and therefore the proposed wetland impacts in these areas are somewhat
over estimated. The USACE determined that these wetland areas were `Yiparian"
wetlands and contain stream channels.
Page 9 of 87

ALAMANCE WEST 2007
BLOCK SHEETS
BLOCK 19 -Project Purpose
The basic project purpose is to complete the development of a Regional Retail Business
Center (RRBC) to serve the Alamance County, Eastern Guilford County and Orange
County regional markets. A RRBC features a full range of retail and related businesses
such as financial institutions, restaurants, cinemas, hotels and offices located in a campus
setting. The overall project purpose is to complete a commercial development on
properties owned by Alamance Crossing, LLC as depicted on the attached maps as
Alamance West. Impacts to waters of the U. S. associated with the development plan
include the construction of roads, retail buildings and parking areas. While the applicant
agrees that these activities are not water dependent, similar impacts are constructed
within waters of the US as required to access high ground. Alamance West will complete
the RRBC serving Alamance County, Eastern Guilford County and Orange County's, as
such this shopping center will provide retail shopping for the region and is anticipated to
be the only regional shopping area for miles to the east and the west.
Page 10 of 87

ALAMANCE WEST 2007
BLOCK SHEETS
BLOCK 20 -Reasons for Discharge
Road Crossings -There is one (1) permanent road crossing proposed on the Alamance
West project. The proposed road crossing is located on the stream feature that separates
the existing Alamance East from Alamance West and will serve as two purposes. First,
the City of Burlington views this connection as integral to their master planning as it
encourages the connection of the shopping areas (Alamance East &Alamance West)
while allowing the minor thoroughfare, running east to west on the south side of the
development (Boone Station Drive) to function as a through road moving public traffic
from University Drive to Garden Road. And secondly, the connectivity will minimize
internal traffic congestion contained within the individual shopping centers. The road
will also allow multiple points of ingress and egress between the sites in case of an
emergency or evacuation. See attached letter from the City of Burlington and attached
justification provided by the applicant.
Initially, the applicant proposed two (2) road crossings for connection between Alamance
West and the existing Alamance East but as requested by the Andy Williams in the
August 30, 2007 site visit, one (1) of the proposed road crossings was eliminated from
the proposed project. The applicant chose to eliminate the road crossing from the site
plan that proposed more stream and wetland impacts than the existing proposed road
crossing, thereby minimizing the overall project impacts.
Retail Buildings and Parking- The proposed lot fill for the Alamance West project is
primarily due to the building area required for the retail buildings and required facilities
necessary to reach a minimal rate of return for the project. The parking area for each
building must be located appropriately and meet industry standards along with local code
requirements (4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Floor Area).
Additionally, department stores and other anchor stores require that the parking be
located within 450 of the store entrance served by the parking area.
Page 11 of 87

ALAMANCE WEST 2007
BLOCK SHEETS
BLOCK 21 -Type of Material Being Discharged and the
Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
WETLAND IMPACT TABLE
Type of Area of Volume of
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland
Material Impact Discharge
Site Number Type of Irnpact (e.g., forested, marsh, Being (square (cubic
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) Discharged Ya*ds) ya*ds)

Impact #1
Map4of8 Road Crossing Headwater Forest Earthen Fill 405 135
Impact #3 Lot Fill Herbaceous & Earthen Fill 8
104 2
699
Map 6 of 8 & 7 of 8 Headwater Forest , ,
Total Discharge Volume (cubic yards) 2,834
* Areas are rounded up to the nearest square yard.
** Volumes are rounded up to the nearest cubic yard and assume wetlands to be 0.333 yards deep and do not
account for discharge materials above this 0.333-yard assumed depth.
STREAM IMPACT TABLE
Type of Afea of Volume of
Stream Impact
Type of
Perennial or
Material Impact Discharge
Site Number Stream Name Impact Intermittent? Being (square (cubic
(indicate on map) Discharged Ya*ds) ya*ds)

Impact #1 UT to Back Road Perennial (DWG Culvert & 25 9
Map 4 of 8 Creek Crossing Important (USAGE) Dissipater
Impact #3
ChannelA-1 UT to Back
Lot Fill Intermittent (DWG Earthen
169
57
Map 6 of 8 & 7 of 8 Creek Unimportant (USAGE) Fill
Impact #3
UT to Back Intermittent/
Earthen
Channel A-2
Creek Lot Fill Perennial (DWG***
Fill 212 71
Map 6 of 8 & 7 of 8 Important (USAGE)
Impact #3 UT to Back Intermittent (DWG Earthen
Channel B-1
Creek Lot Fill
Unimportant (USAGE)
Fill 25 9
Map 6 of 8 & 7 of 8
Page 12 of 87

ALAMANCE WEST 2007
BLOCK SHEETS
Irnpact #3 UT to Back Intermittent (DWG Earthen
Channel B-2
Creek Lot Fill
Important (USAGE)
Fill 214 72
Map 6 of 8 & 7 of 8
Impact #3 UT to Back Intermittent (DWG Earthen
ChannelC
Creek Lot Fill
Unimportant (USAGE)
Fill 96 32
Map 6 of 8 & 7 of 8
Total Discharge Volume (cubic yards) 250
* Areas are rounded up to the nearest square yard.
** Volumes are rounded up to the nearest cubic yard and assume wetlands to be 0.333 yards deep and do not
account for discharge materials above this 0.333-yard assumed depth.
*** Stream becomes "Perennial" below existing 15" RCP on existing path crossing as per NCDWQ site visit
September 2005
Page 13 of 87

ALAMANCE WEST 2007
BLOCK SHEETS
BLOCK 22 - SurFace Areas of Wetlands and Other
Waters Filled
WETLAND IMPACT TABLE
Wetland Impact
Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impac
(indicate on
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
ma) ~ es/no) (linear feet)
Impact #1 Road Crossing Headwater Forest No 0 0.08
Map4of8
Impact #3 Herbaceous & 1.67
Map 6 of 8 & 7 Lot Fill Headwater Forest No 0
of 8
Total Wetland Irnpact (acres) 1.75
* All impacts have been rounded up to the nearest 1/100 of an acre.
STREAM IMPACT TABLE
Average Impact
Stream Impact
Type of
Perennial or Stream
Length Area of
Number Stream Name
Impact
Intermittent Width
(linear Impact
*
(indicate on map) Before feet) (acres)
Irn act
Irnpact #1 UT to Back Road Perennial (DWG
3'
75
0
005
Map 4 of 8 Creek Crossing Important (USAGE) .
Impact #3
UT to Back Intermittent (DWG
Channel A-1
Creek Lot Fill Unimportant 4' 380 0.035
Map 6 of 8 & 7 of 8 (USAGE)
Impact #3 UT to Back Intermittent/
Channel A-2 Creek Lot Fill Perennial(DW~*** 4' 475 0.044
Map 6 of 8 & 7 of 8 Important (USAGE)
Impact #3
UT to Back Intermittent (DWG
Channel B-1
Creek Lot Fill Unimportant 4' 380 0.035
Map 6 of 8 & 7 of 8 (USAGE)
Impact #3 UT to Back Intermittent (DWG
'
Channel B-2
Creek Lot Fill
Important (USAGE) 4 480 0.044
Map 6 of 8 & 7 of 8
Impact #3
UT to Back Intermittent (DWG
Channel C
Creek Lot Fill Unimportant 3' 287 0.020
Map 6 of 8 & 7 of 8 (USAGE)
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 2,077 0.183
* All impacts have been rounded up to the nearest 1/1000 of an acre.
Page 14 of 87

ALAMANCE WEST 2007
BLOCK SHEETS
BLOCK 22 - SurFace Areas of Wetlands and Other
Waters Filled (continued)
IMPACT SUMMARY
Stream Impact (acres): 0.183
Wetland Impact (acres): 1.75
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 1.93
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 2,077 (Important= 1,030;
Unimportant= 1,047)
Page 15 of 87

ALANIANCE WEST 2007
BLOCK SHEETS
BLOCK 23 - Is Any Portion of the Work Already
Complete?
hnpact #3 includes a linear wetland that was inadvertently filled during the clearing and
grading activities on site as a result of accidental omission from the construction
drawings and is therefore considered already complete. The area of impact totals 429 ft2
(0.01 acres). This small wetland area was filled «-•ith earthen fill and is included in the
area needed for lot fill associated with retail buildings and parking. Please see Impact #3,
directly north and connecting to Channel C, on map 6 of 8.
Page 16 of 87

ALANIANCE WEST 2007
BLOCK SHEETS
BLACK 24 -Names & Addresses of Adjoining Property
~Jwners, Lessees, et., Whose Property Adjoins the
Project Site.
Note: The addresses of property owners whose property adjoins the project site
Alamance West listed below were received by the City of Burlington, NC. All properties
to the east of the project site and south of Boone Station Drive are owned by _4lamance
Crossing, LLC. No properties south of US Interstate 85/40 are included within this list.
(3-25-144)
Pool or Pond Partners, LLC; c/o George Deloache
4001 Barrett DR
Raleigh, NC 2709
(3-25-37)
Fitzgerald Charlotte K
1408 Willow C~ak Dr
Burlington, NC 27215
{3-26-4}
Rumbley Gertrude M
1415 St. Mark's Church Road
Burlington, NC 27215
(3-26-5)
Shoffner Mildred W Revocable Trust
1408 St. Mark's Church Road
Burlington, NC 27215
Page 17 of 87

ALAMANCE V~~EST
BLOCK SHEETS
BLOCK 25 -Information about Approvals or Denials by
other Agencies.
Local Approvals:
Local approvals will be necessary for the Alamance Vest project, including Erosion &
Sediment Control Permits, storm~vater, subdivision plan approvals, and many others.
These approvals have not been included within this application, but can be provided bat
your request.
Division of Water C7ualit
In addition to the Erosion Control Permit that was issued by the City of Burlington, the
NPDES CTeneral Stormwater Permit (NCGO10000) administered by the D~~~Q was
automatically issued. Furthermore, in September 200, Mr. Daryl Lamb of the Division
of Water Quality, ~?Vinston-Salem Regional Office visited the site to confirm
perenniaUintennittent streams.
Page 18 of 87

Mitigation Plan
Page 19 of 87

ALAMANCE WEST 2007
Mitigation Plan-NCEEP & Onsite Preservation
At this time, the applicant proposes payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) to mitigate for proposed impacts to important streams
and jurisdictional wetlands as determined in the August 30, 2007 site meeting with Andy
Williams of the USACE. Specifically, mitigation at a 1:1 ratio for proposed important
stream and jurisdictional wetland impacts within Impact Areas #1 and #3. Attached to
this application is a letter from the NCEEP dated September 5, 2007 indicating that they
are willing to accept mitigation payment for the impacts proposed for this project.
Additionally, preservation of the remaining jurisdictional wetlands (1.89 acres) and
streams (2,514 linear feet) onsite is proposed via a restrictive covenant.
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 1,105
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 1.84
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 20 of 87

Public Interest Factors
Page 21 of 87

Alamance West September 2007
Individual Perm it Application S&EC, PA Proj ect No. 7352. W3
PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS
In a document provided by the U. S. Corps of Engineers titled "Wetlands & Corps Wetland Regulations"
and dated August 13, 2001, the Corps of Engineers lists 21 specific factors that will be reviewed related to
Public Interest. These factors are similar to the "Evaluation Factors" listed on Page 8 of the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Program, Application Information document dated May 1985. These items
are as follows:
Conservation
Economics Water Quality
Aesthetics
General Environmental Concerns
Wetlands
Historic and Cultural Resources
Fish & Wildlife Values
Flood Hazard Recreation
Floodplain Value Safety
Land Use
Navigation
Shore Erosion and Accretion
Recreation
Water Supply
Water Quality
Energy Needs
Safety
Food & Fiber Production
Mineral Needs
Property Ownership
Needs and Welfare of the People
L Conservation:
In conducting the planned development, the applicant would continue to practice sound land and water
conservation by providing sedimentation and erosion control as required under their Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan. The City of Burlington Engineering Department administers the erosion
control program within the City limits and extraterritorialjurisdictional area. This program operates
under the direction of the Land Quality Section of the North Carolina Deparhnent of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR) which enforces the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act of 1973 on a statewide basis. Properly designed and located sediment control structures
would be utilized to prevent sedimentation of undisturbed waters. The project would avoid
approximately 1.89 acres of on-site wetlands and 2,514 feet of streams. Restrictive covenants would
be used to protect these wetlands from future cumulative impacts. Implementation of the mitigation
plan would restore approximately 1.84 acres of wetlands and 1,105 feet of streams within the Cape
Fear River Basin.
2. Economics (33CFR320.4(c~):
The applicant would be the primary beneficiary with the leasing of commercial, retail space associated
with the project. In terms of economic impacts to the community, the project would allow continued
supply of retail space to meet the retail demands of the citizens of Burlington and surrounding areas.
An additional potential economic issue is the impact of the project on property values in the vicinity of
the operation. Experience with commercial development continuing in near proximity to the existing
commercial areas suggests that continued development of this commercially zoned area would not
diminish property utilization or value in the area immediately surrounding the development.
See attached alternatives analysis and proforma for more discussion regarding this topic.
3. Aesthetics:
The project would be designed to be aesthetically pleasing as a retail shopping area, and the avoidance
of wetlands and riparian corridors would provide additional open space for the patrons. The project
would not diminish the aesthetics of the surrounding community.
4. General Environmental Concerns (33CFR320.4(p)):
The overall impact to the environment as a result of the construction of the project would be minimal.
Temporary increases in sediment, construction noise, traffic levels, etc., would be expected during
construction of the project. Any potential long-term impacts to wetlands, streams, and fish and
wildlife would be somewhat offset by the mitigation offered by the applicant. Consideration was also
given to the environmental justice of the proposed project. The project would not result in negative
impacts to persons living or owning land with the floodplain downstream of the project. Accordingly,
Page 22 of 87

Alamance Crossing, LLC - ALAMANCE WEST
Individual Permit Application
September 2007
S&EC, PA Project No. 7352.W3
the proposed activity would not unjustly impact any surrounding property owner or particular minority
group (ethnic, socioeconomic, or othervG~ise).
5. Wetlands (33C:FR320.4(b}}:
The project would result in the loss of 1.75 acres of headwaters, riparian wetlands and 2,077 feet of
streams that currently provide some nutrient filtering, sediment removal, and aquatic habitat. The
applicant would mitigate for these unavoidable impacts through payment into the N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (see attached "Mitigation Plan" for further detail) to offset the impacts
associated with this project. The project would avoid 1.89 acres of on-site wetlands and 2,514 feet of
streams.
6. Historic and Cultural Resources {33CRF320.4(e)):
There are no known or suspected historic or culhn~al resources located within the permit area, and no impact to any
of these resources would result from the project. The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO} have stated in the attached letter dated June 7, 2006 that they are not aware of any
historic resources that would be affected by the proposed project and had no comment on the undertaking as
proposed. This letter was prepared for the Phase 1 EA performed by previous environmental consultants for the
property. S&EC has sent SHPO a request to re-verify this determination and we understand that they ~inll be sent
a copy of the Public Notice.
7. Fish & tVildlife Values (33CFR320.4(c)}:
The project would not be expected to result in permanent adverse effects to the overall fish or wildlife
value of the site. During construction, it is likely that some aquatic and terrestrial animals might be
lost, along with their habitat. Following construction, the remaining natural areas and wetlands would
continue to provide habitat for fish and migratory bird species.
S8cEC, PA has perfumed a review of National Heritage Program files and have confirmed that there
are no known occurrences of either Federally or State listed species within the project boundaries.
This is consistent with the Phase 1 EA performed on the property by previous envirommental
consultants. The only listed species are located south of I-85 along Big Alamance Creek. These
species are State listed but not Federally listed. It is not anticipated that this development will impact
any of these species given their location and the conservation measures (stormwater, etc.) proposed for
this development.
8. Flood Hazard:
The project would not be expected to have an impact on the overall hazard of flooding downstream of
the project site. The development would result in increases to impervious surface within the
watershed, but some of this increase would be offset by the retention of storm water runoff by the
remaining natural wetlands and riparian corridors in addition to the post-construction stonmwater
devices (wet detention pond, etc.) proposed for the development.
4. Fooodplain Value {33CFR320.4(1}):
Pursuant to Executive Order 11988, consideration is also given here to the effect that the proposed
project may have in reducing the risk of flood loss, minimizing the impact of floods on human safety,
health and welfare, and restoring and preserving the natural and beneficial values served b}'
floodplains. The project is not located within the 100-year floodplain. There are no named streams or
streams of significant size (greater than 3rd order) located on the property. The proposed storm~vater
detention devices and remaining ~vetlancls within the project area and immediate watershed would
assist in the retention of storn~vater runoff and downstream flooding. These wetlands would be
protected thru the means of restrictive covenants. Overall, the project should not result in measurable
impacts to the functions or value of the floodplain areas.
10. Land Use:
The entire project area would contain commercial development, which would be consistent with local
zoning requirements, so the proposed site 5vould not be put to a use that differs from the surrounding
areas. The property would not be put to a use that differs from its current use.
Page 23 of 87

Alamance Crossing, LLC -ALAMANCE WEST
Individual Permit Application
September 2007
S&EC, PA Proj ect No. 7352. W3
11. Navigation (33CFR320.4(0)):
The project is located on anon-navigable waterway. Accordingly, consideration of the projects effect
on navigation is not applicable.
12. Shore Erosion & Accretion:
This public interest issue is not applicable to this application as the project is not located in an area
where shoreline erosion or accretion is problematic. Terrestrial erosion and potential sedimentation to
surface waters would be addressed through the Division of Land Resources -Land Quality Section's
required Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan.
13. Recreation:
The project site is privately owned, but open to the general public. No existing public or private
recreational facilities would be negatively affected by the development and operation of the facility.
Patrons would be able to enjoy the recreational activities within the retail shopping center, including
but not limited the sidewalks, outdoor seating, natural ponds and retained riparian areas. Any potential
turbidity that is generated during construction would likely be carried into Back Creek (Class "C" by
N. C. DWQ, but would be minimized due to the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Class
"C"waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation
and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. Secondary recreation includes wading,
boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an
infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development or
types of discharges.
14. Water Supply (33CFR320.4(m)):
The project is not located within a classified water supply watershed. The development would comply
with all surface water standards for "C -NSW" waters. As such, it is not anticipated that the
development of the site and the resulting water needs would adversely affect any existing off-site water
supplies.
15. Water Quality (33CFR320.4(d)):
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality certification has been applied for in association with this
permit application. Special conditions are anticipated, and a copy of these conditions will be provided
to the USACE. No major impacts to water quality are expected. However, increases in turbidity
during construction, loss of nutrient removal capacity of the filled wetland, and some discharge of
pollutants and nutrients in the runoff could result. The devices required under the Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan would assist in the protection of water quality. It is anticipated that a DWQ
approved stormwater management plan will be required for this development. As such, the applicant
has included a storm water management plan in the application. The final DWQ approved storm water
management plan and associated devises, along with the remaining wetlands and riparian corridors
would provide both stormwater retention and treatment of any runoff associated with the project to
prevent any cumulative affects to Back Creek and other downstream waters.
16. Energy Needs (33CFR320.4(n)):
The proposed project would not be used for the generation of power. The proposed project will
increase the current rate of power consumption required for this area. However, energy demands are
not anticipated to increase beyond previous development expectations for this area. Accordingly,
consideration of the projects effect on energy needs is not applicable.
17. Safety:
All entrances to the development along state roads have already or will meetthe standards of the North
Carolina Deparhnent of Transportation (NCDOT). In addition to the NCDOT constraints imposed for
the sake of safety, there are also constraints on the construction process by state law and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. A "local access/commercial street" is proposed to
connect Alamance West to Alamance East. This street will allow another point of ingress and egress
for both developments and will allow a connection between the developments without the need to use
Page 24 of 87

Alamance Crossing, LLC-ALAMANCE WEST September 2007
Individual Perm it Application S&EC, PA Proj ect No. 7352. W3
the existing minor thoroughfare road. See attached alternatives analysis and letter from the City of
Burlington for further details regarding this topic.
18. Food & Fiber Production:
The project is entirely residential in nature and consideration of its effect on food and fiber production
is not applicable.
19. Mineral Needs:
The project is entirely residential in nature and consideration of its effect on mineral needs is not
applicable.
20. Considerations of Property Ownership
Adjacent landowners may be affected as a result of the proximity of their property to the project, and
the possibility of an increase in their property value and resulting tax rate. However, the use of the
land would be consistent with the designated zoning and issuance of the permit would be consistent
with the owner's right to reasonable, private use of their land, and in keeping with the public's interest
in economic investment.
21. Needs and Welfare of the People
The applicant has established a need for the proposed retail development based upon the economic
benefit that would result from the project and local zoning intended use for the property. Also, the
economic value resulting from the project would benefit the public. Specifically, the local, state, and
federal tax base would benefit from the value added to the property and the temporary and permanent
jobs that would be created. Furthermore, the applicant would be in a better position to meet market
demand for retail space.
Page 25 of 87

Vicinity Maps
Page 26 of 87

N
Project #: Date:
7352.W3 Aug 2007
Project
Mgr„ BZ
Vicinity Map -Regional
Alamance West
Burlington,
Alamance, NC
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.• Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] • (919} 846-9467
Web Page: www.SandEC,com
Page 27 of 87

--- - ----° To Reidsville - - - _ - _..~ _-- -- - -- ~- _ To Yanceyville --~ - - --
. ~~
~
~
ca
~ RQG•r ~ ,ri 'IYG, 4
4
ur a RINGER ~ ,~ 49' ryry ~ C x
Mfr
G
` ~
`~
M
~
~C pop ~
,^~L RA•
P'y ~
RD.
a
"

~ ~ G~
m ~ p'7 ~
~ ~ Rp• DR.~ CRER?5
a
' ~
aw
+ o
! ry 91
~
GRRENWOOA
a _ - G,bencoe ~ City !~
"
~ .n
a
•..t m ~s! ~._ giver ~
~~ Lake rv Ru. -
.
s a:
y9 q CROSS ~',
Oq a ~'~a°ty ~~pH ~~~9
~ KG~~ ~d ~
~ RICv _ ~a~ ?j ~ ~ GS.E ~~ ~ ~
4 '
D
+ O
~
~
_ ~
~
~ ¢
'z yv°O~~ ~~' S~~vts Cr.
~~ 5A -Green
a
,
~ eQ
,~b5 Levei
~' " ~y
y'~@ Glen
~
~ o
~
,~ w
%L~ Raven '~o o~ ~: o~
'~i _I
~'~
~
~
~
f~y~ 10(1 ~?- tant¢~! G ~" ~ ~~ P~ F,p~ 4a

vo-, 4 ~
.da
1 ~ QL
L~, ~ ~~C1{I ~' ~"C
~~

O p
,an
,
~crgL~
~~~ If~e Lake J
r y }
.
~GGRRp
~
a ~~
~ I
~®
~
6
~~
~;
FRONT a ~
1
11~1~
11
_~.~.,, ~ x
e .\
~~
ii
~ fF B
~
~
y a
!fps ~
a
~ A ~ °:
x v ,~ ~
I
~ ~
.N, . Haw
~ ~ Mays,' Sa za '~" yam' NCRR ~ r~xovE~ Ro.
~~o F ,
m ~
Lake
,River
<":~~~P~
~ ~ !""~""
.
_
_
~ ~_ ~
~
e7
`
'
~
" ~
tt ~
' ~ ~,3 ,
~ n ~ Graham
°~~
~~
"~-~
H
,4~
~~
5
~ .~
,~
~
g ~ - ~• -- ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ I
a
; .
~ cr.
___ ~ ,
°J ®~~
.
.
_ ~ _ 6
~ ., ~ ~' -
r
r
~~ NB UST`R 'yf,Y
~
f
i
G4. `
,r
a t~ vv.. ~~
SITE
° a• a
~
~ a
i ~ Qek ~i:, n ;u
~ d~ int '
- C
.
~ -
'
~ ~
_
,
~.
reek
a.
'' ~4~eT~ ~
~ -•~.: tr7
R~-
'
*1 C
{
~
~ ~ O
p
r, n A4e~, at
G7 ~ ~' ~^
~ ~' v oH'r `_ ~'~,'
~ I
,
~~
Lal<e. Ap(TH ~ ~ MONRaR~ ¢ ~ OI
.~ ,~ 54
itlacdrntosli ~"Alamance ~ u f
R Ra. Btg _ 49 ~ S~ o
- -
" ~ gal ~,~so "
4a~ . Po~4 62
~f ~. ty

a~ ~ _ c~ f C
ANC g ~
gELL~.'MO1VT AI.AM ahcP ry '+ P ~
a~ ~'

~

,
k',ya o .P~• ~
RA. ~ .

,
~
~ E
N
-, ~e~enoatc~° ~srra;'x:~rx3-re:,'? SO[7TI{~, '
.,y,
~y
~ tl
~ o r~ f
~1~ o~ 1' ~4
l
Burlingfion Area
p
'2'j0 ~

tr.-
R
. BOY
0 1 2 3 ~ yc~'' p
p
4
~ `t~

Ta Asheboro To Sanford
N
Date:
Aug 2067
Vicinity Map ~ City
Mgr.: BZ
Alamance West
Burlington,
Aiamance County, NC
Soil & environmental Cons~iltants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.• Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] • [phone]
Web Page: www,SandEC.com
Page 28 of 87

N
Project #: Date:
7352.W3 At~g 2067 Vicinity Map • Streets •
Project ~ ~oi18:. Environmental Consultants, PA
Mgr.: ez 11010 Raven Ridge Rd.• Raleigh, IJG 27614
Alamance West {g19) 846-5900 • [phone]
Burlington, Web Page; www.SandEG.com
Alamance County, NC
Page 29 of 87

N
Mgr.: BZ
Aug 2007 tlSGS Map
Scale:
t" = 2000'
Alamance West
Burlington,
Afamance County, NC
Soil & EnviY•onrnental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Rd.~ Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] ~ [phone]
Web Page: www.Sand~C.com
Page 30 of 87

N
7352.W3 Aug 2007
SOII SUCVe
Ma
Project Scale: y
p
PJigr.: BZ 1" 1667'
l
W
amance
est
A
Burlingtan,

Alamance County, iVC
moil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11414 Raven Ridge Rd.• Raleigh, IBC 27614
{919) 846-59D0 • {919} 846-9467
Web Page; www.SandEC,com
Paga 31 of 87

Photos
Page 32 of 87

ALAI~IANCE CROSSING, LLC / ALAlVIANCE WEST / 2447 INDItjIDUAL PERI~TIT
SITE PHOTOS -AUGUST 34, 2447
Impact # 1 -Existing wetlands & stream within location of proposed commercial street.
Page 33 of 87
Impact # 3 -Existing drained pond wetlands

ALAI~IANCE CROSSING, LLC / ALAlVIANCE WEST / 2447 INDItjIDUAL PERI~TIT
SITE PHOTOS -AUGUST 34, 2447
Y
1
F ~ ~ ~~' IR,L ~
~' z ~ ~ -' ~ , ! ti ~19~Y
l.~.. ~ ~ l~(` ,any ~ ~±, , ~'''
tr ~c, ~ ~k
.r- T ~ !. M i .. ~~ ,
~y
~ ~ ~:
T 4.. r 1' f
1 - ~ i Y ,
~: ,
i .s~-, „~l~ ~fl~•
Impact # 3 -Existing pasture wetlands above drained pond.
Page 34 of 87
Impact # 3 -Existing relocated, channelized stream north of drained pond.

ALAI~IANCE CROSSING, LLC / ALAlVIANCE WEST / 2447 INDItjIDUAL PERI~TIT
SITE PHOTOS -AUGUST 34, 2447
0. ~~sl.... ~<
/;, , ~
i9E
~
~
~ ;~ ~I 1'
f
'-
~ r ~
i
~ 11
! ,
~-
~~
t /~ .
~' ) L

'~ i;~~1t. ~~P ~~,;,r1';,.
/ `
r _ . ~
~
' ;
~ ~ ~t ~'~a.: i
~
~ ~`~ f
~ >~ s'r~5~~'tir
.ti ~
_ ~

~,t4.a~ ~~~
~y ~.c Y ~ ,rte r
~.

} ~i 'S'

f ~`~ ~.
~
T
"
TT `
`3
R 6.
~
,i
1 1 p w .
r
((,~ y ,
~i! .. ~ / 1 .:
~l'
~: ~ - Aso i~'~iC~:,"2~.,~.:~Y _
i~+, , i
i, ~ .,
~.~,~ .., y~, -:
.~Fy~ R ~ ^ ~ ~~Jli `f ErR~~.
f ~
V~ ~ Lk sL ~ ••~1 ~
Impact # 3 -Existing stream draining out of drained pond.
~ ~.
b 't'"- ' r
', s~~~ .f~j _ ~r~ ~.. ~ C 'a
1. ~ - ~ ` ,'t~,~~ ~~
.yam .j S _1
_ , ~~
'~~ _ _ t ~~~~_ ~~yr~ i'
Impact # 3 -Existing main stream channel beloul relocated, channelized section and
northwest of confluence with stream draining out of drained pond.
Page 35 of 87

ALAI~IANCE CROSSING, LLC / ALAlVIANCE WEST / 2447 INDItjIDUAL PERI~TIT
SITE PHOTOS -AUGUST 34, 2447
~~
P` ~.~~ ~n
rr ~.~~ t` a~`
~,}T ~i, s
'.r
a -. a ~ ~ r

+ ~_ y~~
~" ~ ate? 1'r ~
- '(~'t'
x
~.:
s~
. ~ ~. / ..w
.IiR.?:: s ~
<'.
• ~ ~_

' 3r ye. _ a

~
a • ~ \- i.p~`4
~ ".t
~
~ S
~'~4~.
,
~ .aF
t' 47p'Y4 r ~ r`
.~.f . O
~ ~
~1s~.
c ~ •~
Y~Y~ .3
; ~ ~ +~ k
b.
~
~
r'Y. .'
r r
FA~w Iii rsy.
-t
_Y yy~~~r
~
.r .f
9~
4r~ "`~
_ '.
s. , _
i ~
p' ~ ' n ~
1
~'~.
v
.i,.
~ ~fs.
.. .l~.
° ~ ~ r' l
~
~
i y .

Impact # 3 -Existing farm road {approx. 1 ~-foot long pipe} located below confluence of
tGtTo streams.
Page 36 of 87
Impact # 3 -Existing wetlands below drained pond and between two streams.

ALAI~IANCE CROSSING, LLC / ALAlVIANCE WEST / 2447 INDItjIDUAL PERI~TIT
SITE PHOTOS -AUGUST 34, 2447
Impact # 3 -Existing stream and wetlands below previous location of linear wetland.
Impact # 3 -Existing wetlands & stream below linear wetland impact.
Page 37 of 87

ALAI~IANCE CROSSING, LLC / ALAlVIANCE WEST / 2447 INDItjIDUAL PERI~TIT
SITE PHOTOS -AUGUST 34, 2447
» y
l atit L- N I' .l i ~ ~'` 11 1 :t V ` 3L1.~
!~"° ~ ! r
~w ~ 1 ~~' ,yy~ __
SF.:! ~ ~ti.~~~Ml 'mil ~. ~` ~~r 1` ~1~ 'tiI ~~i iiT'~t.3 ` ~'i _
t t t . x '~ r° ~ ..
~.~F ji r ~ Y~. L.~xu ~., i y / .bw ~~~Y *,r: / ~' 1 ~1'Y _
.
~ ~ :'`. ,Y y +~¢K Y ~1' it
4 ;ws '?=t; . i. ~ w~ 'r~• oa"' t, rsr s~ -~ -.. - ~t
V + f ti ?
.~ ti A .1~,yi ~. r ..Fr.~ :.: tt a ~~ r~..
.}1'!14 ,'~.~ - t >4 \,k a~-~• 1 I -~~ _ ~y •T ~ tf ~.. ~n+ 11
fi_ .i'-y~~~y .f••; '1l~~fq any 1
~a' _ ~M'~-r,F' ~, w~Tf s„':"~'-1 R 1 3~ ~4 ~..A, .1 _ 'A_ ~~~
~11 ~_ _ia3' .!~ .w.'i ',~•A l 1.° 1.~i~`' - 1 KV7A
Impact # 3 -Existing main stream channel above existing temporary crossing and
proposed limits of disturbance.

r
~ /
v _
1 ~ i'w

~~ T Y
,~~~ F ~ f h; . l ~

, ,
,s ~
< 1 1 i~~
y'`4 y ' J1 F• ~f
_Fi ~ 1 ~. r " r; 1"

>~ 1
, a~ V 1
~. r~ , ! .!~
_ f

v

~ ~ , .,- Afya -
~t1 1 F L
r.
/
~~!77~
- • ~. ..G
Y j~•!
y
. ~
.. ~~ ~ Jlc,~:
,~~ r

' ` r r . .

~~ 1
s ~ •

Wetland, Stream & Riparian Buffers proposed to be avoided, preserved and protected
under a restrictive covenant ~locateci between Alamance West and Alamance East).
Page 38 of 87

Impact Maps
Page 39 of 87

ALAMANCE WEST
IMPACT MAPS
INTERSTATE 85!40, UNIVERSITY DRIVE AND GARDEN ROAD
BURLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
DEVELOPER
SITE DATA
ALAMANCE CROSSING, LLC TOTAL LAND AREA: 37.26 AC or 1,623,253 5F
c/o CBL 8. ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES, INC. ZONING: COMMERCIAL -MIXED USE
JON MESHEL PROPOSED USE: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
800 SOUTH STREET SUITE 395 EXISTING USE: AGRICULTURAL & RESIDENTIAL
WALTHAM, MA 02453 RIVER BASIN: CAPE FEAR
[ 7811 647-3330
HORVATH ASSC}CIATES, P.A.
1 b CONSULTANT PLACE, SUITE 201
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27707
P 919.490.4990 F 919.490.8953
www.horvathassociates.com
PROJECT COVER SHEET
AlamanCe West Drwn By: BP
-85 & University Drive Chk B : JR
Date: 08/
Burlington, North Carolina s~aie: ~„_
No I
1 of 8

r' O Z
:?

11 \111 ~1
Il ~15i
15~ 11111
11
1111
11 5
51
11
1\
1
111
1~
11
1 1
~°"
is
Q`da~ ~~~~N~
S~-~,dW 1S
v
rn ~
C N
~~~
~ ~ Z
0
~ZD
~ ~ ~
'77
Z
O
ono
;Dz
nz~
rn ~ rn
NZ7Do
~°°o
~~~
rn~N
S?°
O
rn rn n
~p
Z
o ~ C7
Cn = Cn
me
Drn
r ~
rnrn
{,~ D
t`J ~ ll ',1 `~ ~' ~ n U p d p O ~~
,J ,,, 11~
~, . ~' ,
~ `~ ; ' ~_"
~ '` ~. ~~ ~
~~
Gy ~~ I~
op~ o
° a C~
a 1 ~` ~ ~
5 I~~f ~t V
, ~~
1 11 ~ 1
p l,S~_Ta~~ /~ /'~
~I ~i c~ ~ L V I © p © p ~
1 ~ Z ~ ~ p d
i
7 ~~
~j r
1 ~A, m ~J111
~~ fl l5 1~~ ~ ~ rs 4y ~~ ~~ ~ r4- 1
D
D
'---- ------• \~~ Q

a~~
.~~;
HORVATH ASSOCIATES, P.A.
16 CONSULTANT PLACE, SUITE 201
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27707
P 919.49Q.499Q F 919.490.8953
www.horvathassociates.com
JURIS. LINEAR
IMPl4LT TYPE CHANNEL WETLMIDS WERANDS
N0. CH ONL SF ONL SF ONL
CHANNEL 73 LF __-- __--
225 SF
1

WETLANDS
---- 3.845 SF
----
O.oe4 Ac
CHANNEL 2.002 LF __-- __--
7.721 SF
3
~~~ ---- 72,506 SF 429 SF
1.66 AC
TOTAL IMPACT'S 2,077 LF 76,151 SF 429 SF
7,946 SF 1.744 AC 0.009 AC
OVERALL SITE MAP
Alamance West
-85 & University Drive
Burlington, North Carolina
3of8

42" STORM
W/ RIP RAP
PROPOS
WEST
1 ~
l
~.~
~ ~
~ ~

WETLANDS

PROJECT
BOUNDARY
0
~-~ ..:~,--~ LAMANCE
' ROBBING
~ -~
INI ACT `tom >~ EXISTING
AR A #1 ~ ~ ETAINING
t ALL
IMPACTS
EXISTING -
3' CHANNEL

NDARY
a~~
0 25 sa 100
SCALE: 1" = 50'
HORVATH ASSOCIATES, P.A.
16 CONSULTANT PLACE, SUITE 201
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27707
P 919.49Q.499Q F 919.490.8953
www.horvathassociates.com
IMPACT TYPE CHANNEL WETLANDS
N0. CH ONL SF ONL
CHANNEL 75 LF ----
~ 225 SF

WETLAND ---- 3845 SF {4.1383 AC)
IMPACT # 1
Alamance West
-85 & University Drive
Burlington, North Carolina
4of8

i n+ 5n
650
640
635
EX
5a'
D.41'lJY F.LE'Y
63Q 00
C
N
PROPOS ED
ORAC3E

EX.: CENTERLIN
GR ADE
E X. G
iGRADE 5 0' Rli
LEFT
*~; N ~
M M
~O b
~0+00
2ADE
3HT
640
636
632
-40 -2o a 20 40
,......,
636
632
^^,OPOSED ROAD

EXISTING
GRADE
S
t
^^"^~SED ROAD
1 o+Sa 628 .,~~
-aa -2a a 2a as
I ~/1 PACT # 1
EXISTING
GRADE
N C}TE: 0 20 4o ao
CREEK CROSSING DETAILS OF THE PIPE INSTALLATION ARE SCALE: 1"= 40' (H}
INCLUDED ON SHEET 8 OF 8 FOR IMPACT # 1. 1„=a' tv}
HORVATH ASSOCIATES, P.A. IMPACT #1 CROSS SECTIONS/PROFILE Proj #
0738
16 CONSULTANT PLACE, SUITE 201 Drwn By: BP Dwg NO
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27707 Alamance West
P 919.490.4990 F 919.490.8953 I-85 & University Drive Chk B JR 5
Date: 08/30/07
www.norvatnasscctates.ccm Burlington, North Carolina scale: i~~- 40' ~ °f $
Paoe 44 of 87

IMPACT AREA #3
EXISTING
WETLAND
(32.888 S F)
~~
< EXISTING
'<
'
P
Q; "IMPORTANT`
CHANNEL B-2
START
START
CHANNEL A-1 CHANNEL B-2

END
CHANNEL A-2
EX. 15" RCP AT '
EX. PATH
CROSSING
(1S' LONG)
EXISTING
"IMPORTANT'
CHANNEL A-2

JU
IMPACT TYPE CHANNEL WETLANDS WETLANDS
NO. LF ONLY SF ONLY SF ONL
CHANNEL A-1 380 LF __-- __--
1,520 SF
CHANNEL A-2 475 LF ____ ____
1,900 SF
CHANNEL B-1 380 ~ ---- ----
3 1,520 SF
CHANNEL B-2 480 ~ ---- ----
1,920 SF
CHANNEL C 287 LF __-- 429 SF
861 SF
WETLANDS ---- 72,506 SF ----
TOTALS 2,002 LF 72,506 SF 429 SF
7,721 SF
HORVATH ASSOCIATES, P.A.
16 CONSULTANT PLACE, SUITE 201
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27707
P 919.490.4990 F 919.490.8953
www.horvathassociates.com

Detention ~ ~
11 ~ ,.
j ~ \ Basin #2 r~; t
rJ ~ `~-1 '~~ ~
~~ ~ != r .
'~ \ ~ >~
\ ` ~ ~ ~.
~. ~~ ~ a
lY ~ , ` a
N `I ~ ~
-~ - P .
~'
~..?.~ f:.ti7 t Ta4:~ V 'i r
~~"sVS'~i ;E.I ! r f ;
I y / ~ z
t ~ ~.
I ~
°~ ~ ~~ ~
~., ~ ~
/~
0 50 140 200
SCALE: 1" = 100'
IMPACT #3 Proj #
Alamance West
-85 & University Drive
Burlington, North Carolina
bof8
W ETLAN D
I ~~~
IMPACT -~ ~~
AREA #1
(SEE SHEET 4 & +~
5 FOR DETAILS) ~' .
f
1
-END CHANNEL C '
't
PROJECT '-
EXISTING BOUNDARY~~
WETLAND
(3,873 SF~ ;
CHANNEL C

~ S
* .
~ ~
\r
t
l~
..
I ^
CHANNEL C
CHANN EL A-2
EXISTING
CHANNEL A-2
RIS. LINEAR ~'

IMPACT AREA #3 ``
PROJECT
BOUNDARY
s ~'
~~i
/~•
~ ~ IXISTING
• ~! WETLAND
~~~~ ~(14,615SF}

^
r
^
;,•
t~
~~~~/.

END ~•
-CHANNEL B-1 ~ ~
~~.i
ire
~~a
mow.
. ~~; .. .. ~ ~ r i
a EXISTING
"UNIMPORTANT'
CHANNEL B-1

START
CHANNEL B-1
EXISTING END
WETLAND CHANNEL B-2

IXISTING
WETLAND
~. (32,888 5F}

IXISTING
WETLAND
(21,130 5F}

EXISTING
CHANNEL B-
,~uRls. uNEAR
IMPACT TYPE CHANNEL WETLANDS WETLANDS
NO. LF ONLY SF ONLY SF ONLY
CHANNEL A-1 380 LF ____ ____
1,520 SF
CHANNEL A-2 475 LF __-- __--
1,900 SF
CHANNEL B-1 $
~ 1
520 SF
CHANNEL B-2 480 ~ ---- ----
1,920 SF
CHANNEL C 287 LF __-- 429 SF
861 SF
WETLANDS ---- 72,506 SF ----
TOTALS 2.002 LF 72,508 SF 429 SF
7,721 SF
HORVATH ASSOCIATES, P.A.
16 CONSULTANT PLACE, SUITE 201
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27707
P 919.490.4990 F 919.490.8953
www.horvathassociates.com
IXISTING
CHAN NEL A-1
0 50 100 200
SCALE: 1"= 100'
IMPACT #3
Alamance West
-85 & University Drive
Burlington, North Carolina
a~~
7of8

PROPOSED
PIPE CROSSING
PROPOSED
HEADWALL
FINIS H ED GRADE
/- EXISTI
EXIST
CHAI
I
PIPE CROSSING PLAN VIEW TTYPICALI
¢ ROAD
ELEVATION
DETAIL IS SHOWN WITH
BURLINGTON
~ PROPOSED STORM `PROPOSED ROAD SECTION \
PIPE CROSSINGS PER CITY OF BURLINGTON
STANDARDS CURB AND
GUTTER AND HEAVY DUTY
ASPHALT).
C/1IJ111W.i VRf'IUC
/' IXLSTING GRADE
FINISHED GRADE) INSTALL PIPE WITH 2096, OR 1T OF FINISHED GRADE
CULVERT, BELOW GRADE AT INVERT INSTALL PIPE WITH 2(796, OR 1 T' OF
OF EXISTING CHANNEL CULVERT, BELOW GRADEAT INVERT
OF EXISTING CHANNEL.
STORM CROSSING PROFILE ~TYPICALI
HORVATH ASSOCIATES, P.A.
16 CONSULTANT PLACE, SUITE 201
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27707
P 919.490.4990 F 919.490.8953
www.horvathassociates.com
IMPACT #1 CREEK CROSSING DETAILS
Alamance West
-85 & University Drive
Burlington, North Carolina
Sofa
1
IXISTING
CHANNEL Cr~~
END SECTION 1TYPICAL)

Preliminary Stormwater
Management Plan
Page 48 of 87

PR~L!!~1l~AC~Y STC?RMV~tATEI~ Mfi;fJAGE1~ET F'L,G~f
Sectr`or~ 404/4CJ1 ir~cf~v(dua( F'errr~if
Alamance West
I-85/40 & University Drive
Burlington, North Carolina
Horvath Associates Project Number: 0738
August 31, 2007
Prepared for: CBL
Jon Meshel
Watermill Center
800 Sovth Street, Suite 395
Waltham, MA 02453-1486
[phone]
Prepared by: Horvath Associates, P.A.
Engineers -Planners -Landscape Architects
16 Consultant Place, Suite 201
Durham, North Carolina 27707
(919J490-4990
Page 49 of 87

PREL(Mr'k~fARY STt~~lv(V`~IATE~ le4Ah~AGEP,~9C:PVT PLAtV
general Description
Aiamance West is a proposed commercial development located at the
intersection of Interstate 85/40 and University Drive in Burlington, North Carolina.
The tataE area of the site is 27 acres. The project wili cansist of several
commerciaE buildings and the associated private streets, parking, sidewalk, and
utilities. The property is located in the Cape Fear River Basin and is not in a
watershed protection district. Water quakity measures are proposed for this
project concurrently with the application for a Section 4041401 Individual Permit.
Water f~uality
Alamance West features a wet detention basin that will cailect runoff from the
proposed impervious area on the site. The wet detention basin will be designed
according to the mast recent North Carolina DWQ Stormwater BMP Manual
(NCDENR, July 2007, pp 10-1,2j. Preliminary design aspects meet the major
design element requirements, includ'€ng SA/DA ratio, permanent pool volume,
forebay volume, 3-6 foot average depth, and 10-foot vegetated shelf. The wet
detention basin will remove 85 percent total suspended solids. Detailed design
documents will be submitted for review with the construction drawings, after site
plan approval.
Pre-Development Site Drainage
The existing cover condition of the site is a mix between wooded and open
areas. Off-site areas to the north of the site were characterized by the density of
the residential developments.
The site is a mixture of three hydrologic soil groups - B, C, and D - as defined by
NRCS. D soils dominate the middle of the site, near the existing channels and
stream features. B and C soils are found in the northeast and southwest corners
of the site. Soils information is taken from Alamance County detailed county soil
survey maps distributed digitally by North Carolina Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis, last updated December 1998. The soil information was
digitized from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service soil surveys of
Alamance County published in April 1960.
Wet Detention Basin Design
The wet detention basin will be constructed in two interconnected basins. One
basin will serve as the forebay, and the other will serve as the main pool. Each
will have volume above and below the normal pool elevation. A portion of the
larger storms will bypass the main pool by way of an emergency spillway cut
Page 50 of 87

into fhe berEr of tine farebay basin. Apprcximate6y 20 Iuercerwt of the permanent
pool volume is stored in the forebay, which complies with the BMF Manua(. The
basins wil[ be connected by a 24" diameter O-ring reinforced concrete pipe
running under Boone Station Drive.
The main pool wilC drain the water quality storm via a restricted ductile iron pipe
to a concrete level spreader, before draining into the nearby stream. The
advantage of using a separate barrel far the 1 "storm is that the level spreader is
essentially off-line. The ductile iron pipe wiEC be fittod with a restrietor to extend
the drawdown time to 2-5 days for the 1" storm. Larger storms will drain via a
circular riser and 24"-diameter barrel, along with an armored emergency
spillway.
Post-~~v~io~ ant Sif~ ~raina~~
All of the runoff from impervious surfaces will be directed into the stormwater
BMP. The onsite drainages will continue to convey off-site runoff through the site.
The large pipes running under I-85/40 will have at least two feet of freeboard
during the 100-year storm, and the basins wilt have at (east one foot of
freeboard.
~onciusion
The proposed wet detention basin and level spreader system will provide 85%
TSS removal and sheet flow discharge for all impervious surfaces associated with
the project.
Fiydrauiic Colculotions oncl flflethoc4oloc~v
The site can be divided into separate watershed drainage areas, based on
which storm pipe conveys the runoff off-site. Included routing diagrams show
the drainage patterns. Several off-site sub-watersheds were grouped together
into a large drainage area; the divisions reflect different levels of housing
density. Times of concentration are calculated using the TR-55 segmented
method. The 50- and 100- year rainfall events are determined using United
Stated Department of Commerce TP-40 (May 1961). The 2- and 10-year rainfalls
are from NOAH Hydro 35. The NRCS Type II unit hydrographs are used to
determine rainfall intensity. Runoff calculations are performed using HydroCAD
v7.1, which uses the TR-20 methodology. Routing is done using the dynamic
storage-indication method in HydroCAD, which recalculates flow and detention
storage at each time step. This calculation method is sensitive to dynamic
tailwater that changes over time, such as the tailwater that might occur when
ponds are linked in series. The water quality storm was calculated using the
Simple Method. All volumes use the average end area method, calculated
using HydroCAD.
Page 51 of 87

r f r~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~-az~
~~
X250 ( ~~. 5 (11~ ~ ~ yx^~ ~t/S ~
IT .' ,IJ ~" _- >;-!.-- -"'"~ ~ ..--~ Cn .,: fi'r' := -J-
w...~-~-'~'- . -~-'' r ,. 7~"
250 ~ T
• .......... • • .......................................... • DRAWN ~Y:•
HORVATH OVERALL SITE PLAN ~HE~KEOgeF1
ASSOCIAtES
JES
16 CONSULiAM PLACY. SUILP 20~
°°RHAM"°RF"`AR°°"A~"°' ALAMANCE WEST s~A~E
P 9196904990 F919A900953 ~ -250
59] MARKET SLREEf. $01IE LL1D FJA i E
~NAIIANOOGA.TENN65EE3I504 I-85/40 and University Drive os-io-ZOOS
P<493d6.e990 fd23.R6651W PROJECT NO
~P~F..noF~aroa„o~,O{e9 COT Burda9g5t2ong~North Carolina 0738 SMP1

HC?RVATH
m S S 0 C I A T F S
}~.
t
~'"(t ,
L
~-
PR~.d ~
~EAREA ~

ALAMANCE
WEST
I-85/40 AND
UNIVERSITY DRIVE
BURLINGTON
DRAINAGE
MAP
~~®
~,~
~.
., ., i
f,~
~~
'per ¢
~,~.
~ ~ ~1~ a
r' ~ ~7 f?
~~~ ~ a 9~
~ ..- ,.._ `~[ .~~~ .ter
;d'am'-
.. ~
._
~i #~ ~~
~~.
i
oace,ww.
D D ,a ~ s ~^~.~o~~
N _g~- ~F~
. ~. oa-,azoo~
. r=sw'
~' o zso soo nom •,". '
msg
Page 53 of 87 SCntE: ~^=soo' .~... ^,SIViP2 ',
®COPtAIOXf ]ORl iFR DOCtIIO(f Mq TE RSptl AIE 1FE PROPERIT OF 1WRlMM A990COES. PA AM' PFPPODUCIIOH MIIgUf PBOR MtlflEX COlBQIf B P.~I~Iim

Page 54 of 87

X738 `?0'eh f or7:L SA r~orksheF't
S~~rtace Area
INPU7
Ben iPraver, J
8131/L007
CALCULATIC%rVS
Basin: ~S'D8 #f <- from list of basins
impervious Area = 41.85 acres <- from input chart
Drainage Area = SG.21 acres <- from input chart
Impervious = 83% <- calculated
Average Depth = 6.4 fi <- from input chart
Calculate fhe required surface area fo drainage area (SA/DAJ ratio using the
NC Division of Water Quality Stormwater BMP Handbook July 2007):
Average Depth (Vol/SA) (ft)
Impervious 6.0 6.4 7.0
Lower Boundary => 80% 2.10 2.00 1.B6 <- from table below
Site%impervious=> 83% 2.18 2.08 1.94 <-interpolated
Upper Boundary => 90% 2.34 2.25 2.1 1 <- from table below
Area Required
t- {/dD8 #1
FROM NCDWQ STORM WATER BMP MANUAL, JULY 2007
Surface Area (SA) to Drainage Area (DA) Ratio for Permanent Pool Sizing to Achieve 85
Percent TSS Pollutant Removal Efficiency in the Piedmont
Percent Impervious
Cover
3.0 Permanent Pool Average Depth (ff)
4.0 5.0 b.0 7.0 8.0
9.0
10% 0.59 0.49 0.43 0.35 0.31 0.29 0.26
20% 0.97 0.79 0.70 0.59 0.51 0.46 0.44
30% 1.34 1.08 0.97 0.83 0.70 0.64 0.62
40% 1.73 1.43 1.25 1.05 0.90 0.82 0.77
50% 2.06 1.73 1.50 1.30 1.09 1.00 0.92
60% 2.40 2.03 1.71 1.51 1.29 1.18 1.10
70% 2.88 2.40 2.07 1.79 1.54 1.35 1.26
80% 3.36 2.78 2.38 2.10 1.86 1.60 1.42
90% 3.74 3.10 2.66 2.34 2.11 1.83 1.67
REFERENCE CALCULATIONS
Area Treated (ac) = Single Family = 38% impervious
Total Site Area (ac) = Multi Family = 60% impervious
Percent of Site Treated = Commercial = 85% impervious
Net Nitrogen Removal =
Page 55 of 87

0'738 Wet Pond SA r?orksheet
Rainfaf ~ Voiurne
Ben 7ho}per, F(
813112007
:.,,..,,...,',. ,. -. _, .. .,, _ , T,,'E~+1TI~+I~k@~;I~IFr1tR~tE~T_ ..,,,, ,. ,.`
~,..~. ~,,.,u~~,.~.~
tNet ~et~ettiean basin ia~
wDB # 1
Precipitation = P 1.0 inches
drainage Area = A 50.21 acres
Impenriaus Area = A;m~ 41.85 acres
Runoff Coefficient = R 0.800 in(in
water Quality Voiume = /NQ :, i 45,845 cu ft
''' SET. ~ETEH~TE~,;ak51~1 IiC~LUE„~R~SFi~E7
Pond ID = #2 ~ 1 #4
Norma! Pool Elev = [ft] O.OG 624.00 624.00
Volume below normal pool = [au ft] 0 47,214 245,196
Volume above normal pool = [cu ff] 0 134,478 273,451
Forebay volume = [cu ft; 0 47,214 4,500
Surface area at normal pool = [sq ft] 0 10,389 35,235
Average depth = [ftl
A;,n >
R~, = 0.05 + O.Q09 -'
A_
_ Z'*I~'i, *,4
~~ ~ 12
total
n/a
292,410
407,929
18%
45, 624
6.4
Note: Pond ID's correspond to the detention basin numbers as shown on the Phase 1 site plan.
"Note: Forebay volume in Pond #4 is approximate.
Page 56 of 87

Attachments
1. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ................................................. .....................................58
2. PROFORMA ........................................................................... .....................................71
3. ROAD CROSSING JUSTIFICATION ..................................... ..................................... 73
4. CITY OF BURLINGTON LETTER ......................................... ..................................... 75
5. NHP FILE SEARH REPORT .................................................. ..................................... 78
6. SHPO LETTER ....................................................................... ..................................... 84
7. NCEEP ACCEPTANCE LETTER .......................................... ..................................... 86
Page 57 of 87

Alternatives Analysis
Page 58 of 87

Alternatives Analysis Provided by Applicant-Alamance
Crossing, LLC
L INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Alamance West Shopping Center is to complete the development of a
Regional Retail Business Center (RRBC) to serve the Alamance County, Eastern
Guilford County and Orange County regional markets. A RRBC features a full range of
retail and related businesses, such as financial institutions, restaurants, cinemas, hotels,
and offices located in a campus setting. The RRBC typically is anchored by a group of
major department stores, complimentary junior anchor stores and specialty retail stores.
The Alamance West Shopping Center is proposed on a site that is located on the newly
developed University Drive retail corridor. In the winter of 2006, the University Drive
interchange opened in the City of Burlington off of Interstate 85/40. The four property
quadrants created by this new interchange became desirable possibilities for development
and the City of Burlington designated the two (2) quadrants located to the north of the
interchange for commercial development as part of their master plan. To date, the
quadrant located in the northwest has been developed as a 350,000 SF shopping center
and the property located to the east of the proposed Alamance West has been developed
as a 600,000 SF shopping center. The proposed Alamance West development will
solidify the University Drive Retail corridor as the dominant retail shopping area in the
region and will ensure that this is the only regional shopping area for miles to the east and
west.
The various types of businesses participating in a RRBC employ different marketing or
merchandising strategies requiring several types of building facilities. In the past,
department stores, for example, typically are attached to an enclosed mall building, which
is occupied by a number of smaller specialty shops (a regional enclosed mall). Other
retailers, financial institutions and restaurants, as well as commercial services and offices,
typically are located in free-standing business located on the campus surrounding the
enclosed retail area. Today, the enclosed regional mall is being transformed and replaced
by open-air "lifestyle center" utilizing the same campus format as the enclosed regional
mall without the roof. The open-air lifestyle center places a premium on building
aesthetics and hardscape design as these newer shopping centers are intended to be
pedestrian friendly community gathering areas.
The configuration of shopping center (regional malls and lifestyle centers) has evolved
over the last 45 years resulting in a certain order of buildings and parking areas which are
expected and required by department stores, junior anchors and smaller specialty stores.
This order involves major department store buildings anchoring the mall with the smaller
shops scattered between the anchors. These smaller businesses are located along what
has become to be known as "the main street concept'. There is a certain order which is
expected and required by the retailers as to the size of the buildings (critical mass), the
size of the mall areas, and the distances between the department stores and the major
parking areas. Continuous roadways around the building perimeter (inner ring road) and
continuous roadways around the parking lot perimeter (outer ring road) are critical
elements of site layout to accommodate traffic There are buildings and other physical
Alamance Crossing, LLC /Alamance West /Individual Permit Application
September 2007
Page 1 of 9
Page 59 of 87

Alternatives Analysis Provided by Applicant-Alamance
Crossing, LLC (cont.)
standards which are required so the site plan layout and the buildings are joined together
in an integrated and logical manner. The department stores and junior anchors will not
commit to a physical layout which does not have all of these characteristics combined
into an integrated design.
The Clean Water Act requires that a project avoid or minimize filling regulated wetlands
when a practicable alternative project site or design is available to accomplish the project
purpose. Federal regulations define a practicable alternative as an option that is
"available and capable of being done after taking in consideration the cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of the overall project purpose".
Since the most logical and desirable site plan for the proposed development of Alamance
West requires filling wetlands, alternative project designs were investigated to determine
which alternative accomplishes the project purpose with the "least adverse impact on the
aquatic ecosystem". Documentation regarding practicable on-site alternatives is
discussed below. Alternative # 1 is the applicants preferred alternative. Alternatives 2 &
3 were developed to evaluate
II. PROJECT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Project design requirements for Alamance West are afunction of: 1) facility
requirements; 2) public safety considerations; and 3) governmental mandates. These
requirements are described below.
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
a) Building Area
Facility requirements dictate the size and location of buildings and parking
areas. The building area (Gross Leasable Floor Area) required for each of
the various building facilities at Alamance West is dictated by the need to
create a logical site plan that allows for free flowing access to all of the
buildings while adhering to the tenants prototype standards and minimum
parking requirements. As shown by comparative proformas, site plan
alternative #1 with a Gross Leasable Floor Area totaling approximately
262,291 SF is required for a minimally acceptable rate of return.
b) Parking
Parking area for each building facility must be located appropriately.
Industry standards and local code requirements traditionally have dictated
that 4.5 parking spaces be provided for each 1,000 square feet of Gross
Leasable Floor Area Department Store and other anchor stores further
require that the parking be located within 450 feet of the store entrance
served by the parking area.
Alamance Crossing, LLC /Alamance West /Individual Permit Application
September 2007
Page 2 of 9
Page 60 of 87

Alternatives Analysis Provided by Applicant-Alamance
Crossing, LLC (cont.)
Parking must be constructed "at grade" with a balance of parking at all
side of the mall. Parking decks are not an alternative to minimize parking
area footprint requirements because structured parking carries a premium
cost of approximately fifteen times the construction cost of "at grade"
parking. Such a premium cost in the Alamance West proforma would
make the project economically unfeasible.
c) Paring Area Access
Contemporary accessibility standards require that parking areas be divided
into self-contained fields consisting of service aisles and parking stalls.
The self-contained fields are served by a "ring road" or "connector road"
surrounding the outer perimeter of the parking field serving the shopping
center. This design minimizes interference between patrons seeking to
travel past one or more of the parking fields and patrons seeking a parking
space within a particular field.
d) Visibility Standards
All of the businesses proposed for this form of shopping center require
locations on the site that offer maximum visibility from the adjacent
roadways. Thus, the smaller free standing buildings need to be located
along the site frontages and the department stores, junior box stores and
specialty small shops need to be located toward the middle and back of the
shopping center. The large anchors require positions of prominence and
prime locations in terms of internal visibility.
2) PUBLIC SAFETY CONSIDERAIONS
The City of Burlington has limited access to Alamance West to University
Drive and Garden Road. All of the access to the shopping center and the
ring road network is controlled by traffic signals. No access to the
lifestyle center or the outparcels is permitted without a traffic signal.
The parking lot ring road must be connected to the access roads linking
the public roadway system to the retail parking fields. These access
roadways must be at least 150 feet in length to accommodate the number
of vehicles seeking to enter and exit the ring road without blocking traffic
either on the public roadway system or the ring road.
Finally, the on-site roadway system must serve the parking areas adjacent
to the free standing buildings so that these facilities do not require access
from the public roadway system. This on-site roadway design enhances
Alamance Crossing, LLC /Alamance West /Individual Permit Application
September 2007
Page 3 of 9
Page 61 of 87

Alternatives Analysis Provided by Applicant-Alamance
Crossing, LLC (cont.)
public safety by minimizing the conflicts between traffic accessing the
retail center and the other local traffic using the public roadway system.
3) GOVERNMENTAL MANDATES
As a result of regulatory design review conducted by the City of Burlington as
part of the conditional use permit approval for Alamance Crossing, the following
requirements must be part of the Alamance Crossing project design:
a) Thoroughfare Protective Yard
The City of Burlington's Western Loop Corridor Overlay District
requires any development within 1000' of University Drive to
abide by the rules governing this new corridor from Interstate 85 to
the Town Elon (north of Burlington). This Overlay requires
additional building setbacks, landscape material, lighting, signage,
parking and building features
b) Improvement of Traffic Conditions
The City of Burlington and North Carolina Department of
Transportation required a number of on and off site roadway
improvements to the surrounding infrastructure. These
improvements included: construction of five (5) new traffic
signals, additional turn lanes to the north and southbound Interstate
85 off ramps, turn lanes at access points from Garden Road, St.
Mark's Church Road and University Drive and the widening of
University Drive.
c) Extensions of Sanitary Sewer Service
The City of Burlington extended sanitary sewer service to the site
underneath Interstate 85/40 at a cost of approximately $300,000.
The shopping center is responsible for extending public sanitary
sewer through the project and at an approximate cost of $250,000.
d) Construction of Storm Water Management Facilities
The City of Burlington requires the construction of on-site
detention facilities to limit the runofffrom the site to the
predevelopment condition at the Interstate 85 confluence. A
number of ponds were proposed to treat this requirement during
the zoning approvals. See attached storm water management plan
for further details on the storm water treatment facilities proposed
for the project.
Alamance Crossing, LLC /Alamance West /Individual Permit Application
September 2007
Page 4 of 9
Page 62 of 87

Alternatives Analysis Provided by Applicant-Alamance
Crossing, LLC (cont.)
e) Compliance With Planning and Zoning Code
The City of Burlington requires that the project be designed to
conform to the applicable requirements of its Planning and Zoning
Code. These standards include, for example, mandatory building
set back requirements, parking stall size requirements and on-site
roadway standards.
f) Construction of the EastWest Connection Boulevard
As part of the Zoning Approval Process, the City of Burlington
required the construction of an East/West Connector Boulevard
extending the existing Boone Station Drive from Garden Rd. to the
newly constructed University Drive. The project applicant
constructed this road by taking the most minimally invasive path
across the southern portion of the site and by building a bridge to
avoid the existing wetland systems which had to be crossed to
complete the City mandated connection.
III. ALTERNATIVE PROJECT DESIGN STUDIES
Site planning studies were performed to identify practicable alternative project designs
"capable of being constructed taking into consideration project cost, existing
technological and logistics in light of overall project purposes". A variety of different
approaches for developing the Alamance West Shopping Center in conformity with
project design requirements were evaluated.
Of these various schemes, we have attached the three (3) alternatives that came closest to
meeting the project mandates. Alternative #1 is the applicants preferred alternative. The
other two (2) alternatives do not meet the applicants needs and are considered
unacceptable to the applicant. A fourth alternative plan that did not account for the
streams and wetlands on the site is discussed below but no plan or impact numbers are
provided.
ALTERNATIVE #1 (Preferred Alternative) -This plan illustrates atraditional single
department store and junior anchored shopping center. This configuration preserves all
of the wetlands located to the east of the site and creates a realistic layout that will satisfy
the tenants demands for access, visibility and parking while creating an acceptable return
on the project.
While Alternative #1 displaces approximately 1.75 acres of wetlands and 2,077 feet of
stream channel bisecting the site and the proposed location for the major anchor, it is the
only practical alternative meeting the requirements of the project while adhering to the
Alamance Crossing, LLC /Alamance West /Individual Permit Application
September 2007
Page 5 of 9
Page 63 of 87

Alternatives Analysis Provided by Applicant-Alamance
Crossing, LLC (cont.)
City of Burlington site planning requirements. It is important to note that the proposed
wetland impacts are minimized and the developer is only seeking to impact what is
needed to make a logical layout and is not seeking to disturb any of the wetlands located
to the east of the project except for the one (1) stream crossing that is required for all
three (3) site plan alternatives.
ALTERNATIVES #2 & #3 -These alternatives attempt to avoid filling in the wetlands
bisecting the site and the major anchor tenant. These plans propose bridging the wetlands
bisecting the site to create connective access to the rear and eastern portions of the site.
Alternatives #2 & #3 displace approximately 0.15 acres of wetlands and 202 feet of
stream channel in the proposed connection to Alamance East.
While these alternatives are considered desirable due to the preservation of existing
wetlands, they lead to the loss of at least 81,000 square feet of gross leaseable retail
space. Additionally, the proposed "bridging" of the wetlands will increase the
development infrastructure costs by millions of dollars.
These layouts have been prepared to maximize the potential gross leaseable area while
preserving industry and City standards for parking rations. It is unlikely that either of
these layouts will be acceptable to the retail tenants for the following reasons:
ALTERNATIVE #2 -The retail located in the northeast of this proposed site plan has
access and parking constraints. The retailers located in the southern portion of the site
have significant loading constraints and the 25,769 SF building does not allow for depth
that would be considered acceptable by any junior anchor tenants. All of the issues will
lead to a further decline in the economic feasibility of the project.
ALTERNATIVE #3 -The parking field for the major anchor will not be acceptable to
any anchor tenants in that these tenants require that all parking line-up directly outside of
its front wall. The junior anchor tenants located in the northeast of the site are hidden in
this plan and are not likely to accept the secondary location.
Table 1: Approximate Wetland & Stream Impact Comparison
Wetland Impact Stream Impact
Alternative #1 1.75 acres 2,077 ft
Alternative #2 0.15 acres 202 ft
Alternative #3 0.15 acres 202 ft
ALTERNATIVE #4 - A sketch plan was originally prepared for the project that
disregarded any regulatory protection of streams and wetlands. This plan maximized
Alamance Crossing, LLC /Alamance West /Individual Permit Application
September 2007
Page 6 of 9
Page 64 of 87

Alternatives Analysis Provided by Applicant-Alamance
Crossing, LLC (cont.)
retail area solely based on construction practicability and costs. This plan was desirable
by the applicant in that it maximized retail area and profit. However, the applicant did
not believe that this plan met the intent of the Clean Water Act and therefore developed
the two (2) minimization avoidance plans and the preferred plan discussed above. Plans
and impact totals for this Alternative #4 plan can be provided to you upon request.
IV. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
The Market Demand
Alamance West offers a viable opportunity to complete the development on the
University Drive Retail Corridor satisfying the growing retail needs of the growing
residential population of Burlington and the surrounding communities. The primary
market serving this site has experienced rapid population growth and supports and needs
the retail as described by site plan Alternative #1.
The synergy between the department stores, junior anchors and the specialty stores is
strengthened as quality and well conceived gross leaseable area is added to the shopping
center. A greater selection of department stores and junior anchors allows the University
Drive Retail Corridor to increase its customer base by broadening the selection of
merchandise and price points. Consequently, all of the tenants in the University Drive
Retail Corridor gain as a result of an increase in customer traffic at Alamance West.
The site plan alignment detailed on site plan Alternative #1 warrants a rent structure and
an income stream that will allow the developer to generate an adequate return on
investment. As gross leaseable area is omitted from the project and unusual building and
unusual parking layouts are introduced, rents are adversely impacted and the return on
investment becomes unacceptable.
The critical mass created by maximizing the retail footprint makes the University Drive
Shopping corridor a sustainable regional shopping center destination for years to come.
By reducing the size of the project, the longterm sustainability of the shopping region
becomes questionable, thus, it is reasonable to assume that additional sites in the area will
be developed as shopping centers in the future. Accommodating the site plan layout
detailed on site plan Alternative #lwill minimize the possibility of additional regional
shopping center developments in the area which would have significantly more negative
economic and environmental impacts on Alamance County then the current proposal for
the Alamance West development in the University Drive retail corridor.
1. Proformas -Site Plan Alternatives
Attached are proformas prepared by Alamance Crossing to illustrate the
differences in return on investment based on the site plan alternatives
discussed in Section III.
Alamance Crossing, LLC /Alamance West /Individual Permit Application
September 2007
Page 7 of 9
Page 65 of 87

Alternatives Analysis Provided by Applicant-Alamance
Crossing, LLC (cont.)
The high on-site and off-site costs involved in this project and the high risk
associated with this sort of development make it necessary for the developer
to seek the highest return on investment possible, while also minimizing the
required equity dollars. The difference between site plan Alternative #1 and
site plan Alternatives #2/#3 translate into an enormous change in the return on
investment. Even so, the economics associated with the Alternative #1 are
only nominally acceptable given the risk involved and given that standard
minimum acceptable return on investment for a project of this nature is in the
9-11% range. As you can see on the attached proforma analysis, the expected
return on the Alternative #1 is only 8.99%.
The major differences in the alternatives analysis are square footage and
project cost. Alternative #1 provides for a development of 262,921 SF of
space whereas Alternative #2 provides for 174,819 SF and Alternative #3
provides for 181,177 SF creating a significant delta on the income side of the
proforma. While the lesser square footage associated with smaller buildout
reduces costs on the building construction by approximately $5.5 Million, the
site work associated with Alternatives #2 and #3 are estimated to be $7.0
Million higher then the site work costs associated with Alternative #1. The
primary reasons for the site work cost increase on Alternatives #2 and #3 are:
the construction of bridges creating access to the north and east of the site
maximizing the potential developable areas in these areas of the site; the need
to haul off of the excess materials that is proposed to be used to as fill to
balance the site plan detailed in Alternative #1; the extensive utility network
that is needed to serve the northern and the eastern buildings on Alternatives
#2/#3.
In order to perform an apples-to-apples comparison, the proforma analysis
attributes the same income to similar spaces on all of three site plan
alternatives. In reality, the inferior layouts associated with Alternatives #2/#3
will lead to lower in rents as a result of the tenants accepting less desirable
layouts. These lower rents will lead to a project return that is lower then the
currently unacceptable return levels as shown on the attached proformas for
Alternatives #2/#3.
The buildout associated with Alternative #1 has another important advantage
in that it allows Alamance Crossing, LLC to complete a development that will
more effectively dominate its trade area and in particular, the University Drive
Retail corridor. This higher level of trade area dominance will bring higher
retail sales, lower investor risk and create the potential for additional income
to the project applicant.
V. ALAMANCE EAST &ALAMANCE WEST CONNECTIONS
Alamance Crossing, LLC /Alamance West /Individual Permit Application
September 2007
Page 8 of 9
Page 66 of 87

Alternatives Analysis Provided by Applicant-Alamance
Crossing, LLC (cont.)
Connecting Alamance West to Alamance East serves two (2) purposes. First, the
City Burlington views these connections as integral to their master planning as it
encourages the interconnectivity of the shopping areas while allowing Boone
Station Drive to function as a through road moving public traffic from University
to Garden Road. Secondly, the connectivity will minimize internal traffic
congestion contained within the individual shopping centers. Traffic will backup
at different times in the individual shopping centers based on the end users. As an
example, the theater will create traffic at a specific set of time that are completely
different the projected peaks for traffic flow with the proposed tenants on
Alamance West. The interconnectivity of the two sites will improve traffic
conditions for the City and for the shopping center. See attached justification
letter from the City of Burlington dated August 28, 2007.
VL ALAMANCE EAST
The project applicant of Alamance West is the same developer who recently
completed the Alamance East project. While these projects are two (2) separate
projects with "independent utility", there is historical relevance related to the
construction of the Alamance East Project.
As required by the City of Burlington, the developer constructed the east/west
connector boulevard as afour/five lane road to alleviate traffic issues within the
City and to assist the City with its master plan for traffic circulation. Wetlands
separate Alamance East from Alamance West and the developer privately funded
and constructed a bridge over the wetlands between the two (2) sites to complete
the City's required road while avoiding impacting any of the wetlands in the way
of the road.
V. CONCLUSION
As a result of extensive site planning studies and financial analysis of the
Alamance West Shopping Center site undertaken to develop an alternative plan to
meet the project mandates with the least practicable impact on existing wetlands,
it was determined that it is not feasible to develop a project meeting the mandated
design requirements which did not impact the existing wetlands.
These studies produced a series of alternatives which both fell short of meeting
project design requirements and did not make sense as a result of cost restraints.
The buildout as illustrated by Site Plan Alternative #1 is the only development
plan which meets project and governmental design mandates. It is this plan which
will allow for the maximization of the approved use on the project, the minimum
amount of wetland and stream impacts, the sustainable of the University Retail
Corridor and a minimum acceptable return on investment for the developer.
Alamance Crossing, LLC /Alamance West /Individual Permit Application
September 2007
Page 9 of 9
Page 67 of 87

~~ ~
~l ~ ~---
~_
~ ~~ - -
--
f
- ~--
b
~~~
_- -- --_-
~ ~ --
>rn

' T~A
®
!I
Z _
~ ~ ~
f<
q
1~
~ ~ fn
ii
~ ~ 3 ¢
~ ~
~
N
x ~
'
~
N N
" ~~ ~~
p
r N ~.
~ cjr

N
~
R U

~~
,' '/
/~%~/ o
i ~'%
~ j/ i~
/ /8//
~/%~/ir/
~~ ;,,,~
/~~~ ;
/~~ ~ ~ `'
~~
-~ _ -
\\ ..~ ~
\, i~
l `~` ~
//
~, 1 ~ Tc
r /~ W D
%,~" j~ /1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I le~~fl
U ~,~ ~
~, i
~„ i ~~` ~ I1111111111111ISInIllllnn
;~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Igl I I I I I I I I I ~l ~ ~~
~v,.
~~ ~`~~ '~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III I I IeP~~~l ~
~ F 175'
~'',~.
~~~ ~ ~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~
/°o, ~' m

~ ~_~-[ ~
®q
r
~~ I I I I III I (1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e~>fl ~
j`~, 6 . b J
UU ~I111111 1 I
-
A ~
~
D
~~~~
75' 175'
~'- °
®m ~~~~ 1
CH+~H++-F+{H~+{ F ~ 1
I~IµI JI_JIIr lI
~~1 I I I L f~ 1 ~ a
~~
,~ ~,
S I
,~_' ~ 1
~;,
ii _
O ~
V' ® ~ a LI I I I '~ (1 I I I I I I I I I I (1 (~ ll
~~ N I"' 1 L J
~~ - T ~~~'
- ~-... I
I. I a
I I...
it I ~~ - -
~ Cprtsr+Bur
sss l
Pl
W
t Si
wrsarmxwe i g ~y7 amance
A
es
te
an
y uwa,.o r Alamance Crossing

wi. ' OB/4J/0] -
o.n a~ Burlington, h!C
e.u..~
Page 68 of 87

4 ~y
4/}
/(
~~~
//c ~~
~-
..~ ~~A
Ste, m ~
C
c1 ~ ~ ~ - y
~ O A2 ~~
~" ~ ~ a ~
A yy
N ~~ ~1 O
Q ~~
r N 'J`
~ ~ ~
~ Q N
n ~
9
N
~~
~/
/~/
,.
tai j/" ~~
~,/~/i ~
~~ /
/ ~ ~.. ,~ "ti..~ ~ 1 i
//~ ~ `-,
~r
i `
i ~
1± j ~ ~;a
~ ~~
_ ~°
..r
,- ~
~~ ~~ ~. ~
'^ ~k.
~ '~

_~-
f
f ~'-~ (
1 ~
-; ~ ti A ~
- ~~
=J
,,
1 ~
f ~ ~ ~ ~' %j
1 ~
1 s~1,
~~
1
~f~~ ., ;:
~.5 \ I
Y \ ~ ~;~
f~ ~~~'
~ ~_ ~ ~ i
~~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~
~,~
J~
/ ~
/, ~\~ /
~ j /
' /' I
//
~ li
//. / // A
~ ~ _'
N
T
N /
°/'~ i
,~l~l I I' I '~ I l l l l l l l l l l l l ILI L
I
I `"'
~ y
\ ~
\ ;~ I
~`,
~' ~ n~rii~.I~
`~~ 1~ U I I I I I I I
ti
w ~
4
m i ~
T f4 ~ ~ ~
I I
~ i
~ j ~ ~ ~ ~
~' ~ _~ ~ ` ~
~ `i+ ~
I
.. ~
~,
I it
„ ~ ~, ~~.
~ .~~ ~sr ~_,~
Cartsr+Bt~
sss ~~TM..
l
Pl
W
t Si
~ ac~n~n~ ; g ~y7 omance
A
es
te
an
N ,swa,.o ~-• ~~„m ~~,~]_ ,Glamunce Crossing
~'=°°^"°° .a~e~ Burlington, F!C
Page 69 of 87

4 \~y
4 11
//
~~~~
i ,~ ~~~
,S' r t~ ~ 7tt
m
S ~ ~-
~~ Z ~ ~ = N
~~` 6 ~ a ii
N ~~
c°a ti>
r a ~`
3 „ ~
S ,6ir
D ~
Cf ~
4 .~
N

~~
i/
/~ ~ ` ~ / ry/`\`"
// ~`.
~.
~ fJ,' /
% /y ~
~~/ /
i`~~
~~~ ~~ ~
i ~ ~~
i /i ii
~ ~
~~ .
/f ~ ~
o~
~~~_ ~
m -.
,~..
~~ ,'a/
~/
~_
y',i
~~ k ,
- „~ ~I ~
,~, ~~
s ,~ ` y~r
t
'° ~ ~
' Cy,,s"
'~.,. 4
,I --_ - ~`` ~~
=~.-
~` I
6~~
~~ / ~ ~
I ~ QIIIIIIIII;~
~;
s
/!,
__
~ ~~ I I ~IiII TTT~
-.f ,-~
I ~~
,~" z ~--' ~m r
~~ ~~ ~
~ ~w ~I -.

~~-
8
a
W "~°~'~ "~~
AL7BMlATISE 9
,swa„o C~1'fM+

~^• --~~^~~^m ~.y7
~:+,']
_ Aomance West Site Plan

Alamance Crossing
. - Burlington, NC
aa»sio, ~„-... ...
Page 70 of 87

Proforma
Page 71 of 87

Alamance Crossing
Proforma Comparison
Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3
SF (1) 262,921 174,819 181,777
Income (1) $2,515,882 $1,327,894 1,280,368
Vacancy Factor (2) ($35,000) ($50,000) (18,600)
Management Fee ($119,534) ($66,407) (64,018)
Income After Expenses $2,361,348 $1,211,487 $1,197,750
Total Project Cost (3) $30,774,261 $32,500,000 33,269,000
Anchor Reimbursement ($4,500,000) ($4,500,000) ($4,500,000)
Net Project Cost $26,274,261 $28,000,000 $28,769,000
Return on Investment $2,361,348 8.99% $1,211,487 4.33% 1,197,750 4.16%
$26,274,261 $28,000,000 28,769,000
Footnote (1) -See attached sheet for breakdown of square footage with income estimates.
Footnote (2) -Vacancy is 5% of small shop income.
Footnote (3) -Buildings costs are reduced in Alternatives #2 & #3 based on smaller building areas and
costs are increased based on bridges, increased infrastructure and soil export costs.
Page 72 of 87

Road Crossing Justification
Page 73 of 87

Road Crossing Justification provided by the applicant-
Alamance Crossing, LLC
LOCAL ACCESS STREET JUSTIFICATION
The local access street crossing and associated stream and wetland impacts is needed to
provide access across the interior of Alamance West to the existing Alamance East. This
street is needed to help move the traffic between the two shopping centers. As discussed in
the attached letter from The City of Burlington, the City is requiring that this connection be
made to help move traffic and to keep internal traffic off of Boone Station Drive, which the
City considers to be a minor thoroughfare.
While Alamance West and the existing Alamance East are both shopping centers and share
common access points, the end uses in the separate centers have significantly different
optimum times of use. Alamance West is more of a convenience driven design and will
experience its heaviest traffic during the major shopping seasons such as the "back-to-
school" season and the Thanksgiving/Holiday seasons. The existing Alamance East is a
dining and entertainment destination and will experience its heaviest traffic in the evenings at
dinner time and movie showings.
The letter from the City addresses two (2) local access streets as originally requested by the
City. However after meeting with the USACE, the applicant decided to reduce its request
from two (2) crossings to one (1) crossing to reduce the amount of proposed impacts
necessary to have a successful shopping area with logical traffic flows. The applicant
believes that the City will accept a single crossing in an effort to minimize impacts to the
protected natural resources. The requested crossing will alleviate traffic between both
shopping centers by providing outlets for both centers other then Boone Station Drive. The
requested crossing will also alleviate unnecessary shopping traffic on Boone Station Drive.
While the originally proposed crossing at the north of the project is considered desirable to
help control the flow of deliveries and other service related traffic, it is not considered
essential for the functionality of the shopping center.
The USACE has suggested using the location of the existing temporary construction crossing
(this crossing used an open bottom culvert and had no direct impacts to the stream). The
location of this temporary construction crossing was determined to be unacceptable for the
proposed permanent local access street crossing. The proposed location of the permanent
crossing is important as it relates to the Alamance West plan because the anchor tenant on
Alamance West requires a location that will not congest traffic in the front of their building
while still encouraging traffic to get close to their building. Additionally, the proposed
location of the crossing allows for traffic to flow freely to the 20,000 SF building located in
the southern portion of the Alamance West site without impacting its parking field. Both the
proposed cross-over and parking areas are critical requirements to satisfy the proposed
business terms of the deals with all of the tenants in these locations. It should be noted that
the applicant intends to remove the temporary construction crossing and restore this area.
The combination of the traffic benefits, the tenants parking and circulation requirements and
the City's desire to use Boone Station Drive as a minor thoroughfare moving traffic from
Garden to University make the proposed crossing from Alamance East to Alamance West a
requirement in order to successfully finalize the development of the University Drive Retail
Corridor.
Alamance Crossing, LLC /Alamance West /Individual Permit Application
September 2007
Page 74 of 87

City of Burlington Letter
Page 75 of 87

August 28, 2007
CITY OF Burlington
TELEPHONE (336) 222-SOSO • BOX 135$
F.ax [phone]
BURLINGTON, NORTI$ CAROLINA 27216-1358
US Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Mr. Andrew Williams
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
RE: Local Access Streets between Alamance West and Alamance East
Wetland & Stream Impact Justification
Dear Mr. Williams:
JAMES M. LAURITSEN, P.E.
Director of Development &
Technical Services
The two roads or "local access streets /commercial streets" north of Boone Station Drive
were requested by the Planning and Community Development Department and included as
part of the preliminary plans and conditional-use zoning approved by the City of
Burlington Technical Review Committee, Planning & Zoning Commission and City
Council.
As per required City ordinances, we believe that these commercial streets are necessary to
provide access to abutting commercial property, circulate traffic within the commercial
areas and to provide direct access to aff-street parking facilities.
The development is bordered on the northwest by a "major thoroughfare" (St. Marks
Church Road), and on the northeast and south by two "minor thoroughfares" (Garden Road
and Boone Station Drive), as classified an the current Burlington-Graham Metropolitan
Planning Organization (BGMPO) -Thoroughfare Plan.
The construction of these two commercial streets would provide benefits similar to
frontage streets by allowing for the separation of traffic seeking access between Alamance
West and Alamance East from through-traffic. They would provide access between
abutting commercial areas without the need to utilize the designated major and minor
thoroughfares and thereby limit traffic congestion on these thoroughfares.
They will also provide multiple points of ingress and egress from the commercial areas in
case of an emergency or necessary evacuation.
Page 76 of 87

We believe that these streets are an essential campanent of the development plan for both
traffic and safety issues and request that your agency approve any necessary impacts to
wetlands, streams or other natural resources required for their construction.
If you. have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this af~ee,
Very Truly Yours,
J es M. Lauritsen
Director of Development and Technical Services
Page 77 of 87

Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
Page 78 of 87

SoiX 8~ Envi.ronxr>~e:ntal C:r~:risL~ata:nts, I'A
11010 Raven Ridge Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 Phone: [phone] Fax: (9i9) 84d-9467
September 3, 20(}7
S&EC Project # 7352.W3
Alamance Crossing, LLC
Attn: Jen IVieshel
800 South Street, Suite 395
Waltham, IV1A 02453
Re: Natural Heritage Program File Search
Alamance West Site
Alalnance County, North Carolina
Dear 1VIs. Meshel:
In August 2007 S&EC conducted an updated file search for all Natural Heritage Program, State;
and Federally listed species through the Natural Heritage Program office in Raleigh, North
Carolina. 'The location of the project site is depicted on the. attached Burlington and Gibsonville
USGS topographic quadrangles.
Findings - NC Natural Heritage. Program Office
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records occurrences of rare- plant and animal species,
exemplary natural comrnuliities, and special animal habitats known to occur in North Carolina.
The record check was performed in August 2007. The subject property is located on the
Burlington and Cibsonville USES quadrangles. The following is a list of rare plants .and animals
along with their state and/or federal classifications, as well as rare Natural Communities that are
within a 5-mile radius of the subject property.
Strophitus undulates Creeper NC-T
Villosa- constricts Notched rainbow NC-SC
Villosa delumbis Eastern creekshell NGNHP -SR
Lampsilis radiata conspicua Carolina Fatmucket NC-T
Cambarus davidi Carolina ladle crayfish NCNHP -SR
Villosa delumbis Eastern creekshefl NCNI-fP -SR
Villosa vaughaniana Carolina creekshell NC-E
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel NC-E US-FSC
Hemidactylium scutatum -Four-toed salamander NC-SC {Obscure)
Ruellia purshiana Pursh's Wild-petunia SR-O
Eupatorium saltuense Ta11 Boneset SR-L
Charlotte Office: Greensboro Oflace:
236 LePhiilip Court, Suite C 3817-E, Lawndaie Drive
Concord, NC 28025 Greensboro, NC 27455
Phone: (704) 720=9405 Page 79 of 87 Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] lax: [phone]

August 31, 2007
S&EC Project #7352.W3
Page 2 of 4
Lonicera flc~va Yellow Honeysuckle SR-P
Basic oak--hickory forest
Basic mesic forest {piedmont subtype}
All Alamance County NHP Records:
Maior State Federal5tate
Grouo Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Rank
Invertebrate Cambarus davidi Carolina Ladle Crayfish SR None S2S3
~~.M~~
Invertebrate Lampsilis cariosa Yellow Lampmussel
Animal
Invertebrate Lampsilis radiata conspicua Carolina Fatmucket
Animal
Invertebrate Strophitus undulatus Grasper
Animal
Invertebrate Villosa constricts Notched Rainbow
Animal
Invertebrate Villosa detumbis Eastern Creekshell
Animal
Invertebrate Villosa vaughaniana Carolina Creekshell
Animal
Natural Basic mesic forest (piedmont N

Community
subtype) one
Natural
Community Basic oak--hickory forest None
Natural
Community Dry oak-hickory forest None
Natural Dry-mesic oak--hickory forest None
Community
Natural Floodpiain pool None
Community
Natural
Community Low elevation seep None
Natural Piedmont Boggy Streamhead None
Community
Natural Piedmont monadnock forest None
Community
Natural Piedmont/low mountain None
Community alluvia! forest
Natural Piedmont/mountain levee None
Community forest
Natural Upland depression swamp None
Community forest
Natural Xeric hardpan forest None
Community
Vascular Berberis eanadensis American Barberry
Plant
Vascular Collinsonia tuberosa Piedmont Horsebalm
Plant
Vascular Matelea decipiens Glade Milkvine
Plant
E FSC 51
T None S1?
T None S2
SC None S3
SR None 53
E FSC S2
None None S2
None None S3
None None S4
None None S5
Nane None S2S3
None None S3
None- None S2?
None None S4
None None S5
None None S3?
None None S3
None None S3
5R-T None S2
SR-P None S1
SR-P None S2
Global County - Man _
Rank Status Habitat
G2G3 Alamance - Link
Current -
G3G4 Alamance - Link
Historical -
G5T2Q Alamance - Link
Current -
G5 Alamance- Link
Current -
G3 Alamance - Link
Current -
G4 Alamance - Link
Gurrent -
G2 Alamance - Link
Current -
G5T3 Alamance - Link
Current -
G4 Alamance - Link
Current -
G5 Alamance - Link
Current -
G5 Alamance - Link
Current -
G3? Alamance - Link
Current -
G4? Alamance - Link
Current
GNR Alamance - Link
Current -
G5 Alamance - Link
Current -
G5 Alamance - Link
Current -
G5 Alamance - Link
Current
G3 Alamance - Link
Current -
G3G4 Alamance - Link
Current -
GS Alamance - Link
Historical -
G3G4 Alamance - Link
Historical -
G5 Alamance - Link
Current -
Page 80 of 87

' August 31, 2007
S&EC Project #73S2.W3
Page 3 of 4
VaSCUIar
F'lant Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap SR-T FSC Alamance -
S3 G3 Obscure Link
Vascular Phacelia coviltei Buttercup Phacelia SR-T FSC 53 G3 Alamance - Link
C
en#
Plant urr
Vascular Ruellia purshiana Pursh's Wild-petunia SR-O None S2 G3 Alamance - Link
r
C
t
Plant u
ren
Vascular Symphyotrichum laeve var.
Narrow-leaf Aster SR-P None Alamance -
Link
S2 G5T4
Plant concinnum Historical
Vertebrate Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander SC None
Animal S3 G5 Alamance - Link
Obscure
Vertebrate Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike 5C None 53B,S3N G4 Alamance - Link
r
Ob
Animal scu
e
NC NHP database updated oti Monday, July 2nd, 2047.
Search performed on Thursday, 30 August 2407 @ 15:37:59 EDST
NC-SC: North Carolina Special concern
NCNHP-SR: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program designated Significantly Rare
NC-T: North Carolina Threatened
NC-E: North Carolina Endangered
l~S-FSC: US Species of Concern
P: Peripheral, T: Throughout Range, L: Local
"Endangered Species" (E} means any native species documented by biological research and inventory to
be in danger of extirpation throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the state and to have no
more than five occurrences in the state, and any species determined to bean "endangered species"'
pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act.
"Threatened Species" (T} .means any native species documented by biological research and inventory to
be likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range within the sate and to have no more than nine occurrences in the state, and any
species determined to be a "threatened species" pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act, except
for such species determined to be endangered by the Commissioner in accordance with section 4 of this
act.
"Species of Special Concern" (SC} means any native plant species or any native nonl~arvested wildlife
species documented by scientific research and inventory to have a naturally restricted range or habitat in
the state, to be at a low population level, to be in such high demand by man that its .unregulated taking
would. be detrimental to the conservation of its population or has been extirpated from the state.
"Significantly Rare" (SR} Species which are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in
the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and. somekimes also by direct
exploitation or disease}. These species are generally more common somewhere else in their ranges,
occurring in North Carolina peripherally to their main ranges, mostly in habitats which are unusual in North
Carolina. Also included are some species with 20-100 populations in North Carolina, if they also have only
50-140 populations rangewide and are declining.
Page 81 of 87

August 31, 2007
S&EC Project #7352.W3
Page 4 of 4
Summary
There are no federally endangered species, federally threatened species, ar designated critical
habitats, documented within the project boundaries.. The records search at the Natural Heritage
Program revealed that no state or NHP designated rare plants or animals have been recorded
within the proj ect boundaries.
If you have any questions or need additional services, call me.
Sincerely,
i ~. ~~.!t.~-~'iP~ ~ ' 1 !~G~(~t.
James R. Graham Jr.
Biologist /Environmental Scientist
Attachments: USES Quad Map with I-Iistorical Site Locations and Occurrences of Rare Flant
and Animal Species
Page 82 of 87

Natural Heritage Program Elemental Occurrence Map Legend
for the Alamance West Site {3-mile radius) Project Name: Alamance West Site • -NHP Elemental Occurence
Pro ect # 7352.W3 Properly Boonaaly
1 inch - 2000 feet
Project Manager: Debbie Edwards
- Site Location: Alamance County, NC
~ S d~ m'ucinnvnl.J Cunesal-u i PA August 31, 2007
m~er>~:-t~~,ern~c, Map bL+~ James Graham
.~.'r~ ~•~~~=~-gym Yage 83 of 87

State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO)
Page 84 of 87

~dMSWp°
..°u+a
~~
~~ .n ~,.
p+u+
Michael f I~nslcy, Coovemo[
l.isbeth C.. Gcans, Secretary
)effrcy ~ Crow, Ucpury~ Secretary
June 7, 2005
Karen M. Gosselin
Engineering Consulting Serz*ices, Ltd.
6909 International Drive
Suite 10.3
Greensboro, NC 27409
Office of Archives and History
Division of l4istnrical Resources
David Brool:, llireeeor
Re: Approximate 150 Acre Tract - I-$5 and Western Alamance Loop, Burlington, EGS, Ltd. G-10911,
Alatnance County, ER OS-110$
Dear Ms. Gosselin:
T'hanlc you fox your letter of May 19, 2005, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and axe aware of no historic resources which would
be affected by the project. Tliexefoxe, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above cotnments are made pw uant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory CouncIl on Historic Preser-~tation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 GFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above cotntnent,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/73.3-4763. In all future
communication conceming this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
~~~,,~Q~
eter Sandbeclc o0
North Carolina .Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Of&ce
Pctcr D Smtdbed:, Adminiscntor
ADIvIIN[STRATION SW N Dlount Stmeq Raleigh NC 4617 Azad Service Centcq RAcigh NC 27699-0617
RESTORATION 515 N Dloun[ Srrcet Raleigh NC 4677 Mad Senicc Cemer, Raleigh NC 27699-4G77
SURVEY & PL,ANN[NC 515 N Dlounr Srrcct, 2alcigh, NC 4677 Mad Srnice Cenmr. R:deigh NC 27699-AG77
Page 85 of 87

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP) Letter
Page 86 of 87

r~
,F~cosstem .
PROGRAM
September 5, 2007
Jon Meshel
Alamance Crossing, LLC
800 South St. Suite 395
Waltham, MA 2453
Project: Alamance West County: ALAMANCE
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to
accept payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note [hat this decision does not assure that
the payment will be approved by [he permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the
applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved.
the issued 404 Permid401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance wiB expire. It is the
applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice
will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized
work. The amount of the In Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and
policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation aze summazized in the
following table.
CAPE FEAR
03030002 Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer II
(Sq. FtJ
Cold Cool Warm Ri azian Non-Ri azian Coastal Mazsh
Impacts 0 0 2,218 1.81 0 0 0 0
Credits 0 0 4,436 3.62 0 0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies
require mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional
mitigation, the applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
Sincerely,
William .Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Kazoly, NCDWQ We[lands/401 Unit
Andy Williams, USACE-Raleigh
Dazyl Lamb, NCDWQ-Winston-Salem
Debbie Edwazds, agent
File
1Ltstovu~t~... E~t~C~a~,cut9... P~ot~c'~ Oc>,Y Itate
-$~-
FCD~F~IR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
Page 87 of 87