19980784 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19980113

s:?n
Noe
IWO.
-` VXw
. Robert Zarzecki
r: S & EC, Inc.
JAMES B. HuNT.ii . 244 West Millbrook Road
"COVZRNOR 41 Raleigh, N. C. 27609
?. ? '` Sub'ect•
WAYNE MCDEVnr
' SECRETARY
r : .
i s

J
Dear Mr. Zarzecki:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
August 7, 1998 Q?
r.
?r J
AUG 3 1,998
Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer ules -`?
DWQ DEM #941022 & 93993
NBR-RRO 45
Cornerstone Property
Off Davis Drive (SRI 613)
Wake County
980784
On August 4, 1998, I met with you at the subject property to conduct a site vii1t for the above
referenced project. This project is referenced by the Raleigh Regional Office(RRO) as NIR RRO-
045. It was determined that the unnamed tributary (UT) Turkey Creek, indicated on the map, is an
intermittent stream and therefore subject to the Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy; Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Areas, Administrative Code
T15A:02B.0233 INCAC 0233).
It appears that possible wetland impacts have occurred on the western edge of the UT
-* consisting of clearing, grading, and filling. It is evident to the RRO that these possible impacts
have occurred prior to the date of the field inspection and the future tract owners would not be held
responsible for activities that happened prior to their ownership.
t t Thank you for your attention to this matter and if this Office can be of any assistance or if
you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
fl=:
s? ° r
INC, ;
Sincerely,
Steve Mitchell
Environmental Scientist
cc: ? RRO/John Dorney
H :\neuse.buflcornst. one
3800 BARRETT DRIVE, SUITE 101, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% rO/T-CONSUMER PAPER

)%,L
a ? r ? o o ?
11

1
r
r
'.`7 ?'? ? _ ?--- I ?' , iC\ \ I,?' ? ) ??`-• )?-?f r ? _ ?,(?(w?: /; )1? . ?? is \
c-I
lJ` _ C •?ir.? ? J I
?-- ;,????` %, ? \, l 1?i" ? 1 ?' ? !, 1 -•y?`? S??I ? ? I?,I (J?1\ `,?L , fir, '• ?? ?I ,?? I`? 1?? L` , 1 \ll?`'?` ,
-150
4 pI
hI
°.
I o? ?, '7 ?? fl ?
ell
f Ljr 79 •) /?
(KI ?50,
I
4001
d????%'I ' 1? ?y? ?• ? I? ?` ?? ._ r ? ?_-? L ? \`?? ` ter,.`.
/?¦ / ,?? ?5 coo ?u
?? v ,?• ?-1 ? 9 r \? ? ?, 343 I?i'?-rr,?/?' ..
I • / ? 400 _ ?' ?., I ? 1 \ ? ??' ' •(.
J2
400
61
161 % lr :? 11 ? , ? 4 .. ? ? • I. 1?? \ F I ?
n .uV? a •? I - _ ?? 1614 ?`a , ?-_ ? ,-'r- •? ?ti , ` ? ,/ ?/ I ?? ,:i F it :? i? .?? ? ?.c=
-`?i?- Pa?A? I'? k ?\'?"_j\ j 'CE -- `• I ? ,j?' \J L' \-_ :I •?11// ?'''C?/'?1p?1:\9=?
,p jG' p ,!.- r9° ?y•?• /?'_`?n
? ' . •, Lendlag FIetC,° - ?- - ? ? '?? i???•;? i? ?• ? - i?
6q3 2 040 000 FFFT . ?? -
_ •v? S0y Vby 1333 OOOObOZ. Ebe
UIPU.
??(?/?.> ? 4. \ ?-'? ? • ? 'f'\ w _-may.-.
1 ,'.fir _?i?° ? ?? -a 1l _?• e1 1 y? -
60: _ ?ni? •?1 5 i? ?r? •? '',? ? ?? ? ? ??? , ? y% __ iir ? ? ?1 ? nieile?,1 i . •
' ,?? ?? ? „? ?• `?? -. _. f?` •? I we - ? ? (mil ??
> -?,. ..'?. ?• , -?.J L --ter ?Cl9I .?? 'ii % _..li
??';?/> ?. ?•? ?I 5"
> `f .. cif. 8 II' 1•I _??., ?- ° ?. \ I•
Ilk
77
ti; / l (j C -??`-
?" .nom `?
V/ U?r
??,..,? ,??j``??
r
' ? ? q-? i i? (i..-1?? Opp ???? ? -'u? /6?? .?'/?? ?, ? ? • ?? ?? ? ?i ? ?? -, r?? ??
,? ? 111 ? _ • /l ', ?;;;JJJ
r
=Lj
?; - - -1 -L ---_?'`
V?
c
p e r O p E ?9? ?. o
fit
E? ?• ear v ? ???pp ? .???^ ? ?\,i '4•,
N
• ?'? ?'.''?. \ \ \ .? ? . / i .? !P : % - \ `L\l \ s, 'li+ 'qtr x .e
N NN
N N,
- - O 1
-r'
` S• ???'QY w • \ l f ? 1
29&90 _` - - - _• - -• +? - -1
_ cane ! OV ??
N ;K
• g . ?• NJ \ \ \ \ /
y0 ? ? v .??? ??., fi`r' • ? ??,. •. . ?, \? \ \\? ` ? /???/ ??.
oo,
------------

?, s.+,.,i•. '' .j?. may. .\ ?\' ? .;:c . ..,?.. y'' ? %/ / / /\ // ? / _+
l
Sol" Co.
\vt
4 J1? i . /: / /'r
s ova or „ r r
12' RCp
%, 'S' 010 WATM?
DAVIS DRIVE Q N ^ j, e?
_ (SR 1613) g ?? . 3N1- a3tVM d10 ,g? -
_ •-? ??.-rte. ?? ??
00,
r. - - - - - - - - - .06•96L -
rr - -
1t O? '81 \
z ? -
U - -
__ Nay `y
Cf-
flkO4 PRE RMA0 •?
BEN FoR n a
046 ?S ?p10 ?5 H
\
. got P J,SS. "?C
10
149 V5?0
< lK .d
\ moo!,\\ . / 6 ? ? / / ` •,F.
4p do?
'loll
"Co
%Od
lop,
g?._
Ji •.•
911
>1 4
1 ? '.' ? VJ S
/ \ ` \' ' ``\\ \ ` `` ?\\\ o??+ ? ? ? Oar w .°. S •°• ? w
a
0
h
? U
it
A
O w
? ma
w M.i
E•y
3 a
? u
w ? •-
w •
a j •

D \ 1
AMS DRIVE SR 1
(613) 4
3N,•'a?VM d10 91
airo
T
ilo

:- M «C0,1Qf0 S
1 W
r
n
'

i

e

k
?- J
? \
1

N
r ?

O 1
O
__ ?E JM\N?y ? ?`y Q ?
C7?' ?pfT\_' _ n
K? fa
\S Fda
rc
!'1 r V
r ? 'O
r
a 4.+ U
i
? ? \ moo. \ /., ? ??, / ,; •s .
tx ' I coo , I .•, •
_.,
?+? ep? s?t? •` 1?
L
o
• I4 ?O r
04
' a Q
a
z
O
H
v
d
U A
w w
w
3 a
z r n
w ? ••
w .

C]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P,E., Director
December 8, 1993
0
•
Ms. Lee C. Ventura
Heartland Corporation
100 Europa Drive, # 271
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514
Dear Ms. Ventura:
A74r
-tow
WOO&
ID FE F1
READER FILE
Subject: Proposed fill in Wetlands or Waters
Cornerstone commercial development
Wake County
DEM Project # 93993
Upon review of your request for 401 Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in 0.44 acres of wetlands or waters which are
tributary to Turkey Creek for commercial fill located at SR 1615 and
SR 1613 in Wake County as described in your submittal dated 7 December
1993, we have determined that the proposed fill can be covered by
General Water Quality Certification No. 2671. A copy of the General
Certification is attached. This Certification may be used in
qualifying for coverage under Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit
No. 26. An additional condition is that a final, written stormwater
plan including a wet detention pond must be approved by DEM before
construction begins. Also wetland fill (if any) in the remainder of
the development as shown on the 10 December 1992 map will be submitted
at a later date to DEM.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right
to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30)
days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in
the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. Unless such
demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-
1786.
Sincerely,
??N
A. reston Howar , Jr.
93993.1tr P. E.
?
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
RO, Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
C
-7/
,f r V
? ?a IZ
1?
A I?.? _ - f ,n 1?
lJr
i
r
e 01"T
To,
cf?
?% Ili 5 I ?'Y Y?
a
l -?(aC S i?
I

/ImT
OY^t
O
v v-e5? - .
S RD
HIGH ?

o
_ A
i
I
J
.................
.ww o:cw°0ise vcr.r (.
w NM
3"?M CM"
r f ( PAS. ? Plif 4.
7
>•1.1f pa a
I',fONOS1fa ttrf'
WAY"
a. POL is
r? «lo? ,? i,« .,......: Plat ?" y,llhk ?, ML * •
IIQ
?.
07
? ? i ? vtarauo ?' ats wKrs ;
cro tiC i r?lsiiv/f?nitoCavtw+I '
M6}r,' ?• , ,;#iy? S??IS ,!}?tcrp?.r? ! ?' s ll,,, ? ? 1' a ?C r, a Y tti 'SI _ { > ? o. ?? '°.5?,t?'. ?.
??W I`& 4 P rt•1 . •?,, ? .???? i t?? 1. S ? ` .r s ! ?,???? ?t
? ?y +?py??ppyy kS' 1 !ty 2C Is f s S - .b ? y J ?. F' f S '_.? j.. .? ? ? . ? ?,, ? i •S,1ti 1 r(r'1,>. ? ? 1 U
?1?tf ???•Ss r .? rytL. ?,s yc t. ?,Tr N ?s il?t S >N ? ?.? ? i. +,?? .r„?L+r??rt F' iY? t . E J t?
;ratr! .S? n 4?11Y{ ^ >? < fi x L 5 a hw•`'.`,^ }r'?k?X ?,?c.r e Lxat ... r
-y.- J3
- C ? a 4 rt; ?J F r? i, ra.1 f I ,: T - t ? ?: r. .a ? ? ?'}. wr r Lf.'1 }ti ? ? L ?*•
? 't ?-l? L?r?r?+ r•?s ?f: ,121 ?? ..?_.V''i "?' ! -t';? \.i ?. ???'*?4t(
i fr. i t hr }r tr Ye >.' ? S . r .•5'?r ce 3 ? a:\ Z`'??? j r?t?yS 3 !)s4 ?e fi v ,F r } py.-? J < ? s ? F ? r!}j?t? a !? ? 'C,???r'!.?
? hsi ^ 1 rnr qki ? ?? )^",?,5 C. .f?'? 5 ij•,''?`.n ? ? S?µ?t'? t??„sw1 t?y'?y `?Y r ti ??j, ?' ?'' i ?.
t ^. { ?{'LJ {C?+?y,hy/S?'? ?.ri K. Jt y uL,r ?.`S'? +.k TY? ?'i7 '?.? 1' S ?l:FC''..
h tLy';k4?s'1.?. '''yCy?}?L.'(C 7??.?'(Y???,? ?7• 'M" !`?'? ^a.Y}(G* ,e ?- ??,5''?!tr M ?y??yp? ??'•.
.. ??'is:tSS?•'l??d'f??1ic1„S?l.v?}?'? .?4,??-{?'ii??y U?,?'??i1- ? l?_„As,N?ii?1?'1?.Si :t:??:1!'ti! _. . s_'K4'-?.
TO'd MET 66-30-10 OL81 V89 008 1 OOSSV 6?t?aH
storagesite.jpg at www.townofcary.org
Page 1 of 1
http://www.townofcary. org/depts/dsdept/P&Z%20Maps/storagesite. jpg 1/2/99
R-ih;eci- Flv- Cornerstn,
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999
From: Van Kloempken <[e-mail]>
To: "John Dorney (E-mail)" <[e-mail]. nc.us>
C-0
. . . haven't heard anything and I wanted to make sure you actually got
the message. Q (?)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Van Kloempken
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 11:12 AM IO,?O a?
> To: '[e-mail] S
> Subject: Cornerstone Development J
> John:
> I'm sure you've been contacted several times by Town u2 (_'«ry Staff on
> this already but I was wondering if you could help us understand
> something.
1 ilve across i_rom a -;.z oit:c= `i,at, at leases on t:ie site N "-lairs
> ap proved by the town of Cary, is supposed to be for a run-off > retention
?4Dr_
> Nond. The rete;1tion Nviau is ii' ? cEia built and the developer says
> hPCause t-hA,• only destroyed .315 acres of wetlands instead of the -70
"'orners t-nP ------
> The residents have twu concerns:
We think t;:at the run-,- ff 'ssue reeds to be re-e.-aluated because
> the
> rapid pace of construction has changed the flood plains on existing
> flood maps. There's nearly 177 acres of watershed at the Davis and
> High II
> House Rd. intersection tha ?-onpletely undeveloped when last
> HEC
la'd
and HEC RAS udi== .. = uu _s.i. The FEMA flood p7a'ns were
for Fenn-,-.,, ESL=" . ?? f;rs a T,elopment in *hat aren -r 7 tr-
^u? . --- --- - - _
> at the bottom of the watershed. As you know, all of the runoff flows
> down Turkey Creek right through the middle of Fenton. Now virtually
> all
> of the 177 acres is paved and Fenton is flooding.
> Residents feel that there is enough evidence here to warrant a new HEC
> I
> and HEC RAS studies but we need to know what you think.
> b) We think that more than 113 of an acre was destroyed when
> Cornerstone
> was built, that the original architects were right and retention pond
> should be built there. The developer says that you have personally
> decided this is not the case.
> The bottom linef Mr. Dorney, is that we'd like to meet with you and
> hear
> your opinion on this whole thing. We'd also like to walk the property
> and look at the original maps which show the wetlands boundaries. This
> would enable us to see for ourselves if more than 113 of an acre has
> been destroyed- It's not that we doubt you, (if, as the developer
1 of 2 1/29/99 4:55 PM
FW: Comrrs(onr Dc%, 1?,1 11 .,;
.,S says,
> you are personally assuring them that the retention pond isn't needed)
> it's just that this is something we need to see for ourselves.
> if we caii
> controversy.
> Thanks,
> Van W. Kloempken
> Senior Consultant
> Raleigh Solutions Center
> Data Dimensions, Inc.
> [e-mail]
> 919. 854. 79 76
> 919.854.7998 fax
2 of 2 1/29/99 4:55 PM
r> ? n
a
JLjikLC: ill U, 11 i,cb lyyy -U6UU
From: Van Kloempken <Van-Kloempken@data-dimensions. com>
To: "John Dorney (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
John:
The Town of Cary Staff released this report this morning regarding
flooding along Turkey Creek.
I wanted to get it into your hands before the meeting so we could talk
about it.
See you at 4 pm. (I hope you don't mind but a couple other residents
wanted to come along.)
't-hanks,
Van W. Kloempken
Senior Consulta..c
ri Solut_,.-.n I
Data Dimensions, Inc.
[e-mail]
919.854.7976
919.854.7998 fax
> l rOi; : Tract' : ?W'r'11: troberts@ci nc. usl
> Sent: Thursday,, February 11, 1999 11:51 AM
> To: Van Kloempken
> Subject: Re: new zeport available:
> What follows is the new report. Let me know if you have any
> questions.
> Thanks.
> February 8, 1999
TO: Plannina and Zoninq Board Members
> FROM: Robert Tucker, Director of Development Services
>
> SUBJECT: Questions Raised by the Town Council and Planning and
> Zoning
> Board for Storage USA
> At its January 14,1999 meeting, the Town Council referred the proposed
> Storage USA site plan back to the Planning & Zoning Board for further
> evaluation. Specifically, the Town Council directed Town staff to
> examine
> two issues: flooding, and land use plan compatibility. In addition,
> staff
> has provided an evaluation of the impact of recent ordinance changes
> on the
> site plan. A brief discussion of each item follows.
> Flooding And Drainage
1 of 8 2/ 1 1 /99 1:48 PM

1'nei e d-e seveli Issues i-nde. suave been raised concerning the proposed
> Storage USA site in the Cornerstone Development. These issues are:
> 1. The effects of upstream development on the residents of Fenton
> Estates.
> 2. The culvert in Turkey Creek under Davis Drive.
> 3. Possible channel improvements to Turkey Creek through Fenton
> Estates.
> 4. Effects of channel improvements on downstream property.
> 5. Flood plain issues.
> 6. Converting proposed storage facility site into a detention
> basin.
> 7. Street flooding on Hidden Rock Court.
> The Effects Of Upstream Development On The Residents Of Fenton Estates
> The Storage USA site is a 3.26 acre parcel in the southeast corner of
t-1,.-
> Cornerstone Development. This site sits at the low e-
> approximately
193-acre watershed. About 60t (108 Acres) of this watershed is
> develnl»d. Of the remaining 85 acres, appr.o7rimately 41 acres are
> zoned
> residential (R-40, R-30, RMF-12, and RM-CU) and 44 acres are zoned
> Pt;c' U k
> 1 anti _ 1 L'U. (Please note that this watershed was analyzed based
1 (r7 _
to ?hu c.._.,,_1.. ive.,'L. u)j",e. Davis
> The storm event selected for the analysis was the 10-year event)
> Unu-el- Cxlsring conditions this watershed produces approximately 370
> cfs of
> storm water runoff. if the Storage USA site is developed, an
> additional
> 9cfs of runoff will be produced (roughly equivalent to a 15" pipe
f'owing
> full under gravity). This additional 9 cfs of runoff constitutes an
> approximate 2% increasa in runoff. When Liae balance of the watershed
> developed the runoff will increase to approximately 540 cfs, about a
> 409
> increase in runoff over existing conditions.
> The Culvert In Turkey Creek Under Davis Drive
> As has been well documented, the existing 36" RCP culvert under Davis
> Drive
> is not capable of handling the runoff now being produced by the
> existing
> development in this watershed. Any future development will certainly
> exacerbate the existing conditions. Staff has evaluated the impact
> development will have on this culvert. When this culvert was
> initially
> designed by NCDOT several years ago it was standard practice to design
> for
> a 25-year storm event. Keep in mind that at that time because of soil
> types this part of Wake County had a difficult time supporting septic
> systems; therefore future development was not probable. Consequently,
> with
> sewer now available, development patterns in this area have changed
2 of 8 2/1 1/99 1:48 PM
> dramatically. Most pre-sewer drainage systems in this area are not
> adequate to handle runoff being generated by development.

> A quick analysis of this 36" culvert indicates that it would take
> roughly
> 2-72" culverts to adequately handle existing and anticipated runoff in
> this
> watershed once fully developed.

> Channel Improvements To Turkey Creek Through Fenton Estates

> The upgrading of the culvert under Davis Drive could have negative
> effects
> on property owners along Turkey Creek in Fenton Estates. In order to
> alleviate the problems that upgrading the culvert would create some
> substantial channel improvements would have to be undertaken. It
> would
-

> horizontal to 1 vertical side slopes a::d a top width of approximatclrr
0-ft
.?,i?.i0.-.?u?. '1'Y!lc Pr'r`7PCC. f ,
p 5 '
> maw ?
diff.` irij7t to undertake because of the Neuse River Riparian Buffer V"' >
[Y Rules and
> the estimated cost of approximaceiy $120,000.

If '-!:e c„lvert under DaC,i c upgraded and channel imp°oveme^~_s
a, _
> not under taken nz,P r.,..-„0r4 wf.Fr r - see a substanLia! inc? ,_,aGa n rno
> frequency and depth in which Turkey creek comes out of it's banks.
> Although the existing culvert is grossly undersized it does offer some
> protection to dIa residents ofr'anton Estates by restricting- glow
> until
> such time that Davis Drive is overtopped.

> Effects Of Channel Improvements On Down-Stream Property

> By upgrading the culverts under Davis Drive and implementing channel
> improvements through Fenn:?n S:sLates, the problems currer,t Iy faci,-,y
> Fen L,.,-,
> Estates will now manifest themselves at the Preston Forest
> subdivision,
> Just downstream from Fenton Estates. Also, the box culvert under High
> House Road currently struggles to carry existing flows. If the peak
> flow
> at this culvert is increased, overtopping of High House Road will
> occur.

> Flood Plain Issues

> The subdivision plan for phase II of Fenton Estates indicates a
> 100-year
> flood plain along Turkey Creek. Staff required that this be included
> on
> the subdivision plan for 2 reasons. First, it is the Town's way of
> insuring that potential homebuyers are aware that there may be some
> drainage concerns on a particular piece of property. This flood plain
> line
> should show up on all recorded plats. Second, any flood plain that
> shows
> up on a plot plan kicks in special building requirements such as
3 of 8 2/11/99 1:48 PM
> elevating
> the lowest floor a minimum of two feet above the flood plain
> elevation.
> This helps in minimizing any nuisance flooding damage to property.
> The run of Turkey Creek from approximately 600 feet south of High
> House
> Road upstream does not meet the criteria for a FEb?A designed Special
> Flood
> Hazard Area. FEMA has decided, as a matter of policy, that drainage
> areas l
> of less than one square mile (640 acres) generally do not meet the (J
> criteria
> to be designated special flood hazard areas. Typically drainage areas
> of
> this size or less do not generate flooding of the magnitude that would
> be
considered -- :i gat to the health, ;=cfety an -i f • of the public
> (disruption of services such as water, sewer, and electric service,
> isolation of the public from emergency services for example).
> Thezefore,
s r.-t: ries i rr w3LPr a per, a i P'1 ooc, Hazard
> Area.
> Converting Proposed Storage Facility Site Into A Detention Facility
> There nas been a question raised regarding using the proposed storage
fa r:' y ~e fcr use as a det.Pntion f=^ility 4 ere..^_ticn facilit1•
that :ruulu :raa„ rrn 10-year runoff c is rc_1r i w? c Wnnld require a
> flood
> storage volume of about 5.5 ac-ft. (Approximately 200 ft x 200 ft x 6
feet
> deep). The site is large enough to hold a detention facility of this
> size.
> However, only about 55t of the watershed drains to this site.
> Because of
> site's tupogzaphy, it will be difficulL to get what water that drains
> in
that directiOii 'iiLo a detention facilit'y' of su"'ciel-aL size to
> accompli=
> stormwater control. In other words one could put a detention facility
> on
> the site but it would have little if any impact on the watershed
> runoff.
> The ideal location for a detention facility would be immediately
> upstream
> from the culvert under Davis Drive.
> Street Flooding on Hidden Rock Court
> Hidden Rock court is the only street in phase II of Fenton Estates.
> Th i s
> street has been documented as having been flooded on several
> occasions.
> After visiting the site there appears to be two reasons for this.
> First,
> at the north side of the subdivision at the end of the road widening
> there
> is a flared end section that is supposed to capture all of the water
> flowing in the Davis Drive ditch. This flared end section is
> partially
4 of 8 2/11/99 1:48 PM
Rcad This Bclor_? t',r Mcclin,
> obstructed and under high flow situations stormwater will bypass it.
> Second, Hidden Rock Court intersects Davis Drive at the apparent low
> point
> of a vertical sag curve.
> The street grade follows the grade of the crown of Davis Drive. When
> the
> stormwater bypasses the previously mentioned flared end section it
> gets
> into the widened road section and flows into Hidden Rock Court. This
> additional water which occurs during high intensity rainfall events
> overwhelms the storm drain system on Hidden Rock Court and causes
> flooding.
> Flooding and Drainage Conclusions
> When the Turkey Creek watershed is fully developed, the runoff
•- ?
I "I > L._ - ...5
> on
> staff's analysis, the proposed project would increase the existing
rUn._ f t
> in the watershed by 2$. Town Staff also makes the following
> observations:
> if the runoff were not constrained by the undersized culvert under
> La vi s
n .o the channel imprcvements *hat •,^ 1d be _^dicaLe2 for T,-,rke,-
--ek in
v'=nton Estates asp s„????a7?t'a ti? 'Ugh indication ti.e ch-rltiel
> would
> need to be a rip-rap lined channel with a bottom width of 16 feet,
> sides
> with 3-to-1 slope, and a top width of 50 feet. However, the Neuse
> River
> Riparian Buffer Rules my prevent modification of the channel.
> The culvert under Davis Drive is presently a single 36-inch pipe. T:-:s
> pipe
> aeeds to be upgraded, potentially by replacing it with two 72-inch
- 'J1pCs to
> accommodate development in the watershed.
> if the culvert under Davis Drive is upgraded, not only will increased
> flooding in Fenton Estates need to be addressed, but potential
> flooding
> further downstream, e.g. in Preston Forest, will need to be addressed.
> The construction of detention basins within the watershed may be one
> way to
> address the flooding problems. A detention pond located on the
> proposed
> Storage USA site would not be in the proper position to serve the
> entire
> watershed, but that location could be one part of a multi-part
> solution.
> It appears that the proposed Storage USA site will have minimal affect
> on
> the residents of Fenton Estates as long as the culvert under Davis
> Drive is
> not enlarged. Build out of the balance of the watershed is
5 of 8 2/1 1/99 1:48 PM
Read This Before the Alcetin,t at 4pm!
anticipated to

> Recent Ordinance Changes
> As you know, on January 14,1999, the Town Council adopted several
> major
> revisions to Chapter 14 "Community Appearance and Environmental
> Protection
> Standards "of the unified Development Ordinance. Staff worked very
> closely
> with the Town Council, the Appearance Commission, the Planning &
> Zoning
> Board, and the development community in developing the new and revised
> Chapter 14 standards. Some of the revisions would have an affect on
- tl, e
> Storage USA site plan had the plan been submitted after January
> 14,1999.
> However, t previous Appearance ordinance is applicable to the
pr?ro:: : a
> Storage USA site plan. These effects include the following:
>
> The existing 30-foot buffer on the Whitebridge residential lots could
> not
> have been credited cowards the 65-foot buffer required co be provided
h.,
-- ;--e :.... .7,'.- rage UST. ,. ;;,il„ t.. 51buff -
0,2
> their property instead of the 35' buffer shown.
> The 30-foot streetscape would be required to remain in a natural,
uiidisturbed state. The plans currently show some lrmlted grading
> within
> the streetscape. Additionally, the vehicular use area adjacent to the
> streetscape would require a 5-foot offset.
> Within the 30' streetscape, ornamental trees would be required for
> every
> twenty feet of streetscape.
> The new Ordinance requires a 50' streetscape along Davis Drive instead
> the 30' streetscape currently shown on the plans.
> A more detailed tree survey [mould be required. The current Ordinance
> requires only that significant vegetation and native ornamental trees
> within the first 10 feet of the interior portion of the buffer be
> surveyed.
> However, the new Ordinance requires a general written description of
> all
> vegetation on-site, as well as the location and size of any specimen
> trees
> regardless of location.
> The new ordinance requires that a utility corridor be shown on the
> plans to
> designate the location of all utilities, including telephone, cable
> and
> electric lines.
> Land Use Compatibility
> According to the 1996 Land Use Plan, this property is designated as
> Office/Institutional and is in the Focus Area Fringe of a Neighborhood
> Activity Center (NAC). Although the property was zoned PEC when the
6 of 8 2/ 1 1 /99 1:48 PM
R ._„I T!Iis IIwforc ili_. I, -tins ;u a-.. ,
> plan
> was developed, it was `utional on the Plan
> Map in
> order to express t
utional component of the MAC. The Office/Institutional
> designation was also applied because much, if not most, of the PEC
> land in
> Cary is, in fact, used for office and institutional purposes,
> especially
> when it occurs proximate to an activity center focus area. The intent
> is
> to encourage such PEC zoned land to develop with office and
> institutional
> uses.
> The Land Use Plan includes additional guidelines for land uses and
> development design for land located within or at activity centers (as
According to the Plan, in a Neigh.",_ 1.,od Activity Center, the
> {n!.lnw-7ra
> uses sn ould be avoided:
> uses considered noxious when located next to a residential
> neighborhood;
> warehousing, manufacturing, and other industrial uses; and
> Establishments that do not primarily serve rile surrounding
> neicrl7 cncoc'd.
> I'na .Jnc7 gn Guidelines _'r. -i:e I =• I _nar? - ^r ?t
> an activity center should be integrated into. and compatible with ,
> the
> layout, Design, and appearance of ti.e surrounding residential
> neighborhood;
> adequate buffers should be provided to mitigate incompatible
> transitions
> bctnween residential and non-residential uses;
> vegetated buffers and other screening should be used to buffer
> incompatible
__.rid sc if archi_ecL?sC7 and ;Lions are ui_,feas:L-tl ._Ii
> inadequate;
> Adverse visual impacts from one development onto another should be
> avoided
> or mitigated. Adverse visual impacts from nonresidential sites onto
> nearby
> residential areas should be avoided through the use of visual buffers
> and/or the use of neighborhood-compatible architecture and building
> mass
> and siting.
> Conclusion
> While this development will add 2t additional runoff in the watershed
> area,
> the proposed site plan meets the existing Town Ordinances in regard to
> stormwater management. The proposed use is not consistent with the
> existing Land Use Plan. However, Town Ordinances, particularly the
> buffer
> and appearance requirements, are designed to reduce negative impacts
> between incompatible uses. The new Appearance Ordinance would further
> reduce the negative impacts of this proposed use on the adjacent
7 of 8 2/11/99 1:48 PM
' RBI; A1?:??? o 41)m
41
> residential areas.
> storageUSAmemo
> Tracy Roberts
> Senior Planner
> Town of Cary
> PO Box 8005
> Cary, NC 27512-8005
> Office: 919-460-4980
> Fax: [phone]
> [e-mail]
> ----------
> > Ft•om: Van Xlo?mpnen -:?.'an-Kloempken@ctata-dimensions com>
> > To: '[e-mail]'
> > Subject: new report available?
> > Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 10:17 AM
> > Tracy:
> > Just got off the phone with Jim P.
> > He said he,d ask you co email me a copy of the new Staff report -
> lust
> >
> > I need it rather quickly to prepare for a meeting with the state
> > officials this afternoon.
> > Thanks,
> > Van W. Kloempken
> > Senior Consultant
> > Raleigh SUlUtiUn:> Center
> > Data Dimensions, Inc.
> > van-Kloempken@dat:a-dimensions.com
> > 919.854.7976
> > 919.854.7998 fax
> >
8 of 8 2/11/99 1:48 PM
?, ? z1 tL 149
46
/Vi
C-V
wl? C)

r
l3
r
d
30?3