20100147 Ver 1_More Info Received_20100521

1(p- p147
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors, Planners, Scientists
Letter of Transmittal
To: Emily Jernigan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-NC
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
No: 20100149-0003
From: Stacy L. Schimmoeller
Date: 5/19/2010
Job no.: 20100149
Subject: East Carolina Student Housing
We are sending you herewith via: ? Courier ?X U.S. Mail ? Fed. Ex. ? UPS
The following items: ? copies Y originals ? [other]
Copies Date Number of
sheets Description
1 5/18/2010 7 Request For More Information
D F
NJAY 201
DENR - WATER oUAU
in eTrwt#WAT;1?41
These are transmitted as checked below:
? for approval ? for your file
? for execution / signatures
Remarics:
? as requested ?X for review & comment
? [other]
Copies To: Ian McMillan
Dave Tyndall
Christopher J Mann [EMHT]
For EMH&T, Inc.•
"-
StacY6 Schimmoeller
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us of once.
S?
MCH
A legacy of experience. A reputation for excellence.
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
Columbus • Atlanta • Charlotte • Cincinnati • Indianapolis
emht.com
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors, Planners, Scientists
May 18, 2010
Ms. Emily Jernigan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District - Washington Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Subject: The Province at Greenville - Request For More Information - SAW-2010-00257
Dear Emily,
Below please find additional information for The Province at Greenville permit application
located in the City of Greenville, Pitt County, North Carolina. The information is being provided
based on verbal request for more information from the United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington Field Office.
Avoidance and Minimization
A detailed offsite alternatives analysis was included within the PCN form and in the response to
public comments; however, the following describes onsite avoidance and minimization utilized on
the site.
Wetland impacts were avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practicable while designing
the project through multiple strategies. The resourceful site layout accomplishes minimized
wetland impacts without lowering the economic feasibility of the site. The efficient, square with
an open center building design allows for four buildings to be connected, which results in a
reduced footprint without lowering the square footage available for living space. The open
center/courtyard of the buildings also allows the layout to save land space by moving the
recreation areas to the center of the buildings, rather than taking up other property.
Parking has also been efficiently designed by including compact car only areas and areas that
allow roommates to double park/park each other in. Shifting parking into buffer areas was
examined to lessen wetland impacts; however, the floodway of Green Mill Run extends through
the buffer. Placing parking within the buffer would cause more impacts to the floodway and
floodplain, therefore the idea was not carried through. The number of parking spaces in this off-
campus student housing development has been reduced from the developer's preferred 1 space
per resident to 0.86 spaces per resident. As stated in the comments dated February 2010 from
the City of Greenville and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) after their
review of the preliminary development plans, "The provisions of 0.75 parking stall per bed is un-
realistically low. Suggest parking of 1 per bed plus visitor spaces." The proposed 0.86 spaces
per resident design has split the difference between the City of Greenville code of 0.75 spaces
per resident and the developer and NCDOT request of 1:1.
A legacy of experience. A reputation for excellence.
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 - Phone [phone] - Fax [phone]
Columbus - Atlanta - Charlotte - Cincinnati - Indianapolis
emht.com
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers May 18, 2010
The Province at Greenville - Request For More Information
To further reduce wetland impacts, a 0.61 acre levy along the eastern bank of Green Mill Run is
being removed to decrease the amount of wetland excavation needed to bring the site out of the
Green Mill Run floodplain. The excavation is necessary to bring the site out of the 100 year
floodplain and floodway, which will result in improvements to the downstream water quality by
removing a significant portion of the site, including a section of the parking lot, trash bins,
buildings, and cars, from the floodplain/floodwaters of Green Mill Run. This will remove trash,
debris, oils, and other fluids from the water as well as cease structural damage from occurring to
the buildings.
Another impact reducing feature is the 400 foot long retaining wall that has been designed for
the northeastern boundary of the development. This $300,000 wall decreases grading and
buffer impacts by approximately 30-40 feet (0.14 acre) along the entire length of proposed
wall to slope from the parking lot elevation of 33 feet (outside the floodplain) down to the buffer
and stream at 23 feet (within the floodplain and floodway). If the wall were not used, the
grading activities would increase buffer impacts and floodplain/floodway impacts, which would
cause at least 0.14 acre more wetland excavation. To comply with the Federal Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for newly constructed facilities, accessible routes must
interconnect existing roadways and sidewalks (right of way areas) with the new units, the
recycler/trash compactor, the clubhouse/mail boxes and the parking spaces. To do this, the
elevation of the site needs to be maintained at a minimum of 33 feet or higher to allow the routes
to be constructed with 2% maximum cross slopes and 5% maximum longitudinal slopes.
Alternate Site Layouts
Three alternate site designs are attached as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3. The proposed site layout is
included as Exhibit A. A comparison table showing multiple aspects and impacts has been
included below followed by an expanded written explanation of why the alternate layouts were
not used.
TABLE 1
Comoarison of Alternate Desians
Floodway & Initial Stormwater Riparian Total
Parking Floodplain Wetland Treatment Buffer Wetland
Layout Beds Ratio Im acts Im acts Provided Impacts Impacts****
Exhibit 1 748 0.94 Yes 2 acre No** Yes*** 2.75 acre
Exhibit 2 596* 0.91 Yes 0.5 acre No** Yes*** 1.25 acre
Exhibit 3 596* 1.06 Yes 0.5 acre No** No 1 acre
Proposed- Ex4 729 0.86 Yes 0.94 acre Yes No 0.94 acre
*596 units is not a sufficient number to make the project economically viable.
** Wetland impacts would increase by at least 0.5 acre to install the stormwater treatment system.
***Buffer impacts would increase floodplain/floodway impacts, which would increase wetland
excavation impacts by approximately 0.25 acre.
****Total wetland impacts include initial impacts plus 0.5 acre of impacts for stormwater treatment
installation and 0.25 acre wetland impacts for riparian impacts described above.
Besides the proposed layout, Exhibit 1 is able to produce the most units and a better parking
ratio, which makes this the second most economically viable option for the applicant. However,
had this option been chosen, wetland impacts would have been approximately 2.75 acres. The
emht.com I Page 2 of 3
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers May 18, 2010
The Province at Greenville - Request For More Information
wetland impacts in this layout are increased in association with the addition of the stormwater
treatment system and additional excavation needed to allow the parking to be located within the
buffer along the northeastern portion of the site.
Exhibit 2 is tied for the lowest number of beds, which makes the project economically unviable. It
does have a higher parking ratio and has less wetland impacts on the southeastern portion of the
site. However, impacts would increase due to the installation of the stormwater feature (not
shown on the exhibit) and excavation needed to allow parking within the northeastern buffer.
After all factors are considered, approximately 1.25 acres of wetland would be impacted, which
is more than the 0.94 acre currently proposed.
Exhibit 3 has the best parking ratio and the lowest number of beds, which is not economically
viable. It does avoid buffer impacts; however, a stormwater system needs to be added and
would increase wetland impacts by approximately 0.5 acre, for a total of approximately 1 acre
of impacts.
The proposed layout (Exhibit 4) has the highest number of units, no buffer impact, includes a
stormwater treatment system, and lowest area of wetland impact. To produce this combination
and decrease wetland impacts, the two additional properties to the north and west were
acquired to shift the development to the west. To further avoid wetland impacts, the parking
ratio was lowered and the building design was upgraded to be more efficient. Overall, the
proposed layout is the most efficient and has the lowest amount of wetland impacts, which is why
it was chosen as the proposed layout.
If you have any questions regarding the application or comment responses, please feel free to
contact me at 614-775-4515.
Sincerely,
EMH&T
A
Robert F. Milligan
Director, Environmental Department
1'it"
Stacy Schimmoeller
Environmental Scientist
Copies: Ian McMillan, NCDENR
Dave Tyndall, Edwards Communities Development Company
Chris Mann, EMH&T
Doug Turney, EMH&T
emht-com I Page 3 of 3
dVW dlHSM3NM0 AiS3dOSd
60OZ 'OZ +sn9ny
spodwl jajing uopodlll _
;uew&oaJj AO#DMuuD{S ON O
spDdLul ulDldpooli T Aompooi j
spodwl PuDIPM saa0y SL'b g
DRDa SUMADd - b6'0 E 3 L . V
.Pea - sVL Fss9?g p a e ? ?i Is 2c Q
iIHIHX3
_uj
-6 1 -6 -6 1
g { aaaa -gs
» » »»»»»»» ,»»»»»»»»"aa»a?a a?U
jooooaoa?soooaaoooooo ??°ooaoaa :om?.s.tion ?oo?n
0000 ooa A o 00 ooaoo.oa a?
I
Y
kl-
z Y.,
r r<s 3 ,
CY)
00 rn
M ia
y ,
,
i 4 - -
00
1
, h•f _
- p ,
m : , c . . .1 f f v _
f
00
IN `, a
1 -A
o of i. 1
3 3 ' h 4 ? - .. lc= ?iMu c ?.
4 ? '-
?, " r 1 4 l J
00
I ` r z? ,
' tr11M?" ( 11 ? I, ?
22
11,L1yky..-
1 A 3
?. LA
I Iv? C ,? II - tt y I-
4 4
t??l
Ito
t`
?• LAM. ( _ ? ? L?'
-J 00 113
-
i
if
?'
A
E
E
0
V
•o
0
W
v
u
0
a
a
r
N
z
a
z
O
a
V
r
N ,-
L
spodwl iajjng uola0dill
1uaw1oaa1 aal0mwaolS ON
slaodwl ui0ldpooli g Aompool:l
spodwl puDjpM sejDV SZ-L
011oa 6uhliod - 16'0
sPag - 96S
Z LIIIHX3
6007. '0Z .;nfiny
•a190!A
99 01 palowd 944 Jo! 1041 aA09D s1soD sasoaJoul 1041 sapoaBdn
louo1llppo pu0 aolonala u0 aA04 0+ saoolJ S aA09D Buippn9 W
Au0 al0puow 1041 slua?usimbai vaV of onp posodowd joBuol ou sI
sM •oa.m 10y1 ul 4614 sapols
s
Su
n
a
0 LIn
!
lpli
9
41
louap soao Auld-
b
a
•91 A9 s
sasoaj"
p
9
p 8 asn049np aooli PAY alouap soam mo11aA-
:UON W
,
Q
w
dVW dINSS3NM0 A1213dOlld
spodwl jaNng uouodla ON
luaw4o84 ia40mwJolS ON
spodwl uloldpoold g Aompoold
spodwl puollaM eAoV L
olloa Buplaod - 90-1
spa8 - 96S
£ 1191HX3
60OZ 'OZ IsnbnV

•elg0ln a.
aq of paload ey4 AOJ joy anogo spo0 sesoaizul 104; sepojOdn
louoylppo puo >rolonala uo 9A04 04 saooli £ anogo Bu1Ppnq W
Au0 040PUDW l344 s4ueLuojlnbeA V0V o{ onp pasodoid wBuol ou s1
• ' n
V
3141
Daao 4044 u! 4514 sauo44 6 s1 Bwppnq ay{ alouap sDaJD lu1d-
A Q
q I
q spaq sesconep g esn049np Ioold 4sr1d 94ouap soaJo mollaA-

310N W
\ 1
* ly to \ ?? ..? -
14 \\ U 5 a t`
?f
C? .h44 - .-f f" I
r I'?
\_ / \ ~
`4 - -??' '-.? a `\ ?`` -•-..?, 5° ? \ ?
-r 14 r
0') z
-7 _3
t j 1--
C{) Y 31 28 1 Rat c 4 I I TB Tat!!,:
z'
21,
k 1? 4'ro?raw^.?.,, fsv. Is_,
ll U
I 1 cT2L, - --- s?E
a n
1 ,r I9 _ ,
.ll I
.. ? •? , . ? ? .r r1 ' ;r '-1.. ? ? 4-C+
20
..1e
--
OCT,
l
?4le
a
E
E
0
V
v
0
3
v
W
O
ro
m
a
a
m
d
Y
F-
w
OC
Z
Q
Z
J
J
Y
n
to
u
4 i
J k ?
a 3
shodwl joyn8 uouodia ON
+uew+oill Je+oMILJOJS saplnortd
spDdwl u!oldpooli 8 ADmpool j
spodwl puolMM ejoV h6'0
o!+oa BuPIJDd -98'0
spelt - gbL
inoAvi 03sodobd --t, lismi
YS Y -
$? 9g
8fi ?Uyy5?
8 ;?, 3 o e r ?c4'?a 34
Y Y Y ?! 4 ?A??YY?
> -
W q a
a
F C "_
00-` y W c
>

i1
?, t t
( Ai ? I

I

-S Ell q -111 1- I

Z;N

[ I

r
!

I
ix,
I I

^ _I G A
GNARI FS BOUT F?ARC
?y~ ~ I
I
? I I i 1 1 ?
r?
Il