HomeMy WebLinkAboutSW3190804_2712 - Pine Forest II Stormwater Response to Comments_12/19/2019
1. Please clarify who the Owner and Developer are (Section III, 1a & 1c). The Applicant is
either the “Property Owner” or the “Developer”. If the property owner will be developing
the site, just select “Property Owner” and do not fill out Section III, 2.
RJH Response: Developer Unchecked, Section III, 2 left blank
2. Please include the type of SCMs that will be used in the summary (Section IV, 1).
RJH Response: Dry detention and sand filters added
3. Please include the “Total Surface Water Area” from Duck Creek that is located on the
property (Section IV, 6) and show the square footage of the surface water area in the
plans (Section VI, 8, h).
RJH Response: Approx 0.397 Ac added to application. Hatch added to sheet
SP-1 w/ Callout.
4. Please recalculate the “Total Project Area” value taking into account the prior comment
(Section IV, 7).
RJH Response: Recalculated Accordingly
5. Please recalculate the “Project percent of impervious area” value taking into account the
prior comment (Section IV, 8).
RJH Response: Recalculated Accordingly
6. Please complete the “Impervious Surface Area” table (Section IV, 10).
RJH Response: Table filled in for each drainage area
7. There is a discrepancy between the impervious area shown for Drainage Area 1 in the
application (211,134 sf = 4.85 ac) and the impervious cover shown in “Section 6. SCS
Pine Forest II Stormwater
Requested Additional Information
Response Dated December 4, 2019
RCN Post Sand Filter #100” of the supporting calculations (4.67 ac). Please revise for
consistency.
RJH Response: Revised to 4.5 Ac, consistent w/ newly calculated impervious
8. Based on the provided “BMP Drainage Areas” sheet, there appears to be some offsite
drainage and impervious areas for sand filter 200. Please include this information in
Section IV, 10 & 11.
RJH Response: Revised items 10 and 11 to include this information
9. Some of the provided calculation sheets are illegible, for example, the spreadsheets with
dark colored boxes in section 6 of the report (Section VI, 7). I reviewed what I could, but
it was not a complete review because of this.
RJH Response: Re-Scanned at a higher resolution
10. Please delineate the wetlands on the plans or provide a note stating that no wetlands exist.
Provide documentation of the qualifications and identity of the individual who made this
determination (Section VI, 8, m).
RJH Response: Note added to all EC sheets stating company and individual
who flagged and located wetlands
11. Since this project is subject to 15A NCAC 02H .1017, the minimum vegetated setback
from surface waters is 30 feet (Section VI, 8, p).
RJH Response: Buffer revised
12. Please provide a copy of the soils report once it becomes available (Section VI, 9).
Ensure that the SHWT elevation is included (Sand Filter MDC 1).
RJH Response: Full subsurface exploration report included with submittal
13. Please provide proof of title and position for the signing official (Section VI, 11). Please
also initial this item in the application.
RJH Response: Proof provided w/ submittal
14. The total BUA from all of the lots on the deed restriction document adds up to 263,405 sf
whereas the application shows a total, site wide BUA of 1362,208 (Section VII). Please
revise for consistency.
RJH Response: Per revisions, Total site-wide BUA is 344344 ft^2
15. Please only fill this section out if Section III, 2 has been filled out (Section IX).
RJH Response: Cleared info from this section
16. Please only list the person from Section III, 1a in the first blank area of this section
(Section X).
RJH Response: Anita R. Johnson listed per section III 1a
17. For each sand filter, the sediment chamber and sand chamber should have the same
storage volume (Sand Filter MDC 2).
RJH Response: Forebay berm position adjusted to equalize sed. Chamber
and sand chamber to best possible degree
18. Please specify the media to be used in the sand filters (Sand filter MDC 6).
RJH Response: Sand specification added to sheets BMP #2 and BMP #3
19. The proposed SCMs do not capture the runoff from all proposed BUA (General MDC 1).
All new BUA must drain to one of the proposed SCMs if the Runoff Treatment Method
is being used to address stormwater requirements.
RJH Response: Per email communication w Jim Farkas, note added to
project summary, stormwater management section, to describe drainage off
of these areas
20. Please provide riprap calculations to show that the inlets and outlets of the SCM are
protected from the 10-year storm event (General MDC 4).
RJH Response: Riprap inlet calcs already present in section III of design
book, Outlet calcs added to section VI
21. Ensure that the information in the Supplement-EZ Form is consistent with the design and
Minimum Design Criteria (MDC) for sand filters. MDC for sand filters can be found at
the following link:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Energy%20Mineral%20and%20Land%20Resources/Stormwate
r/BMP%20Manual/C-6--Sand-Filter-11-7-2018.pdf
RJH Response: Supplement EZ forms revised for consistency.
22. Provide pdfs of all revisions, 2 hardcopies of revised plan sheets, and 1 hardcopy of other
documents. Pdfs must be uploaded using the form at:
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/SW_Project_Submittal
RJH Response: All necessary documents included in resubmittal.