SW3210701_Response To Comments_20210913

TI MCADAMS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS > 2021210184
September 07, 2021
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
RE: Wicker Park
Case Number: CABAR-2021-082
Response to NCDEQ-SW 1st Review Comments
2021210184
The following are the response comments for the above -mentioned project. Our response comments are in bold.
STORMWATER COMMENTS
Jim Farkas
As designed, the "low -density" portions of this project do not meet the low -density design requirements as
outlined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2) and can therefore not be considered as a low -density area. These "low -
density" areas were not designed with the intention to disperse flow and they contain avoidable pipe
networks. In addition, none of the criteria for considering a project to have both high- and low -density areas
have been met (Per 15A NCAC 02H .1003(1)(d)). Please redesign this project to meet all of the applicable high -
density design requirements.
McAdams Response: The low -density areas have been redesigned to allow for dispersed flow and limit
the piping used. Additionally, we have satisfied the criteria to allow the use of both high- and low -density
areas.
2. The project percent impervious area (Section IV, 8) appears to be calculated incorrectly. Please provide a
calculation for this value and revise as needed.
McAdams Response: The calculation has been provided and the value revised.
3. There appears to be some issues with the drainage area information shown in Section IV, 10. For example, the
sum of the impervious surface areas (lower half of the table) do not add up to the 'Total" BUA for drainage
area 1 and none of the 'Total" BUA values correspond to the "Proposed Impervious Areas". Please ensure that
the drainage area information is correctly accounted for.
McAdams Response: The drainage area information is now correctly accounted for as described below:
creating experiences through experience 3430 Toringdon Way, Suite 110, Charlotte, NC 28277 / 704. 527. 0800

MCADAMS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS > 2021210184
> "On -site Buildings/Lots" — For this project, this value would be the total on -site BUA allocated to the
individual lots that is located within the drainage area. This item would not include BUA that is located
outside of the individual lots (such as communal buildings).
McAdams Response: Using the building pad and driveway areas (portions located outside of the public
right-of-way.
> "On -site Streets" — For this project, this value would be the total on -site BUA associated with roadways that
is located within the drainage area.
McAdams Response: Using the area between back of curb to back of curb.
> "On -site Parking" — For this project, this value would be the total on -site BUA associated with the portions of
the driveways that are not located individual lots or any parking for communal buildings that is located
within the drainage area.
McAdams Response: Using the driveway portions between the sidewalk and back of curb and sidewalk
and right-of-way.
> "On -site Sidewalks" — For this project, this value would be the total on -site BUA associated with sidewalks
that are not located on the individual lots that is located within the drainage area.
McAdams Response: Using the sidewalk area located within the public right-of-way.
> "Other on -site" —This value would be the total on -site BUA that does not fall into one of the other
mentioned categories that is located within the drainage area.
McAdams Response: Using the impervious area associated with the Amenity Center.
> "Off -site" —This value would be the total off -site BUA that is located within the drainage area.
McAdams Response: Using the impervious area that is located outside of the project boundary.
> "Existing BUA" —This value would be the total existing on -site BUA that will remain in post -construction
conditions that is located within the drainage area.
McAdams Response: Not applicable for this project.
> 'Total" —This item is the sum of the impervious surfaces previously mentioned (It would also include
"Future" BUA, but no "Future" BUA was indicated). This item should correspond to the total amount of BUA
that will exist within the drainage area in post -construction conditions.
McAdams Response: This now includes the future BUA anticipated as part of the roadway extension.
4. Please ensure that all off -site portions of the drainage areas are accounted for at their full build -out potential
per 15A NCAC 02H .1003(3)(b). More information on this is provided after the comments.
creating experiences through experience 2 of 6

TI IVMCADAMS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS > 2021210184
McAdams Response: SCM A has been designed using the max BUA allowed per the current zoning and the
existing S.R. impervious was delineated. SCM C has been designed for the existing impervious cover. This
off -site drainage is already at final build -out conditions.
5. Please provide an Operation & Maintenance agreement for this project (Section V & Section V1,3). The form is
available at the following link: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-and-landresources/
stormwater/stormwater-program/stormwater-design and the provided hard copy should have an original
signature.
McAdams Response: This has been included in the resubmittal.
6. Please correct the following issues with the deed restriction document (Section VI, 2 & Section VII):
> Please have the signing official for the Applicant (Fred Matrulli) sign the deed restriction document or
provide some form of official documentation showing that Matthew Kearns can sign on behalf of the
Applicant.
McAdams Response: This has been corrected.
> Please change the SW permit number to "SW3210701."
McAdams Response: The SW permit number has been revised.
> The deed restriction document should be edited to remove the non -applicable 61h item (There are two 6's in
the deed restriction document and the one that is not used should be deleted).
McAdams Response: The deed restriction document has been revised to remove the non -applicable 6th
item.
The total amount of BUA allocated to the individual lots (604,280 sf) does not correspond to the total "New
BUA on Subdivided Lots" as shown on the Supplement-EZ Form. Revise as needed.
McAdams Response: Updates have been made to have these values match.
7. Please provide calculations showing that the inlets to the SCMs are protected from erosion (General MDC 4).
McAdams Response: The rip rap aprons calculations are now included after the cover sheet for each
section of the SCM design.
8. Please clearly identify and dimension the BUA associated with this project (Section VI, 8j). The BUA
information shown in the Application and in the Supplement-EZ Form should be able to be verified on the
plans. For simple geometric shapes, you can provide dimensions (and the surface area can be calculated), but
for more complex shapes, you may wish to call out the surface areas and/or provide a table in the plans
similar to the one in the Application/Supplement-EZ Form.
McAdams Response: The Bus has been identified and the table added to the post -development map.
creating experiences through experience 3 of 6

TI MCADAMS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS > 2021210184
9. The provided detail sheets for wet ponds 1, 2, & 3 (C9.01, C9.05, & C9.09) all appear to be incorrect. The
sheets are all identical to each other and do not correspond to the designs shown on the plan views or
calculations. Please ensure that the provided detail sheets accurately reflect the proposed design (Section VI,
81).
McAdams Response: The SCM detail sheets now accurately reflect each design.
10. Please place a note on the plans indicating the individual that made the on -site wetland delineation (Section
VI, 8m).
McAdams Response: This has been added as a note to sheet C0.00.
11. Please include the delineated drainage areas to the proposed SCMs in the main set of plans (Section V1,8o). It
is noted that a drainage area delineation map was provided with the calculations, however this requirement
states that the drainage area map must be included in the main plan set.
McAdams Response: This has been added to the construction documents as sheet C9.12.
12. A SHWT boring is not required for a wet pond (Section VI, 9). Please initial this item as being provided since a
soils map has been provided for the project area.
McAdams Response: This item has been initialed.
13. It is recommended to include an emergency spillway for each wet pond. It is noted that the ponds are
designed to contain the 100-year design storm, however an emergency spillway is still recommended to
prevent structural failure of the pond in the event of overtopping (either from a very large/intense storm
event or if the outlet structure becomes clogged).
McAdams Response: An emergency spillway has been proposed for each SCM.
14. Please address the following inconsistencies in the calculations:
General:
> Please use the actual BUA allocations for the individual lots (not just the building pad area and driveway
area) for the BUA calculations. For example, one of the smaller lots (48x60) is shown as having a BUA of
3,480 sf (2,880 sf building footprint + 600 sf driveway) in the calculations whereas the provided deed
restriction document allows the smaller lots to have a total of 4,360 sf of BUA.
McAdams Response: For the high density areas we are proposing 4,640 sf of BUA for each lot. The
building footprints shown are generic. We have taken the largest footprint available, including patio
options, lead walks, and driveways to determine the value that we are now using.
> Wet Pond 1:
o The sum of the "Additional On -site Impervious Area" (65,349 sf) does not match the value shown in
the calculations (46,146 sf).
o There appears to be more driveways (24) than actual lots (16) that drain to this SCM.
creating experiences through experience 4 of 6

MCADAMS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS > 2021210184
o The Total BUA for this DA is shown as 121,059 sf in the Supplement-EZ Form, 114,426 sf/143,262 sf
in the Application, and 2.76 ac (-­120,000 sf) in the calculations.
McAdams Response: These calculations have been updated to reflect the current design.
15. Please correct the following issues with the Supplement-EZ Form:
General:
> Please use the latest version of this form (available at: https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-
and-landresources/stormwater/stormwater-program/stormwater-design)
McAdams Response: The latest version of the form has been used.
Cover Page:
> The project area (67.62 ac) does not match the project area as shown in the Section IV, 7 of the Application.
Revise as needed.
McAdams Response: The project areas now match.
> The width of the vegetated setback is shown as 50 ft on the plans and reported as 30 ft on this sheet. Please
revise as needed.
McAdams Response: This value has been modified to match the conditions as depicted on the plans.
> With regard to the signature — An original signature must be provided on this form prior to us approving the
permit. You may either wait until the designer has returned or have someone who has either directed or
supervised the design (per the certification statement on the form) sign the form.
McAdams Response: Noted.
Drainage Areas Page:
> Similar to the comments about the BUA table in the Application, please ensure that the BUA is properly
accounted for. The items in the "Breakdown of New BUA Outside Subdivided Lots" should add up to the
"New BUA Outside Subdivided Lots" item and the 'Total BUA" should be the sum off the "New BUA On
Subdivided Lots", "New BUA Outside Subdivided Lots", "Off -site BUA", and "Existing BUA that will Remain."
McAdams Response: BUA is now properly accounted for.
> Please ensure that the "Entire Site" column is correctly filled out. This column should be an accounting of all
of the on -site BUA, whether or not it drains to an SCM (As previously mentioned, the BUA on subdivided lots
does not equal the amount as shown on the deed restriction document and there are certain BUA types that
are shown to be within an SCM drainage area that are not shown to be located within the entire site (such
as "Parking" and "Roof')).
McAdams Response: The "Entire Site" column has now been corrected.
creating experiences through experience 5 of 6

MCADAMS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS > 2021210184
Wet Pond Page:
Line 37 —The form automatically rounds the values entered into these cells to the nearest whole number.
Please indicate the actual orifice diameter used for wet ponds 2 & 3 (you can add this information to the
additional information box (Line 55).
McAdams Response: The orifice diameter is now correctly shown.
> Line 47 —The plan views of the wet ponds indicate that the cross -slope of the vegetated shelves is 10:1 not
5:1. Please revise as needed. NOTE: A cross -slope of 5:1 is too steep per Wet Pond M DC 6.
McAdams Response: The cross -slope has been updated to specify 10:1.
16. Provide pdfs of all revisions, 2 hardcopies of revised plan sheets, 1 hardcopy of other documents, and a
response to comments letter briefly describing how the comments have been addressed.
> Pdfs must be uploaded using the form at: https://edocs.deq..nc.gov/Forms/SW-Supplemental-Upload
> Hard copies must be mailed or delivered to the following address:
o For Fed Ex/UPS:
Suzanne McCoy
512 N. Salisbury Street, Office 640K
Raleigh, NC 27604
o For USPS:
Suzanne McCoy
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Consideration of this response is greatly appreciated. If you should have any questions or require additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 704. 527. 0800.
Sincerely,
MCADAMS
Stuart Woodard, PE
Project Manager
SW/cg
creating experiences through experience 6 of 6