Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210816 Ver 1_USACE More Info Request_20220407Homewood, Sue From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil> Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 10:57 AM To: Brad Luckey Cc: Homewood, Sue; dhgriffinjr@dhgriffin.com; grogers@dhgriffin.com; jmbalderamos@dhgriffin.com; ms@pnk.group; gmuraview@pnk.group Subject: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2014-02098/SAW-2021-01390, Gallimore Dairy Road Extension and Project Elixir (350 South), Colfax, Guilford Co, NWP 14 and 39 Verifications Attachments: NCCGIA Aerial Snip.pdf; QL2 LiDAR Snip.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam. No problem, Brad. Please see that attached QL2 LiDAR and Aerial photo with comments showing the drainage. -Dave Bailey David E. Bailey, PWS Regulatory Project Manager US Army Corps of Engineers CE-SAW-RG-R 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 Mobile: (919) 817-2436 Office: (919) 554-4884, Ext. 30. Fax: (919) 562-0421 Email: David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/ Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey. From: Brad Luckey <bluckey@pilotenviro.com> Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 4:51 PM To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil> Cc: Homewood, Sue <sue.homewood@ncdenr.gov>; dhgriffinjr@dhgriffin.com; grogers@dhgriffin.com; jmbalderamos@dhgriffin.com; ms@pnk.group; gmuraview@pnk.group Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2014-02098/SAW-2021- 01390, Gallimore Dairy Road Extension and Project Elixir (350 South), Colfax, Guilford Co, NWP 14 and 39 Verifications Received, thanks David. One item of immediate clarity —can you send me a snip of drainage that your referring to in item 2 below? i Sincerely, Bradley S. Luckey, PWS 336.708.4997 (c) 336.310.4527 (o) PO Box 128 Kernersville, NC 27285 www.pilotenviro.com bluckey@ " .com From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil> Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 3:36 PM To: Brad Luckey <bluckey@pilotenviro.com> Cc: Homewood, Sue <sue.homewood@ncdenr.gov>; dhgriffinjr@dhgriffin.com; gropers@dhgriffin.com; jmbalderamos@dhgriffin.com; ms@pnk.group; gmuraview@pnk.group Subject: Request for Additional Information: SAW-2014-02098/SAW-2021-01390, Gallimore Dairy Road Extension and Project Elixir (350 South), Colfax, Guilford Co, NWP 14 and 39 Verifications All, Thank you for your PCNs for the above referenced Gallimore Dairy Road Extension and Project Elixir (350 South) projects, dated 3/8/2022 and 3/16/2022, respectively. I have reviewed the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permits (NWPs) 14 (https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP- 14.pdf) and 39 (https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP39.pdf). Please submit the requested information below (via e-mail is fine) within 30 days of receipt of this Notification, otherwise we may deny verification of the use of the NWPs or consider your applications withdrawn and close the files: The following items are specific to the proposed Gallimore Diary Road Extension: 1) The information provided does not fully justify that the proposed Gallimore Diary Road Extension is a project with independent utility from Project Elixir (350 South). Please provide the following to enable our continued evaluation: a. What municipality/entity will assume responsibility and maintenance of this transportation facility into perpetuity? Please provide any supporting documentation; b. Provide documentation to justify that this road extension is part of a thoroughfare or other transportation plan to show purpose and need other than to facilitate access to Project Elixir (350 South) and future portions of the High Point North Industrial Center; c. Provide traffic data/analysis to justify the Gallimore Dairy Road Extension as a transportation project with independent utility, absent of future traffic needs for Project Elixir (350 South) and future portions of the High Point North Industrial Center; d. Design of the first crossing only, which does not allow evaluation of all potential direct and indirect impacts required to complete the proposed road extension to Adkins Road (i.e. not logical termini), is insufficient for the evaluation of the proposed road extension. Please provide plan and cross section drawings of the remaining crossings; e. In order to justify width of the proposed roadway and show avoidance and minimization to the maximum extent practicable per NWP General Condition 23a, please provide the roadway cross section showing the number and width of travel lanes and shoulder widths, and a description of how that compares to the existing portion of Gallimore Dairy Road just east of the existing intersection of Sandy Ridge Road and Gallimore Dairy Road; f. Absent Project Elixir (350 South), would an alignment of Gallimore Dairy Road be available/viable to avoid at least one stream crossing, such as aligning the route south of the origins of Streams MSB/BSA and thereby crossing Stream MSA downstream of its confluence with Stream MSC? 2 2) The Gallimore Dairy Road Extension alignment intersects with Adkins Road just west of a topographic drainage that occurs outside of the PJD Review Area for Project Elixir (350 South) and does not appear to be covered by the additional evaluation area you provided in the PCN. Within the proposed alignment, has this drainage been evaluated for the presence of potential waters of the US, including wetlands? Please provide documentation accordingly. 3) Proposed bottomless culverts: a. Please provide a cross section view of the proposed bottomless culvert structures (see item 1)d. above) clearly showing the outer walls of the culvert structures and footers, disturbance limits needed to construct the structure, and the stream profile. This information is needed to ensure that this structure would not result in direct impacts to the stream; b. The Corps Wilmington District Raleigh Regulatory Field Office has had long experience with bottomless culverts. We generally agree with NCDOT that the long-term success of such structures is significantly enhanced when they are tied into shallow bedrock. NCDOT Division 7 does not typically pursue bottomless culverts unless there is non-scourable bedrock within 5 vertical feet of the soil surface. In cases where the structures are not tied into bedrock we have seen numerous instances of foundation undercutting, often leading to replacement with traditional culverts. Further, shading under the arch culvert inevitably leads to die -off of any remaining woody vegetation. These factors predictably lead to loss of aquatic function through stream bank erosion and winnowing out from foundation to foundation. c. Given that the project proposes impacts requiring 404 approval, we are evaluating both direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts to 404 resources associated with the project to ensure that the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal (NWP General Condition 23 and District Engineer's Decision part 2). Based on the above, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed bottomless culverts would result in indirect impacts to streams in the footprint of the structures. The proposed indirect impacts to streams appears to exceed 0.02 acre, the typified stream mitigation threshold per Regional Condition B.7, in this case. Compensatory mitigation for this predictable reduction in (though not a total loss of) stream function is typically required at 1:1, unless otherwise justified based on an evaluation of stream function (i.e. NCSAM). The following items are specific to Project Elixir (350 South): 4) The information provided does not fully justify that Project Elixir is a project with independent utility from the Gallimore Dairy Road Extension. Specifically, a portion of impacts proposed to Stream MSB are for an access road that does not connect to any infrastructure (i.e. has no purpose) absent the proposed Gallimore Dairy Road Extension. Information in item 1 above will be required to evaluate the independent utility of the Gallimore Dairy Road Extension. Otherwise, note that these projects currently appear to be part of the same single and complete project to provide required infrastructure to develop Project Elixir (350 South) and future portions of the High Point North Industrial Center. 5) It has come to our attention that the area proposed for development of the Gallimore Dairy Road Extension and Project Elixir (350 South) appear to be phases of the High Point North Industrial Center (see attached). Generally, the Corps would consider the entire buildout of such an industrial park as a single and complete project with impacts considered cumulative with respect to NWP and compensatory mitigation thresholds. Please provide for our evaluation any information available to justify that Project Elixir (350 South) is a single and complete project with independent utility apart from the High Point North Industrial Center. Furthermore, even if Project Elixir (350 South) and the Gallimore Dairy Road Extension are considered part of an overall High Point North Industrial Center single and complete project, it may still be possible to permit in phases by stacking NWPs if it can be shown that the reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with full buildout of the High Point North Industrial Center would not exceed the NWP threshold; any information you can provide to this effect would be useful. 6) Thank you for addressing avoidance of indirect impacts to remaining portions of Stream MSB downstream of the proposed fill slope. Please show the location of the proposed French drain on the zoomed -in plansheet; 3 Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full evaluation of the proposed project(s). Also note that it appears that an Individual 401 WQC would be required from NCDWR for the proposed project(s); the Corps cannot verify the use of any NWP without a valid 401 Water Quality Certification. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dave Bailey David E. Bailey, PWS Regulatory Project Manager US Army Corps of Engineers CE-SAW-RG-R 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 Mobile: (919) 817-2436 Office: (919) 554-4884, Ext. 30. Fax: (919) 562-0421 Email: David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/ Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey. From: RaleighNCREG <RaleighNCREG@usace.army.mil> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 11:34 AM To: Brad Luckey <bluckey@pilotenviro.com>; RaleighNCREG <RaleighNCREG@usace.army.mil> Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil>; Homewood, Sue <sue.homewood@ncdenr.gov> Subject: RE: SAW-2021-01390, Project Elixir (350 South), Colfax, Guilford Co, NWP 39 Verification Good Morning, We have received your Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) NWP request for the above project. Dave-docs forwarded it to your folder. Sorry for the mistake, but the correct action ID for this project is SAW-2014-02098 (Project 350 South / Sandy Ridge Road / Adkins Road / Joe Drive / Greensboro / Guilford County). Thank you, Josephine Schaffer From: Brad Luckey <bluckey@pilotenviro.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 4:35 PM To: RaleighNCREG <RaleighNCREG@usace.army.mil> Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil>; Homewood, Sue <sue.homewood@ncdenr.gov> 4 Subject: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2021-01390, Project Elixir (350 South), Colfax, Guilford Co, NWP 39 Verification Happy Mid Week Corps —please find attached PCN for NWP 39 Verification of above referenced site. Please let me know if you require additional information. Sue —we will upload to DWR today. Thanks. Sincerely, Bradley S. Luckey, PWS 336.708.4997 (c) 336.310.4527 (o) PO Box 128 Kernersville, NC 27285 www.pilotenviro.com bluckey@pilotenviro.com 5 Friday, April 8, 2022 10:53:34 AM - Bailey_New.mxd - ArcMap Friday, April 8, 2022 10:50:23 AM - Bailey_New.mxd - ArcMap Homewood, Sue From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil> Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 3:36 PM To: Brad Luckey Cc: Homewood, Sue; dhgriffinjr@dhgriffin.com; grogers@dhgriffin.com; jmbalderamos@dhgriffin.com; ms@pnk.group; gmuraview@pnk.group Subject: [External] Request for Additional Information: SAW-2014-02098/SAW-2021-01390, Gallimore Dairy Road Extension and Project Elixir (350 South), Colfax, Guilford Co, NWP 14 and 39 Verifications Attachments: High Point North Industrial Center - Brochure.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam. All, Thank you for your PCNs for the above referenced Gallimore Dairy Road Extension and Project Elixir (350 South) projects, dated 3/8/2022 and 3/16/2022, respectively. I have reviewed the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permits (NWPs) 14 (https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP- 14.pdf) and 39 (https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NWP2021/NWP39.pdf). Please submit the requested information below (via e-mail is fine) within 30 days of receipt of this Notification, otherwise we may deny verification of the use of the NWPs or consider your applications withdrawn and close the files: The following items are specific to the proposed Gallimore Diary Road Extension: 1) The information provided does not fully justify that the proposed Gallimore Diary Road Extension is a project with independent utility from Project Elixir (350 South). Please provide the following to enable our continued evaluation: a. What municipality/entity will assume responsibility and maintenance of this transportation facility into perpetuity? Please provide any supporting documentation; b. Provide documentation to justify that this road extension is part of a thoroughfare or other transportation plan to show purpose and need other than to facilitate access to Project Elixir (350 South) and future portions of the High Point North Industrial Center; c. Provide traffic data/analysis to justify the Gallimore Dairy Road Extension as a transportation project with independent utility, absent of future traffic needs for Project Elixir (350 South) and future portions of the High Point North Industrial Center; d. Design of the first crossing only, which does not allow evaluation of all potential direct and indirect impacts required to complete the proposed road extension to Adkins Road (i.e. not logical termini), is insufficient for the evaluation of the proposed road extension. Please provide plan and cross section drawings of the remaining crossings; e. In order to justify width of the proposed roadway and show avoidance and minimization to the maximum extent practicable per NWP General Condition 23a, please provide the roadway cross section showing the number and width of travel lanes and shoulder widths, and a description of how that compares to the existing portion of Gallimore Dairy Road just east of the existing intersection of Sandy Ridge Road and Gallimore Dairy Road; i f. Absent Project Elixir (350 South), would an alignment of Gallimore Dairy Road be available/viable to avoid at least one stream crossing, such as aligning the route south of the origins of Streams MSB/BSA and thereby crossing Stream MSA downstream of its confluence with Stream MSC? 2) The Gallimore Dairy Road Extension alignment intersects with Adkins Road just west of a topographic drainage that occurs outside of the PJD Review Area for Project Elixir (350 South) and does not appear to be covered by the additional evaluation area you provided in the PCN. Within the proposed alignment, has this drainage been evaluated for the presence of potential waters of the US, including wetlands? Please provide documentation accordingly. 3) Proposed bottomless culverts: a. Please provide a cross section view of the proposed bottomless culvert structures (see item 1)d. above) clearly showing the outer walls of the culvert structures and footers, disturbance limits needed to construct the structure, and the stream profile. This information is needed to ensure that this structure would not result in direct impacts to the stream; b. The Corps Wilmington District Raleigh Regulatory Field Office has had long experience with bottomless culverts. We generally agree with NCDOT that the long-term success of such structures is significantly enhanced when they are tied into shallow bedrock. NCDOT Division 7 does not typically pursue bottomless culverts unless there is non-scourable bedrock within 5 vertical feet of the soil surface. In cases where the structures are not tied into bedrock we have seen numerous instances of foundation undercutting, often leading to replacement with traditional culverts. Further, shading under the arch culvert inevitably leads to die -off of any remaining woody vegetation. These factors predictably lead to loss of aquatic function through stream bank erosion and winnowing out from foundation to foundation. c. Given that the project proposes impacts requiring 404 approval, we are evaluating both direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts to 404 resources associated with the project to ensure that the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects are no more than minimal (NWP General Condition 23 and District Engineer's Decision part 2). Based on the above, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed bottomless culverts would result in indirect impacts to streams in the footprint of the structures. The proposed indirect impacts to streams appears to exceed 0.02 acre, the typified stream mitigation threshold per Regional Condition B.7, in this case. Compensatory mitigation for this predictable reduction in (though not a total loss of) stream function is typically required at 1:1, unless otherwise justified based on an evaluation of stream function (i.e. NCSAM). The following items are specific to Project Elixir (350 South): 4) The information provided does not fully justify that Project Elixir is a project with independent utility from the Gallimore Dairy Road Extension. Specifically, a portion of impacts proposed to Stream MSB are for an access road that does not connect to any infrastructure (i.e. has no purpose) absent the proposed Gallimore Dairy Road Extension. Information in item 1 above will be required to evaluate the independent utility of the Gallimore Dairy Road Extension. Otherwise, note that these projects currently appear to be part of the same single and complete project to provide required infrastructure to develop Project Elixir (350 South) and future portions of the High Point North Industrial Center. 5) It has come to our attention that the area proposed for development of the Gallimore Dairy Road Extension and Project Elixir (350 South) appear to be phases of the High Point North Industrial Center (see attached). Generally, the Corps would consider the entire buildout of such an industrial park as a single and complete project with impacts considered cumulative with respect to NWP and compensatory mitigation thresholds. Please provide for our evaluation any information available to justify that Project Elixir (350 South) is a single and complete project with independent utility apart from the High Point North Industrial Center. Furthermore, even if Project Elixir (350 South) and the Gallimore Dairy Road Extension are considered part of an overall High Point North Industrial Center single and complete project, it may still be possible to permit in phases by stacking NWPs if it can be shown that the reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with full buildout of the High Point North Industrial Center would not exceed the NWP threshold; any information you can provide to this effect would be useful. 2 6) Thank you for addressing avoidance of indirect impacts to remaining portions of Stream MSB downstream of the proposed fill slope. Please show the location of the proposed French drain on the zoomed -in plansheet; Please note that responses to the questions above may prompt additional information requests to allow full evaluation of the proposed project(s). Also note that it appears that an Individual 401 WQC would be required from NCDWR for the proposed project(s); the Corps cannot verify the use of any NWP without a valid 401 Water Quality Certification. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dave Bailey David E. Bailey, PWS Regulatory Project Manager US Army Corps of Engineers CE-SAW-RG-R 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 Mobile: (919) 817-2436 Office: (919) 554-4884, Ext. 30. Fax: (919) 562-0421 Email: David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/ Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey. From: RaleighNCREG <RaleighNCREG@usace.army.mil> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 11:34 AM To: Brad Luckey <bluckey@pilotenviro.com>; RaleighNCREG <RaleighNCREG@usace.army.mil> Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil>; Homewood, Sue <sue.homewood@ncdenr.gov> Subject: RE: SAW-2021-01390, Project Elixir (350 South), Colfax, Guilford Co, NWP 39 Verification Good Morning, We have received your Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) NWP request for the above project. Dave-docs forwarded it to your folder. Sorry for the mistake, but the correct action ID for this project is SAW-2014-02098 (Project 350 South / Sandy Ridge Road / Adkins Road / Joe Drive / Greensboro / Guilford County). Thank you, Josephine Schaffer From: Brad Luckey <bluckey@pilotenviro.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 4:35 PM 3 To: RaleighNCREG <RaleighNCREG@usace.army.mil> Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil>; Homewood, Sue <sue.homewood@ncdenr.gov> Subject: [URL Verdict: Unknown][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2021-01390, Project Elixir (350 South), Colfax, Guilford Co, NWP 39 Verification Happy Mid Week Corps —please find attached PCN for NWP 39 Verification of above referenced site. Please let me know if you require additional information. Sue —we will upload to DWR today. Thanks. Sincerely, Bradley S. Luckey, PWS 336.708.4997 (c) 336.310.4527 (o) PO Box 128 Kernersville, NC 27285 www.pilotenviro.com bluckey@pilotenviro.com 4 NORTH CARULIMk51MTT.RNATICINA I k High Point Economic Development Corporation lall r.:1 Phase II • AO HIGH POINT NORTH INDUSTRIAL CENTER Economic Development Sandy Dunbeck High Point EDC 336.883.3116 sandy.dunbeck@highpointnc.gov Broker Gary Rogers DH Griffin Construction 336.316.1183 grogers@dhgc.com Phase I =Ai 2519 Sandy Ridge Road High Point, NC 27235 500 Acres Industrial Center with excellent visibility to 1-40 in North High Point. Centrally located within the Piedmont Triad region, the site is close to Greensboro and Winston- Salem with access to a large labor force. Site is close to new Amazon fulfilment center and FedEx Ground facility. Piedmont Triad international Airport is under 10 minutes away. SITE & ZONING Minimum available: 10 acres Zoning: PDM — Mixed Use industrial Allowed Price: $80,000 - $110,000/acre UTILITIES Electric: Duke Energy/ Energy United Natural Gas: Piedmont Natural Gas Water/Wastewater: City of High Point Telecom: North State Communications Greensboro NORTH CARLTLINA31NI•ER NAZI• c. High Point Economic Crey¢lopmnnr Corporation J-]]SrJ _ri--)JJi`J7 'r`1JJ'-rrJ JI Phase HIGH POINT NORTH INDLISTR1AL CENTER PHASE I 2519 Sandy Ridge Road High Point, NC 27235 iN NORTH CAROLIMk51MTERNAM:INAI r • High Point Economic Development Corporation J-]] s H !Pi rJ -r H Ji if) Phase II Exit 208 HIGH POINT NORTH INDUSTRIAL CENTER PHASE Ii 505 S Bunker Hill Rd/ 8523 Norcross Rd High Point, NC 27235 • NORTH CAROLINAS 114TERNATICIN AL CM( High Point Economic Development Corporatmn Minutes 15 45 Jr--) J\ 1J Lj-JT11--).,1_,L\ I rr=ff Drive -Time Analysis Elkin 143,076 78,470 2019 Population 2019 Labor Force 855,367 2019 Population 427,014 2019 Labor Force .1,357,707 675,719 _States4ill- 2019 Population 2019 Labor Force Mooresvtlle Il` MantfT Airy YadkinviIIe k Winston-Salem Lexington Reidsville li High Point Asheboro Burlington vim_, .---•r HIIIsbarough Durham Halty Springs ; F uquayEles ri i a wa Rai igh Qy ‘4, Population oi ■ 1 Million 800,000 Labor Force 65% of population has attended College/University In the T O P, 0 Southeast in Manufacturing (Guilford County Employment) 5 Interstates & Highways in the region tti, In North Li Carolina 18 Colleges & Universities NORTH CA ROLINA'S I N TE R N ATIO u i l HIQh Point Economic bevelopmenr Corporation •, rJ1C_I1rJ 1--)JtJ-r �JJJ'-rrJ J�JJJ�7J� r ��r HIGH POINT NORTH INDUSTRIAL CENTER CONCEPTUAL PLAN 2519 Sandy Ridge Road High Point, NC 27235 Conceptual Plan Initial conceptual plans allow for multiple buildings sized from 75,000 sq ft upward to 650,000 sq ft within current site boundaries. POSSIBLE BUILDINGS • 75,000 sf (3) • 150,000 sf (2) • 175,000 sf (2) • 200,000 sf • 300,000 sf • 400,000 sf • 600,000 sf • 650,000 sf reensboro WIRTH CA ROLIHn'S NTERFATIONAL CI 1, High Point Economic Development Corporation eK t 4 Legend = Pro poi aa Bu:ltltng Setback s r JSRe Skean-4 Stream Ei afore _ Mitar tomes a /JR.\ ' Pfti .sae . a4 TIMMONS GROUP awa:.f+a+w or.:c»_ i_ 1 HIGH POINT NORTH INDUSTRIAL CENTER CONCEPTUAL PLAN 2519 Sandy Ridge Road High Point, NC 27235 • One Million Square Feet Initial conceptual plans also allow for siting 1,000,000 square feet within current site boundaries. Greensboro