20140843 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20141201

Strickland, Bev
From: Dev ne,8ovd
Sent: Monday, December Ul'ZUl44:56PK4
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Jule Noland Drive project - #14-0843
From: Oevane,Boyd
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 4:53 PM
To: 'Wanda Austin'
Cc: Fox, Tim; Randall, Mike
Subject: RE: 3ule Noland Drive project
Sorry but | can't spend much time on this but I did look at it today and see a few possible causes of the issues you
encountered in running the StormEZmodel.
1. Under "Basin |nformation", the "Proposed Impervious Area" is listed at178,596sf.(4.1ac) However under the
11 11V
01154 RoIRT4111111I
FZGW�OtW%
1

From: Wanda Austin [ maiIto :wandajoyceaustin(d)amail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 9:26 AM
To: Devane, Boyd
Subject: Re: Jule Noland Drive project
Good morning again. I found the spread sheet Storm EZ and started completing. Please review tab 2. It says I
have 9% impervious. I'm not sure I am completing the form correctly.
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Wanda Austin <wandajoyceaustinggmail.com> wrote:
Good morning. I am in the drafting a new storm water plan and have estimated the impervious area to be 36%
for the planned site. This does not include the 0.7 acre outparcel that will be available for sale. The outparcel
would increase the total developed impervious area to 40% (assuming 0.5 acreas would be impervious). What
is the cutoff between low density and high density? Thanks for your assistance.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Devane, Boyd <boyd.devanegncdenr.gov> wrote:
When I received your email on 10/26/14 telling me about your plans to use a Stormtech system at the Jule
Noland Drive project, I thought you had received our October 13th letter asking for additional information and
had submitted another version. I told you I would look at your submittal as soon as possible. I thought that an
updated version of the plan had been submitted to my office for me to review. However, when I had a chance
to review the package, I realized that our staff had sent me another copy of the same package we received on
August 8 t that I had reviewed. The plan deficiencies was the reason for the October 13th "Request for
Additional Information." Did you want to talk tome about the project before you submitted the" additional
information" that the Karen Higgins October 13th letter requested? If so, I did not understand that and I will be
very glad to talk to you at any time. Please call me at 919- 807 -6373 at my office or if I'm not in, call (or
text) me on my personal cell phone at 919 - 931 -8631. I understand that you are employed by DOT during the
day so don't hesitate to call me on my cell when I don't answer my office phone. Nights or weekends will also
be fine. I don't want the project to fall behind schedule because of any miscommunications.
If you wanted to ask about using a Stormtech system, we certainly will consider those. However, we could not
tell from the "Storm Water Plan" sheet that we received on August 8th if you plan to use them as a detention
system or an infiltration system. We did not receive any stormwater calculations with the package you
submitted in August. Did we miss that or will that be coming later? As soon as I learn what type of BMP you
plan to use, I can help you more.
Thanks, Boyd