20151031 Ver 2_More Info Received_20160901

Strickland, Bev
From: Kim Williams <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 8:38 AM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW; Jeff Soble
Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne; 'Andrew Moriarty'; 'Tyler Morris'; Dooley, Brennan J SAW
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: Brad Shaver comments
Attachments: Gateway Marketplace 9-1-16 response submittal.pdf
Good morning Brad
Attached is our response to your most recent comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. I
think this file is on the upper end of what you can receive via email, so please let me know if you got it.
Thanks!
Kim
Kim Williams I Environmental Scientist
Land Management Group, Inc I Environmental Consultants
Direct: 452-0001 x 1908 1 Cell: 910.471.5035 1 Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15 1 Wilmington, NC 28403
Email: kwilliams@lmgroup. net I Website: www.lmgroup.net
-----Original Message -----
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW[mai Ito: Brad. [e-mail]1]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 10:33 AM
To: Jeff Soble <[e-mail]>
Cc:'Steenhuis, Joanne'<joanne.steenhuis@ ncdenr.gov>; 'Andrew Moriarty' <[e-mail]>; Kim Williams
<[e-mail]>; 'Tyler Morris' <[e-mail]>; Dooley, Brennan J SAW
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: Brad Shaver comments
Good Morning all,
Comments from a review of responses dated August 19, 2016:
-(2) the Corps has pretty specific conditions for pipe placement in streams in an effort to assure that the placement does
not widen the stream dimension, increase the slope, and/or change the profile. Unfortunately from the scale of the
current drawings I cannot make a determination that these dimensions are maintained. We have a consultant workshop
next week and I have included some of the example drawings from that presentation to assist in you preparation of
plans. I noted that Kim has already provided you the Nationwide Regional Conditions which are in fact the standards
resource agencies are expecting for pipe placement. If you are going to propose two pipes in this relatively narrow
stream you will need to have one barrel serve as the low flow barrel and one as the flood flow. This can be accomplished
by either setting the pipes at different elevations (which I understand to be a constructability issue with a pre cast

headwall) or propose sills in one barrel to push the water to the low flow barrel. With pipe placement please don't
forget to include temporary impacts necessary for construction and any dewatering plan that you may utilize to meet
DWR standards.
-(3) based on the response for the storm water pond and its potential effect on the adjacent wetlands, the storm water
pond would be conditioned to be no deeper than two feet based on the evidence of seasonal high water table. I hate to
include a condition that would be in jeopardy of being violated so I ask if there is any current topo mapping of the site
that could be used to compare the wetland elevation in the bottom of the drains relative to the depth of the pond. In
other words, if the wetland elevation is lower than the final elevation of the pond outlet that would be the only thing
that would need to be demonstrated and this may be accomplished through topo mapping, that I suspect you already
have.
-(5) 1 appreciate the time and effort put into the current parking analysis but there are a few errors in the data. Zone two
project data indicates that the total parking required is 269 when in fact it appears to be 268. Zone three required
parking is reported as 302 when it should be 301, also the calculation for the anchor parking is incorrect and should be
258 not 255. All of these calculations should be corrected which in turn will change the overall parking summary both on
the parking zone exhibit as well as the narrative.
On a more fundamental level, why was such effort given to meeting local zoning parking requirements on the northern
part of the tract but not on the southern half of the tract. Based on a quick assessment of parking on the southern half,
you have approximately 180 spaces provided over the zoning requirements for the described buildings. Removing a 180
spaces from the southern parking grid could potentially minimize wetland impacts. The potential would exist to leave
some the wetland drain in the outparcel that is currently described as SHOPS 8,000 sf if 180 spaces were not necessary.
Please address this inconsistent approach to the parking justification.
Since you reference Marlin Drive in the narrative please label accordingly on the plan sheets.
-(7) please explore further with the storm water approval agency whether or not the release of water will be allowable
in the NW corner of the property. The Corps feels strongly that this would be needed to maintain hydrology even above
the use of pervious pavement and is prepared to mandate this release in a permit condition but does not want to create
permit non-compliance from the start.
I am committed to continue working on the EA today with the new information but I will be in the filed tomorrow and
will be mostly pre occupied Friday preparing for the consultant workshop next week.
Finally so that you better understand the involvement of Brenna with this project, he is copied to have a better
understanding of the Standard Permit Process as he is navigating his own review for a similar development. He has not
been involved in the development of my comments so he will not be able to address any specifics relative to this action.
I didn't want you to have any expectations that could not be met.
Hope this helps,
Brad
-----Original Message -----
From: Jeff Soble [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 4:32 PM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Steenhuis, Joanne' <[e-mail]>; 'Andrew Moriarty' <[e-mail]>; 'Kim
Williams' <[e-mail]>;'Tyler Morris' <[e-mail]>

Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Brad Shaver comments
Importance: High
Brad,
Kim Williams forwarded your latest thoughts to me from your conversation this afternoon. As you know, we are under a
very hard deadline to get the permit released. Due to that constraint, I think it might be best for us to meet to address
any and all remaining comments and questions that you may have. Would that work for you? Are you available this
week?
Please let us know.
Thankyou
Jeff
From: Kim Williams [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:44 PM
To: Jeff Soble <[e-mail]>; 'Andrew Moriarty' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tyler Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Brad Shaver comments
Hi Jeff
I spoke briefly with Brad briefly this afternoon about our submission. He had to run to a meeting, but we went through a
few comments/questions that he had:
1. Profile CC in the cross section drawing, we show a double barrel culvert for the intermittent stream crossing.
Typically they like to see one culvert in the bottom of the stream and one raised a little higher for higher flows. But
headwalls may not work with that layout. Also, what are the sizes of the barrels? Will you need to bury one? The USACE
has some guidance on when burying a pipe in a stream is necessary (see Section 3.6 and 4.1.2 of attached).
2. Potential drainage issue from stormwater pond: Do we have an topographic data for this site? This may help
address potential drainage issues from the pond.
3. Parking: As we were talking, it became clear that I sent him an outdated parking exhibit (the one that stated a
reduction of 113 spaces). I am VERY sorry about that. I emailed both Brad and Joanne the current version, so they do
have that now. On the exhibit, he found a few minor errors when adding up required spaces in a couple of the zones. He
also noted that the required parking for the anchor store in Zone 3 should be 257 spaces, not 255. He also noted that
the parking for the outparcels appeared way above what is required. He wants us to discuss whether parking and

possibly overall outparcel size could be reduced in order to reduce wetland impacts. He understood that any wetland
savings would be isolated and likely wouldn't provide any real function. But we will need to address it anyway.
4. Stormwater: He wants something a little more firmed up than what is stated in our letter. Andrew- can you reach
out to someone in State Stormwater to find out if they would consider permitting sheet flow in the NW corner?
He plans to put all of his thoughts together in an email by tomorrow morning and will include additional detail.
Thanks,
(:�
Kim Williams I Environmental Scientist
Land Management Group, Inc I Environmental Consultants
Direct: 452-0001 x 1908 1 Cell: 910.471.5035 1 Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15 1 Wilmington, NC 28403
Email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> I Website: Blockedwww.Imgroup.net
<Blockedhttp://www.Imgroup.net/>
<Blockedhttps://www.avast.com/antivirus> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
Blockedwww.avast.com <Blockedhttps://www.avast.com/antivirus>
4

AI�
11G
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP mc.
Environmental Consultants
September 1, 2016
TO: Mr. Brad Shaver
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
RE: Response to Comments
Gateway Marketplace Development; Onslow County, NC
Action ID#: SAW -2014-01338 & DWR Project # 20151031 v2
Dear Brad:
Thank you for your email dated August 2411, 2016 in which you provide additional comments
for the Gateway Marketplace Development project. Below is a response to each of these comments.
(2) USACE Comment:
The Corps has pretty specific conditions for pipe placement in streams in an effort to assure that the
placement does not widen the stream dimension, increase the slope, and/or change the profile.
Unfortunately from the scale of the current drawings 1 cannot make a determination that these
dimensions are maintained. We have a consultant workshop next week and 1 have included some of the
example drawings from that presentation to assist in you preparation of plans. 1 noted that Kim has
already provided you the Nationwide Regional Conditions which are in fact the standards resource
agencies are expecting for pipe placement. If you are going to propose two pipes in this relatively
narrow stream you will need to have one barrel serve as the low flow barrel and one as the flood flow.
This can be accomplished by either setting the pipes at different elevations (which 1 understand to be a
constructability issue with a pre cast headwall) or propose sills in one barrel to push the water to the
low flow barrel. With pipe placement please don't forget to include temporary impacts necessary for
construction and any dewatering plan that you may utilize to meet DWR standards.
Response: Please see the attached plan view (Figure 3) and cross section figures of the intermittent
stream crossing (Figures 2 & 4). This crossing will include a double 48" CMP culvert with 55'-60'
headwalls and 8' wing walls. A 12" high sill will be installed at the upstream end of the flood flow pipe.
In addition to the 50' of permanent stream impact and 0.03 acre of riparian wetland impact at this
crossing, 20' of temporary stream impact (10' on either side) and 0.01 acre of riparian wetland impact
is needed to install the headwalls and allow for dewatering (Figure 5).
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15 • Wilmington, NC 28403

The revised project proposes to permanently impact 4.51 acres of wetlands and 50 LF of intermittent
stream and temporarily impact 0.12 acre of wetlands and 20 LF of intermittent stream (Figure 1).
(3) USACE Comment:
Based on the response for the storm water pond and its potential effect on the adjacent wetlands, the
storm water pond would be conditioned to be no deeper than two feet based on the evidence of
seasonal high water table. 1 hate to include a condition that would be in jeopardy of being violated so 1
ask if there is any current topo mapping of the site that could be used to compare the wetland elevation
in the bottom of the drains relative to the depth of the pond. In other words, if the wetland elevation is
lower than the final elevation of the pond outlet that would be the only thing that would need to be
demonstrated and this may be accomplished through topo mapping, that I suspect you already have.
Response: A review of topographic site data found that the elevation of the adjacent wetland drain is
approximately 43'. The proposed spillway will be set at 44.5'. Therefore, the pond would not have a
drainage effect on the adjacent wetlands.
(5) USACE Comment:
1 appreciate the time and effort put into the current parking analysis but there are a few errors in the
data. Zone two project data indicates that the total parking required is 269 when in fact it appears to
be 268. Zone three required parking is reported as 302 when it should be 301, also the calculation for
the anchor parking is incorrect and should be 258 not 255. All of these calculations should be corrected
which in turn will change the overall parking summary both on the parking zone exhibit as well as the
narrative.
Response: The site plan at this stage of the development is conceptual in many respects. While the
developer is in lease negotiation with many retailers, the only known tenant at this time is Publix and
almost invariably, there will be minor adjustments made as new tenants are signed on. For example, a
12,000 sf. Jr. anchor could switch places with an 8,000 sf. shops building due to certain retailer design
requirements that are not yet known.
The applicant was aware that the parking counts were not 100% exact. This was a deliberate decision
that was made, knowing that when we do go to final design, we will likely lose some parking spaces as
certain details that have not yet been accounted for are added to the design. For example, as Jr.
anchor retailers are signed, they will have specific requirements for "their parking field", which will adc
and/or change the location of handicap spaces, which are larger than regular spaces. This could result
in the addition/loss of a few spaces in any specific location. The adjustments you requested have been
made to the parking exhibit (Figure 6), but please note that this is based on a conceptual design and
these numbers will be revisited during final design.
More specifically related to the anchor in Zone 3, reaching 255 vs 258 required parking spaces is simply
a matter of choosing your method of math in the parking formula as required by the City code. The
building in question is 51,444 sf. You are correct that if you simply multiply 51.444 x 5 it results in
257.22, rounded to 258. However, if you recall, the City of Jacksonville's parking code for a shopping
center classification is a minimum requirement with an allowance to exceed by 25%, listed as follows;
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15 • Wilmington, NC 28403

Retail:
• 0 — 50,000 sf = 5/1000
• 50,000 —150,000 = 3.3/1000
• > than 150,000 = 2.5/1000
Restaurant:
• 6.67/1000
Since the overall mindset was to break the site down into sections, the developer chose to apply the
code interpretation in each section individually. Therefore, we multiplied 50 x 5 = 250 then 1.444 x
3.33 = 4.77, resulting in 254.77, rounded to 255 parking spaces. The developer also felt that this was a
location where the rules helped them reduce impacts a little more, knowing that there were other
locations on site where they could not do the same.
(5) USACE Comment:
On a more fundamental level, why was such effort given to meeting local zoning parking requirements
on the northern part of the tract but not on the southern half of the tract. Based on a quick assessment
of parking on the southern half, you have approximately 180 spaces provided over the zoning
requirements for the described buildings. Removing a 180 spaces from the southern parking grid could
potentially minimize wetland impacts. The potential would exist to leave some the wetland drain in the
outparcel that is currently described as SHOPS 8,000 sf if 180 spaces were not necessary. Please address
this inconsistent approach to the parking justification.
Response: What is currently being shown in the outparcels is also just a conceptual representation.
For the time being, we have made the adjustment that you requested to show each outparcel's parking
field per current City of Jacksonville code (Figures 1 & 6). However, as the applicant moves further in
the development, they will either sell or ground lease each of the outparcels to a user, who will then
design, further entitle if required, and permit their own project. Unlike the main portions of the
shopping center, there is not any "bleed over" effect for parking in outparcel use. In other words,
while visiting the in-line portion of the center, a customer will park and potentially visit several
shops/restaurants within any one specific "zone". That guideline does not apply to the outparcels.
Due to the manner in which individual outparcel sites are designed, very rarely does a customer walk
from one to another. As a result, outparcel retailers require a minimum of 5/1000, and often request
higher. Restaurants require a minimum of 10/1000 and would prefer 12/1000. As mentioned above,
the individual users may ultimately apply for a variance to increase their parking counts in any single
outparcel. Very typically, the developer's involvement in that process is strictly as a secondary
oversight to ensure that what they build is legal, safe and in keeping with the spirit of the project
overall.
Furthermore, if the developer was to redesign and/or eliminate Outparcel #1 in an effort to avoid
wetlands, this scenario would have severe financial and environmental consequences. They would lose
valuable road frontage. Outparcel #1 flanks the southeast side of the main entry road into the
shopping center. One could argue that it is the most high profile spot in the entire development,
making it one of the most economically valuable pieces of the entire development. To redesign it
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15 • Wilmington, NC 28403

would restrict its potential use and eliminating it completely would have a significant impact on the
overall rate of return to an unacceptable degree from the developer's point of view. Furthermore, any
wetlands avoided in this area would ultimately be surrounded by development and would not provide
water quality, wildlife habitat, or retention benefit. Typically, regulatory agencies prefer to have
developers include small and fragmented wetlands into their overall impact acreage. It is better to
allow the applicant to account for the loss of wetland function that will occur by developing around it
and provide proper mitigation.
(5) USACE Comment:
Since you reference Marlin Drive in the narrative please label accordingly on the plan sheets.
Response: This change has been made to the site plan (Figure 1).
(7) USACE Comment:
Please explore further with the storm water approval agency whether or not the release of water will
be allowable in the NW corner of the property. The Corps feels strongly that this would be needed to
maintain hydrology even above the use of pervious pavement and is prepared to mandate this release
in a permit condition but does not want to create permit non-compliance from the start.
Response: Several attempts have been made by the project engineer to contact both the State
Stormwater office and the City of Jacksonville Stormwater office to determine their receptiveness to
this proposal. We have not yet received a return call. We would appreciate any assistance Joanne or
you could offer in getting in touch with these representatives.
We hope this response adequately addresses all of your concerns. Please give me a call if you need any
additional information. Thank you for your continued assistance with this project.
Sincerely,
llysigned by Kimberlee
Kimberlee
Willis
Williams
DN: cn=Kimberlee Williams, o=LMG,
WilliamsDate:
ou, email=[e-mail],
2016.09.01 08:39:54-04'00'
Kim Williams
Environmental Scientist
Encl.
Cc: Mr. Jeff Soble, Geyer Morris Co.
Mr. William McRae, McRae Farms, LLC
Mr. Andrew Moriarty, Bohler Engineering
Ms. Joanne Steenhuis, NC DWR
Ms. Jennifer Burdette, NC DWR
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15 • Wilmington, NC 28403

M - N
WL
PROPOSED BMP `� \ PROPOSED
MAINTENANCE ACCESS ROAD - \ STORMWATER �I
JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS AREA #1
JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS AREA #2
- POND
II
II
�3
TEMPORARY IMPACTE
WETLANDS AREA
I I
WESTERN BLVD
(N.C. HTWY NO.53)
JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS AREA #3
JURISDICTIONAL
%Aim AnInn AnrA UA
0 125 250
1" = 250'
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS DATA
SF
AC
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS #1
179,114
4.11 AC
IMPACTED WETLANDS #1
154,784
3.55 AC
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS #2
8,823
0.20 AC
IMPACTED WETLANDS #2
8,823
0.20 AC
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS #3
30,875
0.71 AC
IMPACTED WETLANDS #3
30,875
0.71 AC
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS #4
18,260
0.42 AC
IMPACTED WETLANDS #4
645
0.02 AC
TEMPORARY IMPACTED WETLANDS #4
4,867
0.11 AC
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS #5
1,130
0.03 AC
IMPACTED WETLANDS #5
1,130
0.03 AC
TEMPORARY IMPACTED WETLANDS #5
392
0.01 AC
TOTAL JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
238,202
5.47 AC
TOTAL IMPACTED
WETLANDS
196,257
4.51 AC
TOTAL TEMPORARY IMPACTED
WETLANDS
5,259
0.12 AC
I
IfiT;fa ,----
H:120161NCR1620151DRAWINGSICONCEPTSINCR162015CA3.DWG PRINTED BY. CBLENDERMANN 8.31.16 @ 3:44 PM LAST SAVED BY: CBLENDERMANN
PROJECT NAME: %`1T;'CyT°R A1T,f1T1T)I
WESTERN BLVD,
JACKSONVILLE, NC
SHEET TITLE.
WETLANDS EXHIBIT
SHEET IOF5
SCALE: DATE: CAD ID: PROJECT NUMBER:
1" = 250' 8118116 1 CA2 NCR162015
� U
�R
IEN(GHNEERING NC, F LIL(C
NCBELS P-1132
PHONE: [phone]FAX [phone]
LEGEND
- - - - PROPERTY LINE
- - - -
LIMITS OF OUT PARCELS
WETLANDS
IMPACTED WETLANDS
TEMPORARILY IMPACTED
WETLANDS
PROPOSED PERVIOUS
PAVEMENT
I
IfiT;fa ,----
H:120161NCR1620151DRAWINGSICONCEPTSINCR162015CA3.DWG PRINTED BY. CBLENDERMANN 8.31.16 @ 3:44 PM LAST SAVED BY: CBLENDERMANN
PROJECT NAME: %`1T;'CyT°R A1T,f1T1T)I
WESTERN BLVD,
JACKSONVILLE, NC
SHEET TITLE.
WETLANDS EXHIBIT
SHEET IOF5
SCALE: DATE: CAD ID: PROJECT NUMBER:
1" = 250' 8118116 1 CA2 NCR162015
� U
�R
IEN(GHNEERING NC, F LIL(C
NCBELS P-1132
PHONE: [phone]FAX [phone]

70
60
50
40
������ :1 � 1:1[e1 �:ul��:� �i��JGi•Ji� �arv�Iam•ni�ie>•�����
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00
NW WETLAND e A -A
SCALE: 1"=100' HORIZONTAL
1"= 50' VERTICAL
����7�i1► ►f�IIRei6�/111�����������
-�N----liiiiilii►_---■ i� � 1.1 a 1 � g l ►�- liii■-
JURISDIET•NWLWETLANDS AREA
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50
NW WETLAND e B -B
70
60
50
40
30
SCALE: 1"=100' HORIZONTAL
1"= 50' VERTICAL
EXIST. GRADE I
STREAM FLOW LINE PROP. BRIDGE I
70 BOTTOMLESS 70
70 CULVERT
60 60
60 50 _ 50
50 40 40
40 ---
30 30
25 PROP.
HEADWALL
0+00 0+50 1+00
CULVERT SECTION D -D
SCALE: 1"=100' HORIZONTAL
1"= 50' VERTICAL
EXIST. GRADE /—
INTERMITTENT PROP. BRIDGE I
STREAM FLOW LINE DOUBLE BARREL
CULVERT
70 60 60
60 50 50
50 40 40
40 35
PROP.
0+00 0+50 1+00 HEADWALL
CULVERT SECTION ]E - E
SCALE: 1"=100' HORIZONTAL
1 "= 50' VERTICAL
PROP. RETAIL PROP. FOUNDATION
BUILDING WALL
60 60
50 50
40 _ _ _ _ L40
30 30
25 JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS AREA #4
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50
WETLAND #4 e ]F -]F
SCALE: 1"=100' HORIZONTAL
1"= 50 ' VERTICAL
"m Ff NIUM fli:����_ ����■9:Ti7�1:3:"llelayiyl::7�
������RI�}RI111���.�.�C������.T.11R1�'!1'•L=f�����
• .
WETLANDS JURISDICTIONAL
■����
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00
WETLANDS CROSSINGS e PROFILE C -C
SCALE: 1"=100' HORIZONTAL
V= 50 ' VERTICAL
H:@0161NCR16201STRAWINGSICONCEPTSINCR162016CA3.DWG PRINTED BY: CBLENDERMANN 8.31.160 144 PM LAST SAVED BY: CBLENDERMANN
70
60
50
40
30

JURISDICTIONAL +52.0' PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT /
\ WETLANDS AREA /
PROP. 48" CMP, 42' LONG
- LOW FLOW PIPE /
\ / � +151
0
10' TEMPORARY STREAM /
WETLANDS IMPACT FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND
DEWATERING USE
PROP. 60' HEADWALL
AND 8' WING WALLS
/ +48.0' PERMANENT STREAM
IMPACT
PROP. 48" CMP , 40' LONG
FLOOD FLOW PIPE
LOCATION OF PROP.
' 12" HIGH SILL /
APPROX. STREAM FLOW
LINE BASED ON GIS
TOPOGRAPHIC DATA
is 111\111 III/
10'TEMPORARY
1 STREAM / WETLANDS JURISDICTIONAL
IMPACT FOR WETLANDS AREA
CONSTRUCTION AND
DEWATERING USE
(0.01 AC TOTAL FOR
BOTH SIDES OF THE
CROSSING)
PERMANENT STREAM / WETLANDS IMPACT (0.03 AC)
PROP. 55' HEADWALL
AND 8' WING WALLS
0 10
PERMANENT STREAM /
20
WETLANDS IMPACT
®
TEMPORARY STREAM /
WETLANDS IMPACT
1"=
10'
LEGEND
0 WETLANDS
Hi 120161NCR1620151DRAWINGSICONCEPTS\NCR162015CA3.DWG PRINTED BY. CBLENDERMANN 8.31.16 @ 3:45 PM LAST SAVED BY: CBLENDERMANN
PROJECT NAME: GT;Y1f,°1fA MORRIS
WESTERN BLVD
JACKSONVILLE, NC
SHEET TITLE.
WETLANDS EXHIBIT TD-) 0
SHEET 3OF5 IEi�C�IINI�IEI�3��CG7 �` �9 LPI��L�
SCALE:DATE: CAD ID: PROJECT NUMBER: NCBELSD-1132
401' Ih ESTCHASE BLVD . SUITE 290
1" = 10' 8/30/16 CA3 NCR162015 PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
PERMANENT STREAM /
WETLANDS IMPACT
®
TEMPORARY STREAM /
WETLANDS IMPACT
Hi 120161NCR1620151DRAWINGSICONCEPTS\NCR162015CA3.DWG PRINTED BY. CBLENDERMANN 8.31.16 @ 3:45 PM LAST SAVED BY: CBLENDERMANN
PROJECT NAME: GT;Y1f,°1fA MORRIS
WESTERN BLVD
JACKSONVILLE, NC
SHEET TITLE.
WETLANDS EXHIBIT TD-) 0
SHEET 3OF5 IEi�C�IINI�IEI�3��CG7 �` �9 LPI��L�
SCALE:DATE: CAD ID: PROJECT NUMBER: NCBELSD-1132
401' Ih ESTCHASE BLVD . SUITE 290
1" = 10' 8/30/16 CA3 NCR162015 PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]

60
50
40
30
25
0+00 0+50 1+00
CULVERT SECTION E -]E (STREAM IMPACT PRO FIL�E�
SCALE: 1 "= 20 ' HORIZONTAL
1"=10' VERTICAL
70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
25
PROP. 48" CMP, 40' LONG, FLOOD FLOW PIPE
UPSTREAM PIPE INVERT = 39.9
UPSTREAM STREAM BED ELEVATION = 40.9
PERMANENT STREAM
PROP. ROADWAY/,, --PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT LIMIT
IMPACT LIMIT 5' UPSTREAM5'
DOWNSTREAM OF PIPE OUTLETS
OF PIPE INLETS
PROP. 60' HEADWALL
PROP. 55' HEADWALL
PROP. 12" HIGH SILL
INSTALLED AT UPSTREAM
END OF FLOOD FLOW PIPE
AND 8' WING WALLS
STREAM BED MATERIAL
JURISDICTIONAL
WETLAND AREA #5 - ±24'
EXIST. STREAM BED
FLOW LINE
AND 8' WING WALLS
TEMPORARY STREAM ---.,TEMPORARY
STREAM IMPACT LIMIT
IMPACT LIMIT 15'
15' DOWNSTREAM OF PIPE OUTLETS
UPSTREAM OF PIPE
INLETS
EXIST. STREAM BED OF--\
INTERMITTENT STREAM
409
40.0
FLOW-
40,0
40.0
EXIST. STREAM BED OF
402 INTERMITTENT STREAM
PROP. 48" CMP, 40' LONG,
PROP. 48" CMP, 42' LONG LOW FLOW PIPE
FLOOD FLOW PIPE
DOWNSTREAM PIPE INVERT 39.0
UPSTREAM PIPE INVERT = 39.9
DOWNSTREAM STREAM BED ELEVATION = 40.0
UPSTREAM STREAM BED
ELEVATION = 40.9
PROP. STREAM BED FLOW LINE
0+00 0+50 1+00
CULVERT SECTION E -]E (STREAM IMPACT PRO FIL�E�
SCALE: 1 "= 20 ' HORIZONTAL
1"=10' VERTICAL
70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
25
PROP. 48" CMP, 40' LONG, FLOOD FLOW PIPE
UPSTREAM PIPE INVERT = 39.9
UPSTREAM STREAM BED ELEVATION = 40.9
DOWNSTREAM PIPE INVERT 39.0
DOWNSTREAM STREAM BED ELEVATION = 40.0
PROP. DOUBLE 48" CMP CULVERT WI
55' HEADWALL AND 8' WING WALLS
PROP. 48" CMP, 42' LONG, LOW FLOW PIPE
UPSTREAM PIPE INVERT = 39.9
[UPSTREAM STREAM BED ELEVATION = 40.9
DOWNSTREAM PIPE INVERT 39.0
DOWNSTREAM STREAM BED ELEVATION = 40.0
PROP. 12" HIGH SILL
INSTALLED AT UPSTREAM
END OF FLOOD FLOW PIPE
STREAM BED MATERIAL
JURISDICTIONAL
WETLAND AREA #5 - ±24'
EXIST. STREAM BED
FLOW LINE
8+50
WETLANDS CROSSINGS - CROSS SECTION
SCALE: V= 20 ' HORIZONTAL
V= 10 ' VERTICAL
H:@0161NCR16201STRAWINGSICONCEPTSINCR162016CA3.DWG PRINTED BY: CBLENDERMANN 8.31.160 145 PM LAST SAVED BY: CBLENDERMANN
70
60
50
40
30

60
TEMPORARY STONE DAM WI
CLASS I RIP RAP AND 8 MIL.
POLYETHYLENE FABRIC
LINER ON UPSTREAM FACE 50
40
30
aim
TEMPORARY STREAM
IMPACT LIMIT 15'_-�F
UPSTREAM OF PIPE
INLET
PROP. ROADWAY
PROP.CULVERT
FROM
PIPES
PUMP
5'
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT LIMIT
TO PUMP
1'
15' DOWNSTREAM OF PIPE OUTLET
FLOW
1
1 N
_____________
____
5'
DEWATERING SILT BAG
EXIST. STREAM BED OF
INTERMITTENT STREAM
TEMPORARY STONE CHECK DAM
EXIST. STREAM BED OF
CLASS I RIP RAP WITH 6" NCDOT
INTERMITTENT STREAM
#57 WASHED STONE ON
UPSTREAM FACE
0+00 0+50 1+00
CULVERT DEWATERING DETAIL
SCALE: 1"= 20' HORIZONTAL
1 "= 10 ' VERTICAL
DEWATERING CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE:
• INSTALL PUMP AND LINE TO PUMP. REDIRECT FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF TEMPORARY DAM TO AREA DOWNSTREAM
OF WORK AREA. BEGIN PUMPING. PUMPING TO BE CONTINUOUS WHILE WORK WITHIN THE STREAM IS ONGOING.
• PUMP TO DISCHARGE INTO A DEWATERING SILT BAG INSTALLED ON THE STREAM BANK DOWNSTREAM OF THE
DOWNSTREAM TEMPORARY CHECK DAM.
• INSTALL THE UPSTREAM TEMPORARY DAM USING CLASS I RIP RAP, WITH 8 MIL POLYETHYLENE FABRIC LINING THE
UPSTREAM FACE TO CAPTURE THE STREAM FLOW.
• INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM TEMPORARY CHECK DAM USING CLASS I RIP RAP AND A 6" THICK LAYER OF NCDOT #57
WASHED STONE ON THE UPSTREAM FACE OF THE DAM.
• UPON COMPLETION OF THE CULVERT INSTALLATION AND STABILIZATION OF THE DISTURBED AREAS, REMOVE
TEMPORARY DAMS AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES AND RESTORE THE STREAM BANKS AND BOTTOMS.
• REMOVE PUMP, PIPES AND DEWATERING SILT BAG.
H:@0161NCR16201STRAWINGSICONCEPTSINCR162016CA3.DWG PRINTED BY: CBLENDERMANN 8.31.160 145 PM LAST SAVED BY: CBLENDERMANN
60
50
40
30

I
WETLANDS
-ONE ONE PROJECT DATA
RETAIL BUILDINGS
I
JUNIOR ANCHORS 35,000 SF ANCHOR 51,444 SF
1 SHOPS 25,200 SF SHOPS 8,000 SF
ONE ONE - - - - = - - oNF THREE RETAIL (60% OF SHOPS) 15,120 SF RETAIL (60% OF SHOPS) 4,800 SF
U IIpI l U JUNIOR RESTAURANTS 40% RESTAURANTS 40% OF SHOPS 3,200 SF
I ( OF SHOPS) 10,080 SF ( )
LoANCHOR a N a N I TOTAL PROJECT AREA 60,200 SF TOTAL PROJECT AREA 59,444 SF
12,500 SF Oxg °xo N O�� y� _ �� ANCHOR
F 51,444 SF RETAIL PARKING RETAIL PARKING
a � SHOPS
I ®LHO 8,000 SF
J.ANCHOR PARKING REQ'D (5.0/1000SF) 175 SPACES ANCHOR PARKING REQ'D (5.0/1000SF) 255 SPACES
® a --- SHOPS PARKING REQ'D (5.0/1000 SF) 76 SPACES SHOPS PARKING REQ'D (5.0/1000 SF) 24 SPACES
JUNIOR ANCHOR U REST. PARKING REQ'D (6.67/1000 SF) 68 SPACES REST. PARKING REQ'D (6.67/1000 SF) 22 SPACES
22,500 SF
_ TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 319 SPACES TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 301 SPACES
NE TWO
18 sHOPs " \ TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 324 SPACES TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 307 SPACES
8,000 SF I 287
o PARKING RATIO PROVIDED 5.38 /1,000 SF PARKING RATIO PROVIDED 5.16 /1,000 SF
- FONE TWO PROJECT DATA ONE FOUR PROJECT DATA
257 � � SHOPS
GROCER
45,600 SF -
RETAIL BUILDINGS RETAIL BUILDINGS
G PATO
�` JUNIOR GROCER 45,600 SF JUNIOR ANCHORS 12,000 SF
SHOPS " ANCHOR
s,600sF " C�TD12,000sF SHOPS 8,000 SF SHOPS 19,200 SF
I I Ano _ TOTAL PROJECT AREA 53,600 SF RETAIL (60% OF SHOPS) 11,520 SF
1-�---- - � RESTAURANTS (40% OF SHOPS) 7,680 SF
I I I RETAIL PARKING TOTAL PROJECT AREA 31,200 SF
cp GROCER PARKING REQ'D (5.0/1000SF) 228 SPACES
o REST_
I Wo I No " I s SHOPS 10,OOPSF I �o II
7X0 SF SHOPS PARKING REQ'D (5.0/1000 SF) 40 SPACES RETAIL PARKING
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 268 SPACES J.ANCHOR PARKING REQ'D (5.0/1000SF) 60 SPACES
a 50 I 0 47
58 24 ® _ TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 270 SPACES SHOPS PARKING REQ'D (5.0/1000 SF) 58 SPACES
OP OP2 1.57 AC. REST. PARKING REQ'D (6.67/1000 SF) 52 SPACES
0P6 OP5- - OP4 PROPOSED ,,18AC, PARKING RATIO PROVIDED 5.04 /1,000SF
1.28 AC. 0.68 AC. 1.51 AC. SIGNAL
-------------
-------
----------«---
�- TOTAL PARKIN REQUIRED 170 SPACES
-------------- 0 WESTERN BL _
°o ----------------- TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 171 SPACES
PARKING RATIO PROVIDED 5.48 /1,000 SF
TOTAL PROJECT SQUARE FOOTAGE 204,444 SPACES
SITE PLAN 100' 200' 400' TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 1,058 SPACES
1
SP -5.2 N
SCALE: 1"=200' OVERALL PARKING ALLOCATED TO THE ENTIRE SITE HAS BEEN TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 1,072 SPACES
REDUCED BY 99 SPACES FROM THE PLAN DATED 3.1 1.16 PARKING RATIO PROVIDED 5.24 /1,000 SF
DONE THREE PROJECT DATA
RETAIL BUILDINGS
CLIENT
GEYE R MORRIS
COMPANY
4849 GREENVILLE AVE, STE 1375. DALLAS, TX 75206. 214-458-4808
PROJECT JOB NUMBER BY
1540719 KMC
WESTERN BLVD P H I L L I PS
NORTH TERRACES
DATE D RAW I N G
400 PERIMETER CENTER TERRACE -SUITE 650
JACKSONVILLE, NC ATLANTA, GA 30346
08.26.16 SP -5.2 -PARKING ZONE EXHIBIT
"- 770.3943616 '- 770.3943314