Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19920083 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19920101,. e,,. StATt'° State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management 512 North Salisbury Street o Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 James G. Martin, Governor William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary March 6, 1992 Mr. Kevin Martin Soil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3818 Bland Road Raleigh, NC 27609 Dear Mr. Martin: George T. Everett, Ph.D. Director Subject: Proposed Fill in Headwaters or Isolated Wetlands Matthews Glen at Planters Walk Wake County DEM Project #92083 Upon review of your request for Water Quality Certification to place fill material in 0.14 acres of wetlands for Matthews Glen located at Planters Walk, Knightdale, North Carolina in Wake County, we have determined that the proposed fill can be covered by General Water Quality Certification No. 2671 issued January 21, 1992. A copy of the General Certification is attached. This Certification may be used in qualifying for coverage under Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit No. 26. If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919/733-1786 or 919/733-1787. Sincerely, rge T. Everett 7 GTE:JD Attachment cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regional Office Raleigh DEM Regional Office Mr. John Dorney Central Files PFC110NAL OFFICE Asheville Faycttcville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winsuat-Salem 704/251-6208 914/486-1541 704/663-166 919/571-47(X) 919/94(1-6481 919,995-31M 1)19/896-7(X)7 Pollution Prevention Pays 1'.0. Rox 29535, Raleigh North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone 919-733-7015 A,, l n.A 01)1-mmiiv Alfinnanve Action Lmplowr { R? D CC??d February 28, 19921 ,. - ;1 I MAC - 09? MEMORANDUM ?i, ?,? D To: John Dorney ;'Wp >??, 17?n ?, Through: Arthur Mouberry, .E.- Regi na Superv' WETLANDS gaM? ON im Donnelly, P.E.- Regiona W Supervisor From: Karl Shaffer- Soil Scientist Subject: Morgan Glen at Planters Walk NW 26 Project No. 92083 Wake County The applicant has submitted adequate plans and concessions for the project. Please refer to copies of my original memo and response from Thomas Craven, P.E. for the applicant (enclosed). The RRO recommends a 401 certification be issued with appropriate restrictions for this activity. The stream is class C-NSW. i PRIEST, CRAVEN &. ASSOCIATES, INC. LAND USE CONSULTANTS February 5, 1992 Mr. Kevin Martin Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3818 Bland Road Raleigh, N.C. 27609 Re: Matthew's Glen Karl Shaffer Memorandum of Jan. 6, 1992 Dear Kevin : We have reviewed the Memorandum dated. January 6, 1992 from Karl Schaffer to John Dorney. We offer the following response to the suggestions in the memo : . 1. We can not provide a 50' buffer on the lots which adjoin the intermittent stream. The lots are nominally 100 to 110 feet deep. Due to topographic and boundary constraints this dimension can not be increased. The Town of Knightdale requires a 30' front yard setback. If a 50' buffer were required along the rear of these lots, it would only leave a buildable area 20' to 30' deep. If this 50' buffer were required the project would lose approximately 20 of the 67 proposed lots. This would obviously make the project economically unfeasible. It should be noted that this property is zoned for the development of over 150 apartment or townhouse units. This proposal for development of 67 single family detached homes represents a substantial reduction in density and impervious surfaces when compared to the multi-family- development allowed by the zoning. The water quality impact from the proposed development is significantly less than would be experienced if the property were developed at its allowable density. The Town of Knightdale requires a 20 foot rear yard setback which precludes the construction of buildings in this area. In addition, we have agreed to a 20 foot wide buffer easement along this area which would require the preservation of existing vegetation and not allow the introduction of impervious surfaces within the buffer easement. 2. Our plans call 'for the introduction of piping and rip-rap channel lining in several areas of the stream. These measures are to stabilize areas which are currently experiencing significant erosion and channel bank degradation. It appears to us that a poorly managed logging activity several years ago partially blocked the natural channel, causing the stream to meander erosively. We feel PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYURS 4401 Bland Road, Suite 110, Raleigh NC 27609. Phone 919/876-1060 Mr. Kevin Martin Matthews Glen February 5, 1992 Page 2 that, our proposed improvements will stabilize the channel and substantially decrease erosion. 3. A sedimentation and erosion control plan will be submitted to Wake County for their review and approval. Prior to beginning construction, all erosion control measures must be in place. The County will continually monitor construction to insure that erosion control measures are properly maintained and that. disturbed areas are properly stabilized. 4. The design approach and management practices called for in this proposal are more sensitive to the stream and its associated quality than the existing development which Mr. Shaffer suggests we emulate. 5. There is no area on this site which would allow the installation of a significant retention basin. If a basin were introduced in the low area at the southeast corner of the tract, it would cause flooding of some of the existing yards which adjoin this property to the south. There are also no other detention measures currently in place within the existing subdivision. Thomas F. Craven, P.E. Priest, Craven & Associates, Inc. Sincerely, cJ 91036.012 FILE COPY January 6, 1992 MEMORANDUM To: John Dorney Through: rthur Mouberry, P.E.- Regional Supervisor Tim Donnelly, From: Karl Shaffer- Subject: Planters Walk Water Quality Wake County P.E.- Regional Water Quality Supervisor Soil Scientist Subdivision Certification The above project was not submitted through your office for a project number. I met with the consultant for his general guidance concerning possible 401 issuance. The consultant for the applicant is Soils and Environmental Consultants- 790-9117. The wetlands to be impacted are low-value as they presently exist. However, reasonable water quality protection will be realized if some restrictions are required concerning the drainageway through the subdivision. No plans have yet been submitted by the developer with respect to surface water management. The following should be required with the 401 issuance, if appropriate: 1) Minimum of 50 foot buffers on those lots through which the stream runs. This buffer strip shall require permanent vegetation and no impervious surfaces such as driveways or storage buildings. 2) Stabilization of the stream bank in any area which washing or sloughing poses a problem. 3) Erosion and sedimentation control during construction such that turbidity standards are not violated. 4) The existing subdivision with established homes has adequate stream protection and this area may be used as a model. 5) If the developer chooses not to accept the above conditions, a retention basin or two would be needed for water quality protection. Planters Walk Subdivision Page -2- I do not have the entire history on this development, but several 401's and Corps permits have been issued prior to this date. I have discussed this with Ron Ferrell and he will be looking into the files for other permits and restrictions on the site. With the information I have, I recommend a 401 be issued with the above restrictions. Should any information based on the past history come into play, I am in concurrence with any decisions from your office as you deem appropriate concerning the permitting of additional wetland acreage. Please note that before a 401 is issued, the developer or his agent shall submit plans which detail stormwater control and any drainageway modifications that are proposed. cc: Mr. Kevin Martin- Soil and Environmental Consultants WETLAND RATING SYSTEM WORKSHEET I Project No. or description 'JD(A??5- WALK Soc. - 14 / r- Location ??Dbi?16 1J County Nearest road or town River basin Nearest stream o and classification Evaluato"r. •c?'?,. ??:2, n %a +f Qk,q) Agency and address Date and time evaluated 2- r ' ( d I 1 :50 4111 -a14 ?? tit. , ? _ S ? C Major Wetland Type Approximate size of wetland system acres Approximate extent of wetlands in area acres with Item No. Location/Landscape 1 Natural area buffer 2 Sensitive watershed 3 Dispersal corridor system Ecological Values 4 Special ecological attributes 5 Wildlife habitat 6 Aquatic life 7 Water storage 8 Streambank stabilization 9 Removal of pollutants Human Values 10 Outdoor recreation/education 11 Economic value -?ZLLC'?i?/?.„7 - .?"t- ':T/•"2??Nit / H .L?c?./..U-C-i?w'??... for rare, endangered or species observed or recorded. Score (circle one) 5 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 Cat o,,, i,:,o ?( 5 4 3 2 ri 0 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 1- 0 5 4 3 2 0 5 4 3 2 0 5 4 3 2 0 5 4 3 2 0 5 4 3 1 0 5 4 3 2 0 Total score ry =? 2s Site description and notes: &/Z,&r?.y??' -?J7 13 --JL / 4AQ1 in miles Three most common plant species (in order) : Soil Series (if known) ;, tow Hydrologic indicators Direct surface hydrologic conn c on? ES NO Existing Conditions Drainage 7!{s Ir et_wi.s Disturbance /I q o.?? ?J k.A Restoration pote t al Restoration value Is site known to provide habitat threatened species?_41,) If so, list February 28, 1992 MEMORANDUM To: John Dorney Through: Arthur Mouberry, OPE.- Regional Supervisor Tim Donnelly, P.E.- Regional Water Quality Supervisor From: Karl Shaffer- Soil Scientist Subject: Morgan Glen at Planters Walk .NW 26 Project No. 92083 Wake County The applicant has submitted adequate plans and concessions for the project. Please refer to copies of my original memo and response from Thomas Craven, P.E. for the applicant (enclosed). The RRO recommends a 401 certification be issued with appropriate restrictions for this activity. The stream is class C-NSW. y PRIEST CRAVEN &ASSOCIATES, INC. LAND USE CONSULTANTS February 5, 1992 Mr. Kevin Martin Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3818 Bland Road Raleigh, N.C. 27609 Re: Matthew's Glen Karl Shaffer Memorandum of Jan. 6, 1992 Dear Kevin : We have reviewed the Memorandum dated. January 6, 1992 from Karl Schaffer to John Dorney. We offer the following response to the suggestions in the memo : 1. We can not provide a 50' buffer on the lots which adjoin the intermittent stream. The lots are nominally 100 to 110 feet deep. Due to topographic and boundary constraints this dimension can not be increased. The Town of Knightdale requires a 30' front yard setback. If a 50' buffer were required along the rear of these lots, it would only leave a buildable area 20' to 30' deep. If this 50' buffer were required the project would lose approximately 20 of the 67 proposed lots. This would obviously make the project economically unfeasible. It should be noted that this property is zoned for the development of over 150 apartment or townhouse units. This proposal for development of 67 single family detached homes represents a substantial reduction in density and impervious surfaces. when compared to the multi-family- development allowed by the zoning. The water quality impact from the proposed development is significantly less than would be experienced if the property were developed at its allowable density. The Town of Knightdale requires a 20 foot rear yard setback which precludes the construction of buildings in this area. In addition, we have agreed to a 20 foot wide buffer easement along this area which would require the preservation of existing vegetation and not allow the introduction of impervious surfaces within the buffer easement. 2. Our plans call for the introduction of piping and rip-rap channel lining in several areas of the stream. These measures are to stabilize areas which are currently experiencing significant erosion and channel bank degradation. It appears to us that a poorly managed logging activity several years ago partially blocked the natural channel, causing the stream to meander erosively. We feel PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 4401 Bland Road, Suite 110, Raleigh NC 27609 Phone 919/876-1060 t. w Mr. Kevin Martin Matthews Glen February 5, 1992 Page 2 that our proposed improvements will stabilize the channel and substantially- decrease erosion. 3. A sedimentation and erosion control plan will be submitted to Wake County for their review and approval. Prior to beginning construction, all erosion control measures must be in place. The County will continually monitor construction to insure that. erosion control measures are properly maintained and that. disturbed areas are properly stabilized.- 4. The design approach and management practices called for in this proposal are more sensitive to the stream and its associated quality than the existing development which Mr. Shaffer suggests we emulate. 5. There is no area on this site which would allow the installation of a significant retention basin. If a basin were introduced in the low area at the southeast corner of the tract, it would cause flooding of some of the existing yards which adjoin this property to the south. There are also no other detention measures currently in place within the existing subdivision. Sincerely, s P? Thomas F. Craven, P.E. Priest, Craven & :associates, Inc. 91036.012 FILE COPY January 6, 1992 MEMORANDUM To: John Dorney Through: rthur Mouber: Tim Donnelly, From: Karl Shaffer- Subject: Planters Walk Water Quality Wake County =y, P.E.- Regional Supervisor P.E.- Regional Water Quality Supervisor Soil Scientist Subdivision Certification The above project was not submitted through your office for a project number. I met with the consultant for his general guidance concerning possible 401 issuance. The consultant for the applicant is Soils and Environmental Consultants- 790-9117. The wetlands to be impacted are low-value as they presently exist. However, reasonable water quality protection will be realized if some restrictions are required concerning the drainageway through the subdivision. No plans have yet been submitted by the developer with respect to surface water management. The following should be required with the 401 issuance, if appropriate: 1) Minimum of 50 foot buffers on those lots through which the stream runs. This buffer strip shall require permanent vegetation and no impervious surfaces such as driveways or storage buildings. 2) Stabilization of the stream bank in any area which washing or sloughing poses a problem. 3) Erosion and sedimentation control during construction such that turbidity standards are not violated. 4) The existing subdivision with established homes has adequate stream protection and this area may be used as a model. 5) If the developer chooses not to accept the above conditions, a retention basin or two would be needed for water quality protection. Planters Walk Subdivision Page -2- I do not have the entire history on this development, but several 401's and Corps permits have been issued prior to this date. I have discussed this with Ron Ferrell and he will be looking into the files for other permits and restrictions on the site. With the information I have, I recommend a 401 be issued with the above restrictions. Should any information based on the past history come into play, I am in concurrence with any decisions from your office as you deem appropriate concerning the permitting of additional wetland acreage. Please note that before a 401 is issued, the developer or his agent shall submit plans which detail stormwater control and any drainageway modifications that are proposed. cc: Mr. Kevin Martin- Soil and Environmental Consultants WETLAND RATING SYSTEM WORKSHEET known to provide habitat for rare, endangered or species?Ar,;,) If so, list species observed or recorded. Item No. Location/Landscape 1 Natural area buffer 2 Sensitive watershed 3 Dispersal corridor system Ecological Values 4 Special ecological attributes 5 Wildlife habitat 6 Aquatic life 7 Water storage 8 Streambank stabilization 9 Removal of pollutants Human Values 10 Outdoor recreation/education 11 Economic value Score (circle one) 5 5 4 3 0 2 1 0 5 4 3 27 0 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 0 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 0 2 0 5 4 3 E:Z)1 0 5 4 3 2 0 Total score Site description and notes: &gy-'?az ezu &rn 'n""" , eeo a z/ a, .2 .Zroz v P %vffi:.Q , ,?-'??.n ,,,?r ? . ?_. ??-ctµ.? .Ira-?c,c, ..,d-,?wtic :7?ru•ts?-?zd `?-'? fro" S ccx?lre-l' alts-a.K? ca'<°?- ? ?o Gee--c?1+•?/, t?:?+.L 13 Project No. or description ?(,?? ? w { G sob ?9 kpr Location ADDiT6rJ County j/ J-0- Nearest road or River basin Nearest stream and Evaluato'r town ?61.. ?classification C' r- btAi. / Agency and address e Date Major ?? and time evaluated J 2-/3 6 n'Pj? Jrti1 " Wetland Type Approximate size of wetland system acres Approximate extent of wetlands in area acres within miles Three most common plant species (in order): Soil Series Hydrologic Direct (if known) indicators surface hydrologic co=n c on? ES NO Existing Conditions D r a i n a ge Disturbance Restoration po- to t al Restoration value Is site threatened TER?tIARY OR ADVANCED TREATMENT UNIT (10) CHEMICAL ADDITION SYSTEM (S) (See definition No. 9) (a) Activated Carbons Beds - (not applicable to chemical additions rated as item without carbon regeneration .................. 5 with carbon regeneration .................... 15 (3) (j). (5) (a) (xi), (6) (a), (6) (b), (7) (b), (7) (e), or 19) (c) 5 oints each: List: (9) (a) (9) (b) () () (j (j ?) () (b) Powdered or Granular Activated Carbon Feed - . . p 5 without carbon regeneration ................. 5 5 With ca$on regeneration ..... ............. 15 5 (c) Air Stripping .......................... .. 5 5 (d) Denitrification Process (separate process) ..... 1 0 (e) Electrodialysis .............................. 5 (11) MISCELLANEOUS UNITS (f) Foam Separation ............................. 5 (a) Holding Ponds, Holding Tanks or Settling Ponds (g) ton Exchange ................................. 5 for Organic or Toxic Materials including wastes (h) Land Application of Treated Effluent from mining operations containing nitrogen and/or (see definition no. 22b) (not applicable for phosphorous compounds in amounts significantly sand, gravel, stone and other similar mining greater than is common for domestic wastewater .......... 4 operations) (b) Effluent Flow Equalization (not applicable to storage V) on agriculturally managed sites (See def. basins which are inherent in land application systems). 2 No. 4) ................................... 10 (c) Stage Discharge (not applicable to storage basins (ii) by high rate infiltration on non-agriculturally inherent in land application systems ....................................... 5 managed sites (includes rotary distributors (d) Pumps .........:.................................................................................... ..... and similar fixed nozzle systems) ........... 4 (e) Stand-By Power Supply .................................................................. (iii) by subsurface disposal (includes low pressure (f) Thermal Pollution Control Device ............................................. 3 pipe systems and gravity systems except at plants consisting of septic tank and nitrifica- tion lines only) ............................. 4 TOTAL POINTS (i) Microscreens .................................. 5 Gj Phosphorus Remo-ial by Biological Processes CLASSIFICATION (See def. No. 26) ............................ 20 (k) Polishing Ponds - without aeration ....... 2 Class I ........................................................... 5 - 25 Points with aeration .......... 5 Class If ........................................................ 26- 50 Points (I) Post Aeration - cascade .............. 0 Class III....................................................... 51- 65 Points diffused or mechanical ... 5 Class IV ........................................................ 66- Up Points (m) Reverse Osmosis ............................... 5 (n) Sand or Mixed-Media Fillers - low rate ........... 2 Facilities having a rating of one through four points, inclusive, high rate .......... do not require a certified operator. Classification of all other (o) Treatment processes for removal of metal or facilities requires a comparable grade operator in responsible cyanide .................................... 15 charge. (p) Treatment processes for removal of toxic materials other than metal or cyanide ......... 15 Facilities having an activated sludge process will be assigned a minimum classification of Class II. t SLUDGE TREATMENT Facilities having treatment processes for the removal of metal (a) Sludge Digestion Tank - Heated ............... Aerobic ............... 110 or cyanide will be assigned a minimum classification of Class IL Unheated ............. (b) Sludge Stabilization (chemical or thermal) ......: 3 Facilities having treatment processes for the biological removal 5 of phosphorus will be assigned a minimum classification of Class (c) Sludge Drying Beds - Gravity ................. 2 1 I I Vacuum Assisted ....... 5 , (d) Sludge Eluldalion ............................. 5 In-plant processes and related control equipment which are an (e) Sludge Conditioner (chemical or thermal) ........ 5 integral part of industrial production shalt not be considered waste (f) Sludge Thickener (gravity) ...................... 5 treatment. Likewise, discharges of wastewater from residences (g) Dissolved Air Flotation Unit having a design flow of 1,000 gpd or less, shall not be subject to (not applicable to a unit rates as (3) (i) ......... 8 rating. (h) Sludge Gas Utilization (including gas storage) .... 2 (i) Sludge Holding Tank - Aerated ................ 5 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Non-aerated ............ 2 (j) Sludge Incinerator - (not including activated carbon regeneration) ..... 10 (k) Vacuum Filter, Centrifuge or Filter Press or other similar dewatering devices .................... 10 (8) SLUDGE DISPOSAL (including incinerated ash) (a) Lagoons ........................................ 2 (b) Land Application (surface and subsurface) (see definition 22a) -where the facility holds the land app. permit ... 10 -by contracting to a land application operator who holds the land application permit ............ . -land application of sludge by a contractor who does not hold the permit for the wastewater treatment facility where the sludge is generated ......... 10 (c) Landfilled (burial) ............................. 5 (9) DISINFECTION (a) Chlorination ............................ . (b) Dechlorination ........................ 5 (c) Ozone .............................. 5 (d) Radiation .......................... 5 ice! January 6, 199 °? Zq' MEMORANDUM To: John Dorney Through: rthur Mouberry, P.E.- Regional Supervisor Tim Donnelly, P.E.- Regional Water Quality Supervisor From: Karl Shaffer- Soil Scientist Subject: Planters Walk Subdivision Water Quality Certification Wake County The above project was not submitted through your office for a project number. I met with the consultant for his general guidance concerning possible 401 issuance. The consultant for the applicant is Soils and Environmental Consultants- 790-9117. The wetlands to be impacted are low-value as they presently exist. However, reasonable water quality protection will be realized if some restrictions are required concerning the drainageway through the subdivision. No plans have yet been submitted by the developer with respect to surface water management. The following should be required with the 401 issuance, if appropriate: 1) Minimum of 50 foot buffers on those lots through which the stream runs. This buffer strip shall require permanent vegetation and no impervious surfaces such as driveways or storage buildings. 2) Stabilization of the stream bank in any area which washing or sloughing poses a problem. 3) Erosion and sedimentation control during construction such that turbidity standards are not violated. 4) The existing subdivision with established homes has adequate stream protection and this area may be used as a model. 5) If the developer chooses not to accept the above conditions, a retention basin or two would be needed for water quality protection. $ 6_N Planters Walk Subdivision Page -2- I do not have the entire history on this development, but several 401's and Corps permits have been issued prior to this date. I have discussed this with Ron Ferrell and he-will be looking into the files for other permits and restrictions on the site. With the information I have, I recommend a 401 be issued with the above restrictions. Should any information based on the past history come into play, I am in concurrence with any decisions from your office as you deem appropriate concerning the permitting of additional wetland acreage. Please note that before a 401 is issued, the developer or his agent shall submit plans which detail stormwater control and any drainageway modifications that are proposed. cc: Mr. Kevin Martin- Soil and Environmental Consultants for rare, endangered or species observed or recorded. Item No. Location/Landscape 1 Natural area buffer 2 Sensitive watershed 3 Dispersal corridor system Ecological Values 4 Special ecological attributes 5 Wildlife habitat 6 Aquatic life 7 Water storage 8 Streambank stabilization 9 Removal of pollutants Human Values 10 Outdoor recreation/education 11 Economic value Score (circle one) 5 4 3 0 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 rl 0 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 0 5 4 3 2 0 5 4 3 2 0 5 4 3 ? 2 0 5 4 3 2 0 5 5 4 3 1 0 4 3 2 CD 0 Total score Site description and notes ?? ?,.? eQG lJ.CQ? O..iJ ?,C •-GrGZ?t? ? Gi.t1LGG? . ??c Q? I e'e;7 cLud? j?na.l ?ci? a l S _. 7 Q/"?2J161 //?` cx?!.?'- _..?,e•uJ ?-?--2 ? f? yf?. j .-?zt?- ??2?•t? l/a..Z,t.cy . i?wec .?7?crzy-F?? ?-Zt`'?y?x C?j/^ _`? c t .o P vZc < ? gib ?' ! v h9 %a ? C? C'ext, 13 Approximate size of wetland system acres Approximate extent of wetlands in area within acres miles Three most common plant species (in order) : WETLAND RATING SYSTEM WORKSHEET Project No. or description Pu,t'?? (i(l?C so Location f'ti?la tJ County //JJ2- Nearest road or town River basin 'ma'y ` US Nearest stream Q z, and classification /US o Evaluator 517 ?f. rates; • (%a,t Qand? Agency and address ' Date and time evaluated-1.2-/36/i/ 1:50101 '5 Major Wetland Type Soil Series (if known) u)J 61aj;1 _J Hydrologic indicators atc6n'.2- Direct surface hydrologic Conn c on? ES. NO Existing Conditions Drainage Disturbance ?q a.C/(? ?tJ? eo_ to Restoration poteal Restoration value -Ile - Is site known to provide habitat threatened species?-&-,7) If so, list The only wetland area on-site has been avoided by the development,. We will be glad-to-discuss the project with you in' more detail if it is necessary. I 'should note that Mr. Schafer concurred that the jurisdictional areas to be impacted have very little 'water quality ofa,wildlife,value for reasons mentioned earlier. However, there is a complicating factor in this case. According.to Corps files there have been previous Corps permits .and OEM Certifications issued to the Planter's Walk__ project. These permits and delineations do not appear to have coverda'the Matthews Glen Section of Planter's Walk.- Acreage,;wisae it appears that this project has minimal impacts, site evaluations of the quality of the jurisdictional areas leads us to believe that most that are to; be impacted probably should not be jurisdictional,in the first place. However, when interpreted literally, the "Ma_nual'k' and,.the Clean Water Act definitions of Waters of the US would,include these areas. Please call of you have questions or require further inf ormation. Sincerely'' uz? Kevin 'C Mart President Enclosures; cc: With Enclosures Mr Karl Schafer (DEM) NC}" Dept of Cultural Resources USF&WZ - s PRIEST, CRAvEN&AssocLATEsJNc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS February 5, 1992 Mr. Kevin Martin Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3818 Bland Road Raleigh, N.C. 27609 Re: Matthew's Glen Karl Shaffer Memorandum of Jan. 6, 1992 Dear Kevin . We have reviewed the Memorandum dated. January 6, 1992 from Karl Schaffer to John Dorney. We offer the following response to the suggestions in the memo : 1. We can not provide a 50' buffer on the lots which adjoin the intermittent stream. The lots are nominally 100 to 110 feet deep. Due to topographic and boundary constraints this dimension can not be increased. The Town of Knightdale requires a 30' front yard setback. If a 50' buffer were required.along the rear of these lots, it would only leave a buildable area 20' to 30' deep. If this 50' buffer were required the project would lose approximately 20 of the 67 proposed lots. This would obviously make the project economically unfeasible. It should be noted that this property is zoned for the development of over 150 apartment or townhouse units. This proposal for development of 67 single family detached homes represents a substantial reduction in density and impervious surfaces when compared to the multi-family development allowed by the zoning. The water quality impact from the proposed development is significantly less than would be experienced if the property were developed at its allowable density. The Town of Knightdale requires a 20 foot rear yard setback which precludes the construction of buildings in this area. In addition, we have agreed to a 20 foot wide buffer easement along this area which would require the preservation of existing vegetation and not allow the introduction of impervious surfaces within the buffer easement. 2. Our plans call for the introduction of piping and rip-rap channel lining in several areas of the stream. These measures are to stabilize areas which are currently experiencing significant erosion and channel bank degradation. It appears to us that a poorly managed logging activity several years ago partially blocked the natural channel, causing the stream to meander erosively. We feel PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 4401 Bland Road, Suite 110, Raleigh NC 27609 Phone 919/876-1060 ,.M Ve Mr. Kevin Martin Matthews Glen February 5, 1992 Page 2 that our proposed improvements will stabilize the channel and substantially decrease erosion. 3. A sedimentation and erosion control plan will be submitted to Wake County for their review and approval. Prior to beginning construction, all erosion control measures must be in place. The County will continually monitor construction to insure that. erosion control measures are properly maintained and that. disturbed areas are properly stabilized. 4. The design approach and management practices called for in this proposal are more sensitive to the stream and its associated quality than the existing development which Mr. Shaffer suggests we emulate. 5. There is no area on installation of a signii were introduced in the 1 the tract, it would caul yards which adjoin this also no other detention the existing subdivision. Sincerely, -rwc?& Thomas F. Priest, Cr 91036.012 this site which would allow the icant retention basin. If a basin ow area at the southeast corner of e flooding of some of the existing property to the south. There are measures currently in place within Craven, P.E. aven &. Associates, Inc. Planter's Walk Kevin Martin Jan. 29, 1992 Soil and Environmental Consultants 3818 Bland Road Raleigh, NC 27609 Re: Matthews Glen Dear Mr. Martin: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation from today regarding Matthews Glen in Planter's Walk. O'Neal Builders and Developers has under gone some management changes in the last year which has affected our previous view of how Planter's Walk will be developed in the future. We have become more conscious:.of-and concerned about the wetlands contained within the boundries of the subdivision. We intend to minimize impact to jurisdictional waters to the extent practical and to protect water quaility. Our conver- sation today has reassured me that your approach to the issues surrounding the wetlands are in agreement with what we see for the actual development of Planter's Walk. I hope that we will be able to resolve any questions that the agencies involved have so that John Crosland Company may move foreward with their design for Matthews Glen. If we can assist in any manner please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 4Z . it(r Jon M. Carter Project Director O'Neal Builders and Developers Box 249, Knightdale, NC 27545 (919) 266-7765