Review Type
Outcome
Est. Completion Date
Completed
Planning Review
Approved
08/31/2023
08/25/2023
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Per City vegetation management standards manual (VMS) Pg. 44 Item J: All internal landscape islands and connector strips shall include a double row (horizontally) of structural soil cells – often called “Silva Cells”, or equivalent - along the perimeter of all internal islands in parking stall areas only (under the pavement directly abutting the outer edge of the landscape island) to provide additional soil volume for tree growth. The landscape architect shall provide manufacturer’s installation details for internal parking lot landscaping soil installation, including required structural soil cells, on the final landscape plan set. See section 8.2 for soil quality standards. VMS is available at www.cityofpuyallup.org/puyallupvms.
Correction 2:
Final Landscape Plan - Soil Req. Cubic Yards
Comments:
Please estimate the total top soil required to meet the 8 inch minimum soil standard for all landscaped areas in cubic yards. The contractor will be required to submit delivery sheets and demonstrate compliance with top soil required and specified on plans at the time of final inspection.
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add two rows of silva cells around all edges of planter islands where they touch parking stalls. See purple lines around stalls 26-30 for example configuration of silva cells. [sheet L1.0] . Alternatively, Structural plant soils often called CU-structural soil, or equivalent - may be provided in lieu of structural soil cells so long as the volume of structural plant soils provided is 1.5X the soil volume that would otherwise be provided in structural soil cells as required by this option to reduce design option. The project landscape architect shall provide a cross section detail of installation of all structural plant soils, including geotechnical interface with adjacent under pavement soils.
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Engineering Civil Review
Approved
08/31/2023
08/22/2023
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update Soil stabilization dates per Section 501.5 for the COP Standards. [SWPPP, Page15]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Original comment: Show ramp cross slope.
2nd comment 6/26: Ramp cross slope was not given. Add slope arrows perpendicular parallel to ramp. See ADA detail markup on this sheet that I snapped from sheet CS3 [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
re-insert in-feasibility discussion for BMPs considered. BMP T5.30 and BMP T5.10A [Storm Report, Page 12]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
It appears the storm plan is showing overflows to discharge into the existing infiltration gallery and using the existing overflow facility for any potential secondary overflows. Confirm this in a narrative. [Storm Report, Page 12]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Wing slopes must be less than 10% per ADA standards [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
State the quantity of discharge as it compares to the native discharge and the impact to downstream infrastructure if 100% infiltration cannot be achieved. [Storm Report, Page 13]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Landing must be minimum 5 feet per ADA standards. [CS1A]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
I ran the Model without an underdrain and wetted walls for the 3:1 sloped walls and got 100% infiltration. Lets discuss and compare models. [Storm Report, Page 13]
Public Works Streets Review
VOID
08/31/2023
08/09/2023
Reviewer:
Public Works Water Review
VOID
08/31/2023
08/08/2023
Reviewer:
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
08/31/2023
08/07/2023
Reviewer:
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
08/31/2023
08/07/2023
Reviewer:
Fire Review
Approved
08/31/2023
08/07/2023
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Failed
07/10/2023
07/11/2023
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Picea Pungens is not listed as an approved tree species in the City's VMS, select an alternative appropriate evergreen tree species. Civil Plan, Sheet L1.0. According to comment response letter from applicant, Picea Pungens was removed from resubmittal package submitted on 2.27.2023. However, review of sheet L1.0 showed that this tree is still listed and has not been replaced with an approved species from the VMS.
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Internal Landscape islands shall be planted with Medium (Class III) or Large (Class IV) street trees selected from the approved VMS street tree list. Civil Plans, Sheet L1.0. Revised landscape plan submitted 2/28/2023 still includes Picea pungens which is a Class I tree instead of a Class III or Class IV tree. Please select another evergreen tree from approved Class III or Class IV list in the VMS.
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
It has been determined that Structural soil cells are not rated for drive lanes. Revise plane to remove cells in drive isles. All other soil cells to remain. Civil Plans, Sheet L1.0
Correction 4:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The following standard has been added the Sheet L1 successfully: "A minimum of eight (8) inches of top soil, containing ten percent dry weight in planting beds, and 5% organic matter content in turf areas, and a pH from 6.0 to 8.0 or matching the pH of the original undisturbed soil. The topsoil layer shall have a minimum depth of eight inches (8”) except where tree roots limit the depth of incorporation of amendments needed to meet the criteria. Subsoils below the topsoil layer should be scarified at least 6 inches with some incorporation of the upper material to avoid stratified layers, where feasible. Installation of the eight inches (8”) of top soil, as described above, shall generally be achieved by placing five inches (5”) of imported sandy-loam top soil into planned landscape areas (sub-base scarified four inches (4”)) with a three-inch (3”) layer of compost tilled into the entire depth". Please estimate the total top soil required to meet the standard in cubic yards. The contractor will be required to submit delivery sheets and demonstrate compliance with top soil required and specified on plans at the time of final inspection. Item 4 on sheet L1.1 needs to be replaced with required description of 8" topsoil minimum requirement. Alternatively clarify that 4" of topsoil is allowed as a topdressing in existing landscape beds, but 8" will be required in all newly planted beds.
Correction 5:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
A minimum of 25 percent of the shrubs and ground covers used in projects under the requirements of the PMC and the VMS shall be native to the Puget Sound region. Please call out natives on the plant schedule for easy identification. 100% of landscape plants used in the bioretention area/raingarden must be native to the Puget sound region.
Response letter indicated that native plan identification had been added to plan, but review of planting table did not show native plant ID.
Correction 6:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Root barriers: Add city standards #01.02.05, #01.02.08A, #01.02.08 and #01.02.03 to landscape plans.
Correction 7:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Confirm that lonicera pileata is native to the Pacific Northwest. If it is not, replace with Lonicera Ciliosa or other PNW Native alternative. All plants with the bioretention area must be native to the pacific northwest.
Correction 8:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Add a PNW Native shrub or groundcover species to biorention area that blooms late in the season (Sept/Aug).
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Scale on sheet CS8 is wrong
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Is it possible to move the proposed stormline from the vault to the existing stormline such that it does not flow under the landscape bed and interfere with tree planting? [sheet CS.8]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add two rows of silva cells around all edges of planter islands where they touch parking stalls. See purple lines around stalls 26-30 for example configuration of silva cells. [sheet L1.0] Alternatively, Structural plant soils – often called “CU-structural soil”, or equivalent - may be provided in lieu of structural soil cells so long as the volume of structural plant soils provided is 1.5X the soil volume that would otherwise be provided in structural soil cells as required by this option to reduce design option. The project landscape architect shall provide a cross section detail of installation of all structural plant soils, including geotechnical interface with adjacent under pavement soils.
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Silva cells must be placed under entire walkway to create a continuous soil window between planting strips.
Correction 13:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Please spec the on-center spacing for all landscape areas.
Correction 14:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Move lighting poles where they conflict with required tree placement.
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Trees are required in zone 3 of rain garden, specifically one tree in each of the internal landscape islands. In last submittal trees where shown in each of these landscape islands, they have now been remove, please put them back on the plans. [Sheet L1.0]
Correction 16:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Per City vegetation management standards manual (VMS) Pg. 44 Item J: All internal landscape islands and connector strips shall include a double row (horizontally) of structural soil cells – often called “Silva Cells”, or equivalent - along the perimeter of all internal islands in parking stall areas only (under the pavement directly abutting the outer edge of the landscape island) to provide additional soil volume for tree growth. The landscape architect shall provide manufacturer’s installation details for internal parking lot landscaping soil installation, including required structural soil cells, on the final landscape plan set. See section 8.2 for soil quality standards. VMS is available at www.cityofpuyallup.org/puyallupvms.
Correction 17:
Final Landscape Plan - Soil Req. Cubic Yards
Comments:
Please estimate the total top soil required to meet the 8 inch minimum soil standard for all landscaped areas in cubic yards. The contractor will be required to submit delivery sheets and demonstrate compliance with top soil required and specified on plans at the time of final inspection.
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add two rows of silva cells around all edges of planter islands where they touch parking stalls. See purple lines around stalls 26-30 for example configuration of silva cells. [sheet L1.0] . Alternatively, Structural plant soils often called CU-structural soil, or equivalent - may be provided in lieu of structural soil cells so long as the volume of structural plant soils provided is 1.5X the soil volume that would otherwise be provided in structural soil cells as required by this option to reduce design option. The project landscape architect shall provide a cross section detail of installation of all structural plant soils, including geotechnical interface with adjacent under pavement soils.
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Public Works Streets Review
VOID
07/10/2023
07/05/2023
Reviewer:
Public Works Water Review
VOID
07/10/2023
06/27/2023
Reviewer:
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
07/10/2023
06/26/2023
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update Soil stabilization dates per Section 501.5 for the COP Standards. [SWPPP, Page15]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise from Keynote #3 to Keynote 25 for pavement removal [ Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add north arrow to Ingress/Egress Detail. [CS1A]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Call out property lines with bearing and dimensions in Ingress/Egress Detail. [CS1A]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add street name in Ingress/Egress Detail. [CS1A]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show top landing slope and add spot elevations. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show bottom landing slope and add spot elevations. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Grade to have 2% max cross slope in crosswalk. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Call out property lines with bearing and dimensions in Ingress/Egress Detail. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add street name in Ingress/Egress Detail. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Original comment: Show ramp cross slope.
2nd comment 6/26: Ramp cross slope was not given. Add slope arrows perpendicular parallel to ramp. See ADA detail markup on this sheet that I snapped from sheet CS3 [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show wing slopes. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show flow line elevation. this appears to be a low-spot susceptible to ponding. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
ADA Ramp detail was removed from sheet CS3. Add ADA notes and details and Detectable warning notes and detail. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
You provided Chapter 1 of the City Storm water standards and not the standard notes. Include City Standard Stormwater Notes per COP Standard Section 207 on the Storm plan. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove duplicate notes. [Civil Plans, CS6]
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
City standard minimum slope for storm pipe is 0.5%. Revise to increase slope to minimum. Existing invert may have to change to accomplish this. [Civil Plans, CS7]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This pipe connects to as shown with arrow, per the GIS. [Civil Plans, CS7]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include Standard Detail 02.07.05 [Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include existing and proposed contour labels.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include all existing and proposed utilities.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include individual site specific flow control manhole details with exact inverts and elevations of flow control structures per the engineered design.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show top of free board elevation and top of bank elevation for bioretention.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show outfall protection at curbcuts that flow into bioretention.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 25:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Label high points for all highpoint locations along bioretention gutter. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 26:
See Document Markup
Comments:
slope arrow appears to be pointing up slope. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 27:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add ADS details and shop drawings to Civil Plans. include site specific elevations in their section and profile view details.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 28:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Site specific weir details are required in site specific manhole detail.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 29:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show pavement spot elevations at each corner of chambers.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 30:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include Standard Detail 02.01.08 [Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 31:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Delineate infiltration excavation limits and call out to be protected from compaction. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 32:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Protect this inlet too and all others in vicinity of work area. [Civil Plans, CS5]
Correction 33:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The size of the disturbed area has increased so two entrances no longer appear to be needed. Remove west construction entrance and change the other to metal grated entrance. include manufacturer and detail. Note: The entrance location may vary as needed during construction. Any changes during construction will need to be coordinated with city inspector. [Civil Plans, CS5]
Correction 34:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include standard city detail for construction entrance. 05.01.02 [Civil Plans, CS5]
Correction 35:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Discussions about BMPs past the feasible BMP is not needed and may be removed from report. [Storm Report, Page12]
Correction 36:
See Document Markup
Comments:
I will review WWHM when finalized. Please call me to discuss so I can gain clarification on your storm design intentions. I think I may know the error you are receiving and you may not need to design for storm tech chambers. Flow control requirements can be satisfied by 100% infiltration. [Storm Report, WWHM pg 1]
Correction 37:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update Soil stabilization dates per Section 501.5 for the COP Standards. [SWPPP, Page16]
Correction 38:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Place this in element #5. [SWPPP, Page14]
Correction 39:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Please submit soils report separately on next submittal.
[Storm Report, Page18]
Correction 40:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide a blank copy of the maintenance log in the Maintenance Manual. [Storm Report, Page 13]
Correction 41:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add inspection report form to SWPPP. This can be created or found here:
https://ecology.wa.gov/Asset-Collections/Doc-Assets/Water-quality/Water-Quality-Permits/Stormwater-General-Permits/Construction-Stormwater-General-Permit/InspectionForm
[SWPPP, Page 17]
Correction 42:
See Document Markup
Comments:
For MR7; Flow control requirements can be met if Bioretention infiltrates 100%. Disregard all chamber and flow control device comments if this will be the outcome. [Storm Report, Page 13]
Correction 43:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Limit to one construction access. Rubber trackout mats have not been accepted in the past. The city has accepted metal grate trackout mats to protect subgrade. state Manufacture and provide a detail on the TESC plan. [SWPPP, 15]
Correction 44:
See Document Markup
Comments:
verify Property line location. Our GIS indicates the ROW goes to the back of sidewalk along the road which is standard in the city. [Civil Plans]
Correction 45:
See Document Markup
Comments:
re-insert in-feasibility discussion for BMPs considered. BMP T5.30 and BMP T5.10A [Storm Report, Page 12]
Correction 46:
See Document Markup
Comments:
It appears the storm plan is showing overflows to discharge into the existing infiltration gallery and using the existing overflow facility for any potential secondary overflows. Confirm this in a narrative. [Storm Report, Page 12]
Correction 47:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Wing slopes must be less than 10% per ADA standards [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 48:
See Document Markup
Comments:
State the quantity of discharge as it compares to the native discharge and the impact to downstream infrastructure if 100% infiltration cannot be achieved. [Storm Report, Page 13]
Correction 49:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Landing must be minimum 5 feet per ADA standards. [CS1A]
Correction 50:
See Document Markup
Comments:
I ran the Model without an underdrain and wetted walls for the 3:1 sloped walls and got 100% infiltration. Lets discuss and compare models. [Storm Report, Page 13]
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
07/10/2023
06/14/2023
Reviewer:
Fire Review
Approved
07/10/2023
06/14/2023
Reviewer:
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
07/10/2023
06/08/2023
Reviewer:
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
03/28/2023
04/24/2023
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Existing cross walk does not look to be addressed on the Site Plan and Grading Plan.
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Is this the only truck route? Will trucks be entering from the north? [Truck turn]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The truck path appears to touch the face of curb. consider moving the ramp further north to avoid further collision with the ramp. [Truck Turn]
Planning Review
Failed
03/28/2023
04/07/2023
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Row of trees must be added to the east planting strip, Civil Plans, L1.0. Since this landscape area is being used as a bio-retention/rain garden and the soil medium is not conducive to tree growth in this case, trees will not be required to be planted in zones 1 or 2 of the raingarden. However, trees are required in the zone 3 area of the rain garden.
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Picea Pungens is not listed as an approved tree species in the City's VMS, select an alternative appropriate evergreen tree species. Civil Plan, Sheet L1.0. According to comment response letter from applicant, Picea Pungens was removed from resubmittal package submitted on 2.27.2023. However, review of sheet L1.0 showed that this tree is still listed and has not been replaced with an approved species from the VMS.
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Internal Landscape islands shall be planted with Medium (Class III) or Large (Class IV) street trees selected from the approved VMS street tree list. Civil Plans, Sheet L1.0. Revised landscape plan submitted 2/28/2023 still includes Picea pungens which is a Class I tree instead of a Class III or Class IV tree. Please select another evergreen tree from approved Class III or Class IV list in the VMS.
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Frontier Elm is not listed as an approved tree species in the City's VMS, select an alternative appropriate deciduous tree species. Civil Plan, Sheet L1.0.
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
It has been determined that Structural soil cells are not rated for drive lanes. Revise plane to remove cells in drive isles. All other soil cells to remain. Civil Plans, Sheet L1.0
Correction 6:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Add note to civil plans: "A minimum of eight (8) inches of top soil, containing ten percent dry weight in planting beds, and 5% organic matter content in turf areas, and a pH from 6.0 to 8.0 or matching the pH of the original undisturbed soil. The topsoil layer shall have a minimum depth of eight inches (8”) except where tree roots limit the depth of incorporation of amendments needed to meet the criteria. Subsoils below the topsoil layer should be scarified at least 6 inches with some incorporation of the upper material to avoid stratified layers, where feasible. Installation of the eight inches (8”) of top soil, as described above, shall generally be achieved by placing five inches (5”) of imported sandy-loam top soil into planned landscape areas (sub-base scarified four inches (4”)) with a three-inch (3”) layer of compost tilled into the entire depth."
Correction 7:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The following standard has been added the Sheet L1 successfully: "A minimum of eight (8) inches of top soil, containing ten percent dry weight in planting beds, and 5% organic matter content in turf areas, and a pH from 6.0 to 8.0 or matching the pH of the original undisturbed soil. The topsoil layer shall have a minimum depth of eight inches (8”) except where tree roots limit the depth of incorporation of amendments needed to meet the criteria. Subsoils below the topsoil layer should be scarified at least 6 inches with some incorporation of the upper material to avoid stratified layers, where feasible. Installation of the eight inches (8”) of top soil, as described above, shall generally be achieved by placing five inches (5”) of imported sandy-loam top soil into planned landscape areas (sub-base scarified four inches (4”)) with a three-inch (3”) layer of compost tilled into the entire depth". Please estimate the total top soil required to meet the standard in cubic yards. The contractor will be required to submit delivery sheets and demonstrate compliance with top soil required and specified on plans at the time of final inspection. Item 4 on sheet L1.1 needs to be replaced with required description of 8" topsoil minimum requirement. Alternatively clarify that 4" of topsoil is allowed as a topdressing in existing landscape beds, but 8" will be required in all newly planted beds.
Correction 8:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
A minimum of 25 percent of the shrubs and ground covers used in projects under the requirements of the PMC and the VMS shall be native to the Puget Sound region. Please call out natives on the plant schedule for easy identification. 100% of landscape plants used in the bioretention area/raingarden must be native to the Puget sound region.
Response letter indicated that native plan identification had been added to plan, but review of planting table did not show native plant ID.
Correction 9:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Root barriers: Add city standards #01.02.05, #01.02.08A, #01.02.08 and #01.02.03 to landscape plans.
Correction 10:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Bicycle Parking: a minimum of five bicycle spaces shall be provided. Such bicycle parking areas shall provide a secure facility (e.g., rack, posts) to which to lock bicycles and shall be located so as to be reasonably convenient to the on-site use and not interfere with pedestrian and automobile traffic.
Correction 11:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Confirm that lonicera pileata is native to the Pacific Northwest. If it is not, replace with Lonicera Ciliosa or other PNW Native alternative. All plants with the bioretention area must be native to the pacific northwest.
Correction 12:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Add a PNW Native shrub or groundcover species to biorention area that blooms late in the season (Sept/Aug).
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Scale on sheet CS8 is wrong
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Is it possible to move the proposed stormline from the vault to the existing stormline such that it does not flow under the landscape bed and interfere with tree planting? [sheet CS.8]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add two rows of silva cells around all edges of planter islands where they touch parking stalls. See purple lines around stalls 26-30 for example configuration of silva cells. [sheet L1.0]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Silva cells must be placed under entire walkway to create a continuous soil window between planting strips.
Correction 17:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Please spec the on-center spacing for all landscape areas.
Correction 18:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Move lighting poles where they conflict with required tree placement.
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Trees are required in zone 3 of rain garden, specifically one tree in each of the internal landscape islands. In last submittal trees where shown in each of these landscape islands, they have now been remove, please put them back on the plans. [Sheet L1.0]
Public Works Streets Review
VOID
03/28/2023
04/06/2023
Reviewer:
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
03/28/2023
03/28/2023
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Show stormwater mitigation for the expanded building.
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The narrative explaining each surface type and amount does not equate to the limits of disturbance. missing about 10,000 sf. Include a description of all surface types within the limits of disturbance [SSP, Page 3]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove extra period [SSP, Page 3]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
update asphalt area [SSP, Page 3]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
WSDOT Hydraulic Manual is not an approved modeling method. Use an approved method from the 2019 Ecology Manual for Western Washington. Examples are WWHM, MGS Flood, HSPF, or KCRTS. existing conditions are typically modeled as forested. [SSP, Page 4]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
It is true that the site will have a net reduction in hard surface area. However, the Ecology Manual uses new and replaced hard surface area to determine what requirements must be met. Revise narrative to explain how MR6-9 will be met. [SSP, Page 4]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Total new/replaced pollution generating surface exceeds 10,000 SF. Water quality measures are required for the new/replaced area or equivalent area. [SSP, Page 4]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
this number does not match the given number in the introduction for asphalt. [SSP, Page 4]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Infiltration testing required to find KSat. Use Section III-3.2 of the ECY Manual for guidance. [SSP, Page 4]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Basin map is not accurate based on GIS information. Use the city GIS to provide a detailed map of the downstream path up to 1/4 mile downstream. Call me if you have any questions regarding the information found in the GIS. [SSP, Page 5]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
In the 2019 Manual, The Minimum Requirement Thresholds for non-road related commercial or industrial redevelopment projects have been updated to require the project proponent to compare the value of the proposed improvements to the value of the Project Site (the limits of disturbance) improvements, rather than the Site (the entire parcel) improvements. This will result in the project being required to meet all minimum requirements for the new plus replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. [SSP, Page 9]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
MR 3 is not for construction SWPPP BMPs as this should be covered in the SWPPP. MR 3 is for operational source control BMPs that are permanent to the site, not during construction. See the ECY Manual for sites that require implementation of source control BMPs, and list all applicable BMPs in the narrative for MR 3 with an explanation of how they will be implemented. [SSP MR#3, Page 4]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add this information about each SWPPP BMP to the SWPPP. [Civil Plans, Page 11]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
BMP T5.13 is feasible and shall be implemented in all converted and disturbed landscape areas. Base course shall be removed in landscaped areas. [SSP, Page 12]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide a discussion for each BMP that is determined to be infeasible. The site is adding enough landscaped area to potentially use bioretention. Use only the Ecology Manual's infeasibility criteria to cite infeasibility for each BMP. [SSP, Page 12]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The project exceeds more than 5,000 sf on new plus replaced PGHS. Therefore MR 6 is required. See Flow chart comments. [SSP, Page 12]
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The project exceeds more than 10,000 sf on new plus replaced effective impervious surface. Therefore MR 7 is required. See Flow chart comments. [SSP, Page 13]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The project exceeds more than 5,000 sf on new plus replaced PGHS. Therefore MR 8 is required to be considered. See Flow chart comments. [SSP, Page 13]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update MR 9 as necessary after considering MR 6-7. [SSP, Page 13]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update Soil stabilization dates per Section 501.5 for the COP Standards. [SWPPP, Page15]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add parcel numbers to site and adjacent sites. [Civil Plans, CS0]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add Construction Sequence. See COP Standards Section 501.6 for guidance. [Civil Plans, CS0]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove other Limits of Disturbance Tables from the civil plans and keep this one. [Civil Plans, CS0]
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Existing = 34,626 when totaling areas in the table. Proposed = 34,646. Revise to ensure totals are consistent with total given [Civil Plans, CS0]
Correction 25:
See Document Markup
Comments:
sawcut extends to concrete section. consider revising limits or call this out. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 26:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Sawcut Leaves a small strip of asphalt. Consider revising limits. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 27:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Call out existing concrete pavement to remain. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 28:
See Document Markup
Comments:
remove or revise leader. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 29:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Call out SF of footprint for proposed building addition. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 30:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Combine notes 21 and 41Civil Notes, CS1
Correction 31:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add callout 38 here. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 32:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove proposed curb line from demo plan [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 33:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Will this canopy overhang remain? [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 34:
See Document Markup
Comments:
seal coat overlaps new pavement. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 35:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Proposed ramp improvements are required to be shown on site and demo plans. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 36:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise. The wing to this ramp was removed, but not put back.[Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 37:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise. The wing to this ramp was removed. adjust sawcut limits to include it.[Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 38:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide bearing and dimensions for property boundary [Civil Plans, CS1A]
Correction 39:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout easement with type and dimensions [Civil Plans, CS1A]
Correction 40:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Call out the location that is used to set the location for your improvements.
Correction 41:
See Document Markup
Comments:
add dimension here [Civil Plans, CS1A]
Correction 42:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Horizontal control is required for proposed ADA ramp improvements at driveway. [ Civil Plans, CS1A]
Correction 43:
See Document Markup
Comments:
landings are 2% max in all directions.[Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 44:
See Document Markup
Comments:
show min 2% cross slope for curb and gutter detail. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 45:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The proposed ramp detail is too vague. Design using existing and propose spot elevations spot elevations. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 46:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise. The wing to this ramp was removed,show spot elevations for its replacement. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 47:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This appears to be a swale. Please clarify[Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 48:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Existing and proposed rim/inverts needed for any storm catch basin involved in this scope. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 49:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Exact slope, material, and inverts required for all pipes involved in this scope. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 50:
See Document Markup
Comments:
show all existing utilities on Plans. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 51:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include City Standard Stormwater Notes per COP Standard Section 207. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 52:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove all Limits of disturbance tables except for on the cover page. [Civil Plans, CS5, CS6]
Correction 53:
See Document Markup
Comments:
show all existing utilities on Plans. [Civil Plans, CS5]
Correction 54:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include COP Standard Grading, Erosion, and Sedimentation Control Notes from COP Standards Section 505. [Civil Plans, CS5]
Correction 55:
See Document Markup
Comments:
show all existing utilities on Plans. [Civil Plans, CS6]
Correction 56:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise leader 13 location. [Civil Plans, CS7]
Correction 57:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise leader 14 location. [Civil Plans, CS7]
Correction 58:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show existing sewer line. [Civil Plans, CS7]
Correction 59:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Use the table provided in docs and Images as a guide to tabulate existing and proposed surfaces. Add a copy to the SSP and attach one on the cover page (CS0) of the Civil Plans. Call me if you have trouble finding it. [SSP, Page 3]
Correction 60:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The number on C1 is 200,364. Confirm which is correct. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 61:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise from Keynote #3 to Keynote 25 for pavement removal [ Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 62:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add north arrow to Ingress/Egress Detail. [CS1A]
Correction 63:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Call out property lines with bearing and dimensions in Ingress/Egress Detail. [CS1A]
Correction 64:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add street name in Ingress/Egress Detail. [CS1A]
Correction 65:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show top landing slope and add spot elevations. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 66:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show bottom landing slope and add spot elevations. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 67:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Grade to have 2% max cross slope in crosswalk. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 68:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Call out property lines with bearing and dimensions in Ingress/Egress Detail. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 69:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add street name in Ingress/Egress Detail. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 70:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show ramp cross slope. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 71:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show wing slopes. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 72:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show flow line elevation. this appears to be a low-spot susceptible to ponding. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 73:
See Document Markup
Comments:
ADA Ramp detail was removed from sheet CS3. Add ADA notes and details and Detectable warning notes and detail. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 74:
See Document Markup
Comments:
You provided Chapter 1 of the City Storm water standards and not the standard notes. Include City Standard Stormwater Notes per COP Standard Section 207 on the Storm plan. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 75:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove duplicate notes. [Civil Plans, CS6]
Correction 76:
See Document Markup
Comments:
City standard minimum slope for storm pipe is 0.5%. Revise to increase slope to minimum. Existing invert may have to change to accomplish this. [Civil Plans, CS7]
Correction 77:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This pipe connects to as shown with arrow, per the GIS. [Civil Plans, CS7]
Correction 78:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include Standard Detail 02.07.05 [Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 79:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include existing and proposed contour labels.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 80:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include all existing and proposed utilities.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 81:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include individual site specific flow control manhole details with exact inverts and elevations of flow control structures per the engineered design.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 82:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show top of free board elevation and top of bank elevation for bioretention.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 83:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show outfall protection at curbcuts that flow into bioretention.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 84:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Label high points for all highpoint locations along bioretention gutter. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 85:
See Document Markup
Comments:
slope arrow appears to be pointing up slope. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 86:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add ADS details and shop drawings to Civil Plans. include site specific elevations in their section and profile view details.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 87:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Site specific weir details are required in site specific manhole detail.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 88:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show pavement spot elevations at each corner of chambers.
[Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 89:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include Standard Detail 02.01.08 [Civil Plans, CS8]
Correction 90:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Delineate infiltration excavation limits and call out to be protected from compaction. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 91:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Protect this inlet too and all others in vicinity of work area. [Civil Plans, CS5]
Correction 92:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The size of the disturbed area has increased so two entrances no longer appear to be needed. Remove west construction entrance and change the other to metal grated entrance. include manufacturer and detail. Note: The entrance location may vary as needed during construction. Any changes during construction will need to be coordinated with city inspector. [Civil Plans, CS5]
Correction 93:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include standard city detail for construction entrance. 05.01.02 [Civil Plans, CS5]
Correction 94:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Discussions about BMPs past the feasible BMP is not needed and may be removed from report. [Storm Report, Page12]
Correction 95:
See Document Markup
Comments:
I will review WWHM when finalized. Please call me to discuss so I can gain clarification on your storm design intentions. I think I may know the error you are receiving and you may not need to design for storm tech chambers. Flow control requirements can be satisfied by 100% infiltration. [Storm Report, WWHM pg 1]
Correction 96:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update Soil stabilization dates per Section 501.5 for the COP Standards. [SWPPP, Page16]
Correction 97:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Place this in element #5. [SWPPP, Page14]
Correction 98:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Please submit soils report separately on next submittal.
[Storm Report, Page18]
Correction 99:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide a blank copy of the maintenance log in the Maintenance Manual. [Storm Report, Page 13]
Correction 100:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add inspection report form to SWPPP. This can be created or found here:
https://ecology.wa.gov/Asset-Collections/Doc-Assets/Water-quality/Water-Quality-Permits/Stormwater-General-Permits/Construction-Stormwater-General-Permit/InspectionForm
[SWPPP, Page 17]
Correction 101:
See Document Markup
Comments:
For MR7; Flow control requirements can be met if Bioretention infiltrates 100%. Disregard all chamber and flow control device comments if this will be the outcome. [Storm Report, Page 13]
Correction 102:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Limit to one construction access. Rubber trackout mats have not been accepted in the past. The city has accepted metal grate trackout mats to protect subgrade. state Manufacture and provide a detail on the TESC plan. [SWPPP, 15]
Correction 103:
See Document Markup
Comments:
verify Property line location. Our GIS indicates the ROW goes to the back of sidewalk along the road which is standard in the city. [Civil Plans]
Public Works Water Review
VOID
03/28/2023
03/14/2023
Reviewer:
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
03/28/2023
03/08/2023
Reviewer:
Fire Review
Approved
03/28/2023
03/02/2023
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Failed
09/28/2022
10/17/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Planning Approved the site plan for associated addition and revised parking lot and landscaping area for building permit B-21-0905. However, the landscaping plan shown in B-21-0905 is not the plan that is shown on this civil plan.
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Row of trees must be added to the east planting strip, Civil Plans, L1.0
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Picea Pungens is not listed as an approved tree species in the City's VMS, select an alternative appropriate evegreen tree species. Civil Plan, Sheet L1.0.
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Internal Landscape islands shall be planted with Medium (Class III) or Large (Class IV) street trees selected from the approved VMS street tree list. Civil Plans, Sheet L1.0.
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Frontier Elm is not listed as an approved tree species in the City's VMS, select an alternative appropriate deciduous tree species. Civil Plan, Sheet L1.0.
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
It has been determined that Structural soil cells are not rated for drive lanes. Revise plane to remove cells in drive isles. All other soil cells to remain. Civil Plans, Sheet L1.0
Correction 7:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Add note to civil plans: "A minimum of eight (8) inches of top soil, containing ten percent dry weight in planting beds, and 5% organic matter content in turf areas, and a pH from 6.0 to 8.0 or matching the pH of the original undisturbed soil. The topsoil layer shall have a minimum depth of eight inches (8”) except where tree roots limit the depth of incorporation of amendments needed to meet the criteria. Subsoils below the topsoil layer should be scarified at least 6 inches with some incorporation of the upper material to avoid stratified layers, where feasible. Installation of the eight inches (8”) of top soil, as described above, shall generally be achieved by placing five inches (5”) of imported sandy-loam top soil into planned landscape areas (sub-base scarified four inches (4”)) with a three-inch (3”) layer of compost tilled into the entire depth."
Correction 8:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Please estimate the total top soil required to meet the standard in cubic yards. The contractor will be required to submit delivery sheets and demonstrate compliance with top soil required and specified on plans at the time of final inspection.
Correction 9:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
A minimum of 25 percent of the shrubs and ground covers used in projects under the requirements of the PMC and the VMS shall be native to the Puget Sound region. Please call out natives on the plant schedule for easy identification.
Correction 10:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Root barriers: Add city standards #01.02.07 and #01.02.03 to civil plans
Correction 11:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Bicycle Parking: a minimum of five bicycle spaces shall be provided. Such bicycle parking areas shall provide a secure facility (e.g., rack, posts) to which to lock bicycles and shall be located so as to be reasonably convenient to the on-site use and not interfere with pedestrian and automobile traffic.
Public Works Streets Review
VOID
09/28/2022
10/10/2022
Reviewer:
Fire Review
Approved
09/28/2022
09/28/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Please see Engineering review comments.
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
09/28/2022
09/22/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Provide the following for review for onsite work and Frontage improvements:
- Stamped Survey
- GeoTech Report
- Stormwater Report
- Construction SWPPP
Civil Plans Containing:
- Cover sheet
- Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
- Stormwater Plan
- Utility Plan
- Civil Construction details
- Landscape Plan with Utility Overlay (Note: this is not replacing the required Utility plan that goes with the Civil Plans)
- Other applicable civil related plans not listed.
See Ecology Manual and City of Puyallup Design Standards for Storm Report and stormwater plan requirements.
Correction 2:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Include on civil cover page, Cut/Fill quantities and existing and proposed disturbed area table. Provides existing/proposed hard surfaces.
Correction 3:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
The project is expanding the existing building by 3,100SF. Considering the project exceeds the new plus replaced hard surfaces threshold, the project will be required to draft up a Stormwater Drainage Report meeting Minimum Requirements 1-5 of the 2019 Ecology manual. Additionally, site specific geotechnical testing is necessary and shall include infiltration testing and groundwater monitoring during the wet season (December 21st - March 21st).
Correction 4:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Show stormwater mitigation for the expanded building.
Correction 5:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Include frontage improvements required via application B-21-0905:
As previously mentioned the city requires frontage improvements that are proportional to the scope of work. The city determined that the project will be required to re-locate the catch basin in the driveway of 5th St SE to be outside of the cross-walk and fix the pavement settling. Additionally, the northern ADA ramp along 5th St SE at this same location needs to be replaced due to cracking and slopes not meeting ADA compliancy.
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The narrative explaining each surface type and amount does not equate to the limits of disturbance. missing about 10,000 sf. Include a description of all surface types within the limits of disturbance [SSP, Page 3]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove extra period [SSP, Page 3]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
update asphalt area [SSP, Page 3]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
WSDOT Hydraulic Manual is not an approved modeling method. Use an approved method from the 2019 Ecology Manual for Western Washington. Examples are WWHM, MGS Flood, HSPF, or KCRTS. existing conditions are typically modeled as forested. [SSP, Page 4]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
It is true that the site will have a net reduction in hard surface area. However, the Ecology Manual uses new and replaced hard surface area to determine what requirements must be met. Revise narrative to explain how MR6-9 will be met. [SSP, Page 4]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Total new/replaced pollution generating surface exceeds 10,000 SF. Water quality measures are required for the new/replaced area or equivalent area. [SSP, Page 4]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
this number does not match the given number in the introduction for asphalt. [SSP, Page 4]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Infiltration testing required to find KSat. Use Section III-3.2 of the ECY Manual for guidance. [SSP, Page 4]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Basin map is not accurate based on GIS information. Use the city GIS to provide a detailed map of the downstream path up to 1/4 mile downstream. Call me if you have any questions regarding the information found in the GIS. [SSP, Page 5]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
In the 2019 Manual, The Minimum Requirement Thresholds for non-road related commercial or industrial redevelopment projects have been updated to require the project proponent to compare the value of the proposed improvements to the value of the Project Site (the limits of disturbance) improvements, rather than the Site (the entire parcel) improvements. This will result in the project being required to meet all minimum requirements for the new plus replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. [SSP, Page 9]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
MR 3 is not for construction SWPPP BMPs as this should be covered in the SWPPP. MR 3 is for operational source control BMPs that are permanent to the site, not during construction. See the ECY Manual for sites that require implementation of source control BMPs, and list all applicable BMPs in the narrative for MR 3 with an explanation of how they will be implemented. [SSP MR#3, Page 4]
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add this information about each SWPPP BMP to the SWPPP. [Civil Plans, Page 11]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
BMP T5.13 is feasible and shall be implemented in all converted and disturbed landscape areas. Base course shall be removed in landscaped areas. [SSP, Page 12]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide a discussion for each BMP that is determined to be infeasible. The site is adding enough landscaped area to potentially use bioretention. Use only the Ecology Manual's infeasibility criteria to cite infeasibility for each BMP. [SSP, Page 12]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The project exceeds more than 5,000 sf on new plus replaced PGHS. Therefore MR 6 is required. See Flow chart comments. [SSP, Page 12]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The project exceeds more than 10,000 sf on new plus replaced effective impervious surface. Therefore MR 7 is required. See Flow chart comments. [SSP, Page 13]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The project exceeds more than 5,000 sf on new plus replaced PGHS. Therefore MR 8 is required to be considered. See Flow chart comments. [SSP, Page 13]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update MR 9 as necessary after considering MR 6-7. [SSP, Page 13]
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update Soil stabilization dates per Section 501.5 for the COP Standards. [SWPPP, Page15]
Correction 25:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add parcel numbers to site and adjacent sites. [Civil Plans, CS0]
Correction 26:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add Construction Sequence. See COP Standards Section 501.6 for guidance. [Civil Plans, CS0]
Correction 27:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove other Limits of Disturbance Tables from the civil plans and keep this one. [Civil Plans, CS0]
Correction 28:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Existing = 34,626 when totaling areas in the table. Proposed = 34,646. Revise to ensure totals are consistent with total given [Civil Plans, CS0]
Correction 29:
See Document Markup
Comments:
sawcut extends to concrete section. consider revising limits or call this out. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 30:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Sawcut Leaves a small strip of asphalt. Consider revising limits. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 31:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Call out existing concrete pavement to remain. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 32:
See Document Markup
Comments:
remove or revise leader. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 33:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Call out SF of footprint for proposed building addition. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 34:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Combine notes 21 and 41Civil Notes, CS1
Correction 35:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add callout 38 here. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 36:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove proposed curb line from demo plan [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 37:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Will this canopy overhang remain? [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 38:
See Document Markup
Comments:
seal coat overlaps new pavement. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 39:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Proposed ramp improvements are required to be shown on site and demo plans. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 40:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise. The wing to this ramp was removed, but not put back.[Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 41:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise. The wing to this ramp was removed. adjust sawcut limits to include it.[Civil Plans, CS1]
Correction 42:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide bearing and dimensions for property boundary [Civil Plans, CS1A]
Correction 43:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Callout easement with type and dimensions [Civil Plans, CS1A]
Correction 44:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Call out the location that is used to set the location for your improvements.
Correction 45:
See Document Markup
Comments:
add dimension here [Civil Plans, CS1A]
Correction 46:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Horizontal control is required for proposed ADA ramp improvements at driveway. [ Civil Plans, CS1A]
Correction 47:
See Document Markup
Comments:
landings are 2% max in all directions.[Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 48:
See Document Markup
Comments:
show min 2% cross slope for curb and gutter detail. [Civil Plans, CS3]
Correction 49:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The proposed ramp detail is too vague. Design using existing and propose spot elevations spot elevations. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 50:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise. The wing to this ramp was removed,show spot elevations for its replacement. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 51:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This appears to be a swale. Please clarify[Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 52:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Existing and proposed rim/inverts needed for any storm catch basin involved in this scope. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 53:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Exact slope, material, and inverts required for all pipes involved in this scope. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 54:
See Document Markup
Comments:
show all existing utilities on Plans. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 55:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include City Standard Stormwater Notes per COP Standard Section 207. [Civil Plans, CS4]
Correction 56:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove all Limits of disturbance tables except for on the cover page. [Civil Plans, CS5, CS6]
Correction 57:
See Document Markup
Comments:
show all existing utilities on Plans. [Civil Plans, CS5]
Correction 58:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include COP Standard Grading, Erosion, and Sedimentation Control Notes from COP Standards Section 505. [Civil Plans, CS5]
Correction 59:
See Document Markup
Comments:
show all existing utilities on Plans. [Civil Plans, CS6]
Correction 60:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise leader 13 location. [Civil Plans, CS7]
Correction 61:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Revise leader 14 location. [Civil Plans, CS7]
Correction 62:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show existing sewer line. [Civil Plans, CS7]
Correction 63:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Use the table provided in docs and Images as a guide to tabulate existing and proposed surfaces. Add a copy to the SSP and attach one on the cover page (CS0) of the Civil Plans. Call me if you have trouble finding it. [SSP, Page 3]
Correction 64:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The number on C1 is 200,364. Confirm which is correct. [Civil Plans, CS1]
Engineering Traffic Review
Failed
09/28/2022
09/22/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Include traffic scoping worksheet
As previously mentioned the city requires frontage improvements that are proportional to the scope of work. The city determined that the project will be required to re-locate the catch basin in the driveway of 5th St SE to be outside of the cross-walk and fix the pavement settling. Additionally, the northern ADA ramp along 5th St SE at this same location needs to be replaced due to cracking and slopes not meeting ADA compliance. See Email in documents and images on CityView for reference location imagery.
Submit an updated truck auto-turn analysis. The image of the existing ramp to be replaced exhibits evidence of tire tread marks driving over it which is the potential cause for the cracking.
Update Cross walk marking to ADA and City of Puyallup standards.
Correction 2:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Existing cross walk does not look to be addressed on the Site Plan and Grading Plan.
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Is this the only truck route? Will trucks be entering from the north? [Truck turn]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The truck path appears to touch the face of curb. consider moving the ramp further north to avoid further collision with the ramp. [Truck Turn]
Public Works Water Review
VOID
09/28/2022
09/22/2022
Reviewer:
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
09/28/2022
09/19/2022
Reviewer:
Public Works Streets Review
VOID
07/11/2022
07/26/2022
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Failed
07/11/2022
07/15/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Planning Approved the site plan for associated addition and revised parking lot and landscaping area for building permit B-21-0905. However, the landscaping plan shown in B-21-0905 is not the plan that is shown on this civil plan.
Fire Review
Failed
07/11/2022
07/08/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Please see Engineering review comments.
Engineering Traffic Review
Failed
07/11/2022
06/13/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Include traffic scoping worksheet
As previously mentioned the city requires frontage improvements that are proportional to the scope of work. The city determined that the project will be required to re-locate the catch basin in the driveway of 5th St SE to be outside of the cross-walk and fix the pavement settling. Additionally, the northern ADA ramp along 5th St SE at this same location needs to be replaced due to cracking and slopes not meeting ADA compliance. See Email in documents and images on CityView for reference location imagery.
Submit an updated truck auto-turn analysis. The image of the existing ramp to be replaced exhibits evidence of tire tread marks driving over it which is the potential cause for the cracking.
Update Cross walk marking to ADA and City of Puyallup standards.
Correction 2:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Existing cross walk does not look to be addressed on the Site Plan and Grading Plan.
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
07/11/2022
06/13/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Provide the following for review for onsite work and Frontage improvements:
- Stamped Survey
- GeoTech Report
- Stormwater Report
- Construction SWPPP
Civil Plans Containing:
- Cover sheet
- Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
- Stormwater Plan
- Utility Plan
- Civil Construction details
- Landscape Plan with Utility Overlay (Note: this is not replacing the required Utility plan that goes with the Civil Plans)
- Other applicable civil related plans not listed.
See Ecology Manual and City of Puyallup Design Standards for Storm Report and stormwater plan requirements.
Correction 2:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Include on civil cover page, Cut/Fill quantities and existing and proposed disturbed area table. Provides existing/proposed hard surfaces.
Correction 3:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
The project is expanding the existing building by 3,100SF. Considering the project exceeds the new plus replaced hard surfaces threshold, the project will be required to draft up a Stormwater Drainage Report meeting Minimum Requirements 1-5 of the 2019 Ecology manual. Additionally, site specific geotechnical testing is necessary and shall include infiltration testing and groundwater monitoring during the wet season (December 21st - March 21st).
Correction 4:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Show stormwater mitigation for the expanded building.
Correction 5:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Include frontage improvements required via application B-21-0905:
As previously mentioned the city requires frontage improvements that are proportional to the scope of work. The city determined that the project will be required to re-locate the catch basin in the driveway of 5th St SE to be outside of the cross-walk and fix the pavement settling. Additionally, the northern ADA ramp along 5th St SE at this same location needs to be replaced due to cracking and slopes not meeting ADA compliancy.
Public Works Water Review
VOID
07/11/2022
06/10/2022
Reviewer:
Public Works Collection Review
Approved
07/11/2022
06/09/2022
Reviewer: