| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
Planning Review
|
Approved
|
05/18/2023
|
04/20/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Civil Review
|
Approved
|
05/18/2023
|
04/20/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional review tab for permit approval. The permit had to be rolled back.
|
|
Engineering Review
|
VOID
|
05/18/2023
|
04/20/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
VOID
|
05/12/2023
|
04/18/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
THIS REVIEW IS A PLACEHOLDER TO ENSURE THE APPLICATION ISN'T SET BACK. THE WATER DEPARTMENT HAS A SINGLE COMMENT TO MOVE THE IRRIGATION METER TO ITS EXISTING CONDITION. WILL FIERST TO EMAIL ME THE SLIP SHEET 4/17/23
|
|
Public Works Water Review
|
Approved
|
04/19/2023
|
04/18/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS-combined Sheet L3.1: Maintain a 3-foot clear zone around fire hydrant, water meter and DCVA boxes. No trees within 10-feet of water features.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS Sheet L3.2 Provide a 3-foot clear zone around fire hydrant, water meter, DCVA, PIV, and FDC
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS Sheet L4.2: According to Record Drawings the 2-inch water meter located 1-foot, 6-inches east of fire hydrant and 4-foot, 9-inches south of fire hydrant is for the buildings domestic water use. The 1-inch irrigation meter is located 38-foot west of fire hydrant and 5-foot, 4-inches south of fire hydrant.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS Sheet C3.1: The existing water main is 8-inch ductile iron not 12-inch as called out.
|
|
|
Landscaping Req.: General (VMS)
No landscape plans were submitted.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
20230320 - PC PUYALLUP PARKING - LANDSCAPE Sheet L4.2: The location of the irrigation meter needs to be moved to the south where it says EXISTING WATER METER.
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Approved
|
04/19/2023
|
04/17/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Streets Review
|
VOID
|
04/19/2023
|
04/13/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Approved
|
04/19/2023
|
03/28/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Modify landscaping design as needed to meet sight distance standards
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Sheet L3.3 - As previously directed, remove conifer tree from planting area C.
|
|
|
AH approved on BR's behalf. Spoke 3.28.23
|
|
Engineering Civil Review
|
Approved
|
04/19/2023
|
03/28/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the city an easement against the title to review for the preserved dispersion flow path area. This will be required prior to permit issuance. [civils, pg 13]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The basin size for parking lot A does not match the basin maps EX-A2.1 and EX-A4.1. The basin area is defined as 1.85 acres in the exhibit and 1.33 acres for the WWHM calculation.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Previously, the area from the east outfalled from the existing pond and dispersed into the landscape of this area. How much water is expected to be bypassed to College Way into Wildwood Creek? This additional water needs to be discussed/mitigated in the stormwater report. Be sure to include this area in the flow control analysis. [civils, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The bottom 4' of the flow control manhole is dead storage. The datum of the structure for the WWHM calculation is the invert elevation of the outlet pipe. Revise the location of the orifice 1 for both control structures to be above the outlet pipe 0.5' in a location that a 0.75" diameter orifice can be constructed. [civils, pg 19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the runoff treatment selection flow chart [drainage report, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Indicate the wetland letters on this map. [Drainage report, pg 31]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per the critical area report, it does not appear that Wetland B potrudes into the proposed project parking lot limits. Additionally, per section I-2.4.2 Redevelopment, it does not appear that wetland protection allows for a wetland basin exchange. The intent of the Ecology manual is to maintain the hydroperiod of the existing wetland. What is the intent with the basin exchange if still proposed? [drainage report, pg 26]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The requirements for MR 8 apply to projects whose stormwater discharges into a wetland, directly or indirectly through a conveyance system. Provide a hydroperiod analysis for the existing wetland at the NW corner of the property (off-site wetland) for parking lot A. The Ecology manual requires a 1 mile off-site analysis (Section I-3.5.3). Additionally, provide a hydroperiod analysis for the wetland in the SE corner of the site that parking lot B and C drain to. [drainage report, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Discuss the off-site wetland just NW of the lot within this offsite analysis section. [drainage report, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include the pond area being picked up from the east in this capacity analysis. [drainage report, pg 180]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The applicant shall contact Williams Gas' Matthew Kautzman at matt.kautzman@williams.com or (253) 377-6146 to schedule a survey of the gas pipeline easement before construction is initiated. Matthew may need access to neighbors' property to complete the survey. The applicant shall submit a copy of Matthew's survey for the pipe and paving approval within the easement to the City before proceeding. [civils, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
text overlap [civils, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
4/C4.3 is the detention pipe access riser detail. Revise they keynote to the correct detail [civils, pg 21]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
City standards require a minimum 8" pipe diameter for lateral pipes. Provide a capacity analysis or upsize the pipe to 8" [civils, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove this parking stall to allow for full access (remove turn arrow). See sight distance exhibit [civils, pg 15]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include updated landscape plans during the next submittal. [civils, pg 1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This appears to be a typo and should be 527.90 for the orifice 1 elevation. Contractor should coordinate with the Design Engineer at the time of the installation to ensure the correct elevation.
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Collection Review
|
Approved
|
04/19/2023
|
03/27/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Failed
|
04/19/2023
|
03/23/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
The project wetland biologist needs to provide updated GIS data layer. Please use the "COP GIS Wetland Update Request Form" document attached in documents and images tab and return to cbeale@puyallupwa.gov.
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Streets Review
|
VOID
|
03/08/2023
|
03/09/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Failed
|
03/08/2023
|
03/09/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Access shall meet AASHTO standards for ESD (280ft @ 25mph). Modify parking spots accordingly. AASHTO is the industry standard for roadway/intersection geometric design & best practices. Remove parking spaces as needed to meet sight distance standards.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Access shall meet AASHTO standards for ESD (280ft @ 25mph). Modify parking spots accordingly. AASHTO is the industry standard for roadway/intersection geometric design & best practices. Remove parking spaces as needed to meet sight distance standards.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Geometry must meet AASHTO SSD standards for approaching vehicles. Assume 25mph design speed (155ft). AASHTO is the industry standard for roadway/intersection geometric design & best practices
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Modify landscaping design as needed to meet sight distance standards
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Sheet SD2 & SD3 - Entering sight distance standards are not met at either driveway location. Parked vehicles and adjacent exiting vehicles will obstruct clear sight lines. Design needs to consolidate driveways and remove parking stalls near driveway.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Sheet SD4 - stopping sight distance analysis is not accurate at this location. -9% downgrade will result in a 130ft SSD requirement @ 20mph. Remove parking parking stalls as-needed to meet SSD requirements. SSD standards must be met throughout entire vehicle movement (not just a single static location on the curve).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Sheet L3.3 - As previously directed, remove conifer tree from planting area C.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Recommend design team reviews current best practice for marked crosswalks (HVC markings, signage, lighting, sight distance, etc.).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
For two-way traffic, the centerline needs to be yellow. College needs a near-term plan to remove white CL striping throughout campus to avoid confusion.
|
|
|
AH failed on BR's behalf per in person meeting. [3/9/23]
|
|
Fire Review
|
Approved
|
03/08/2023
|
03/08/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. Provide Fire Lane / No Parking Signage sheet with details. Any area that a vehicle can park that is not designated as an approved parking spot will be required to have painted curb / stenciled and No Parking signage.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Civil Review
|
Failed
|
03/08/2023
|
03/08/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide contour elevations for the bioretention facilities. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What material is this backfill? Provide drainage piping behind the wall. [civils, pg 17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include the IE for the proposed connection to the detention system? It appears to be 510.34 based on 6/C4.4. [civils, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the utilitity crossings for the electrical line and communications. [civils, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Should CB 112 be a vaned grate lid to collect stormwater? What is the purpose of this catch basin? [civils, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Text overlap. [civils, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The orifice 1 elevation and WWHM calculation do not match. The orifice 1 elevation for CB 102 is 0.5' where as the detail shows 24 inches. CB 200 for parking lot B has the same issue, revise accordingly. [civils, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This dimension of the detention system is missing. [civils, pg 19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why is 1.33 acres used for the total basin size rather than the amounts shown in EX-A4.2? [drainage report, pg 69]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The 2nd material layer in the bioretention cell detail A is 1' rather than the 1.5' as defined in the WWHM modeling. Revise accordingly [drainage report, pg 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include CB rim and bottom elevation for CB-200 and CB 102 within this table. There isn't a method to verify the elevation in the WWHM calc to the detail provided as no vertical datum is provided. [civils, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the bottom area square footage for the bioretention cell. [civils. pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Update overbuild exist printout. [civils, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Text overlap. [civils, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Detail 3/C4.3 states a 36" outlet pipe will be installed rather than a 12". Revise accordingly. [civils, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1/C4.5 references a beehive grate which will impede a car being able to park in this stall, revise to a vaned grate per 2/C4.1 [civils, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include city standard 02.07.03 Bioretention overflow outlet structure [civils, pg 20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This detail is missing the incoming storm pipe that is collecting the stormwater for parking lot C. [civils, pg 20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the required surface area calculated by the WWHM calculation for the bottom of the bioretention system on this sheet or the associated detail. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show the 100' flow path for the dispersion trench and the preserved tract [civils, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add a note for the project CESCL to ensure that dirty/silty water isn't discharged from the pond. [civils, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The 300 SQ FT bottom area doesn't appear to match detail 2/C4.5. The bioretention length is 250' and the bottom width is 1'. It appears this value may be representing the bioretention area on this sheet and sheet 10. The 300 SQ FT bottom width on the plan view does not appear to match the WWHM calculation sizing. [civils, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The WWHM calculation shows the bottom width of the bioretention is 1.5' rather than 1'. Revise accordingly. [civils, pg 20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the required size of the bioretention treatment system based on the WWHM calculation. [civils, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note to have the contractor clearly mark the preserved dispersion flow path area during construction. [civils, pg 6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an easement for the protection of the preserved area for full dispersion [civils, pg 12].
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The geotech report and the proposed Lot B detention pipes appear to conflict. The Geotech assumes groundwater elevation to be at 534' (NAVD 88), whereas the invert elevation proposed is 527.40'. Add to the notes how the contractor should deal with buoyancy effects of the detention pipes. [civils, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What category is the wetland that the project is discharging to? [drainage report, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include Figure I-3.5 Flow chart for determining wetland protection level requirements. [drainage report, pg 43]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What is this representing? Remove if not necessary to this sheet [civils, pg 14]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a footing drain behind the proposed wall [civils, pg 17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Update overbuild exist printout. [civils, pg 12
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the city an easement against the title to review for the preserved dispersion flow path area. This will be required prior to permit issuance. [civils, pg 13]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Make a note to have connect the footing drain to the bioretention cell. [civils, pg 20]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The basin size for parking lot A does not match the basin maps EX-A2.1 and EX-A4.1. The basin area is defined as 1.85 acres in the exhibit and 1.33 acres for the WWHM calculation.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Previously, the area from the east outfalled from the existing pond and dispersed into the landscape of this area. How much water is expected to be bypassed to College Way into Wildwood Creek? This additional water needs to be discussed/mitigated in the stormwater report. Be sure to include this area in the flow control analysis. [civils, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The bottom 4' of the flow control manhole is dead storage. The datum of the structure for the WWHM calculation is the invert elevation of the outlet pipe. Revise the location of the orifice 1 for both control structures to be above the outlet pipe 0.5' in a location that a 0.75" diameter orifice can be constructed. [civils, pg 19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include city standard detail 02.01.04 [civils, pg 17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the runoff treatment selection flow chart [drainage report, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Indicate the wetland letters on this map. [Drainage report, pg 31]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per the critical area report, it does not appear that Wetland B potrudes into the proposed project parking lot limits. Additionally, per section I-2.4.2 Redevelopment, it does not appear that wetland protection allows for a wetland basin exchange. The intent of the Ecology manual is to maintain the hydroperiod of the existing wetland. What is the intent with the basin exchange if still proposed? [drainage report, pg 26]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include and fill out flow chart V-2.1.1 Treatment Facility Selection Flow Chart. [civils, pg 43]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The requirements for MR 8 apply to projects whose stormwater discharges into a wetland, directly or indirectly through a conveyance system. Provide a hydroperiod analysis for the existing wetland at the NW corner of the property (off-site wetland) for parking lot A. The Ecology manual requires a 1 mile off-site analysis (Section I-3.5.3). Additionally, provide a hydroperiod analysis for the wetland in the SE corner of the site that parking lot B and C drain to. [drainage report, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Discuss the off-site wetland just NW of the lot within this offsite analysis section. [drainage report, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include the pond area being picked up from the east in this capacity analysis. [drainage report, pg 180]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The applicant shall contact Williams Gas' Matthew Kautzman at matt.kautzman@williams.com or (253) 377-6146 to schedule a survey of the gas pipeline easement before construction is initiated. Matthew may need access to neighbors' property to complete the survey. The applicant shall submit a copy of Matthew's survey for the pipe and paving approval within the easement to the City before proceeding. [civils, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
text overlap [civils, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
4/C4.3 is the detention pipe access riser detail. Revise they keynote to the correct detail [civils, pg 21]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
City standards require a minimum 8" pipe diameter for lateral pipes. Provide a capacity analysis or upsize the pipe to 8" [civils, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
City standards require a minimum 8" pipe diameter for lateral pipes. Provide a capacity analysis or upsize conveyance pipe to 8" [civils, pg 13]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove this parking stall to allow for full access (remove turn arrow). See sight distance exhibit [civils, pg 15]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include updated landscape plans during the next submittal. [civils, pg 1]
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Water Review
|
Failed
|
03/08/2023
|
03/01/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS-combined Sheet L3.1: Maintain a 3-foot clear zone around fire hydrant, water meter and DCVA boxes. No trees within 10-feet of water features.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS Sheet L3.2 Provide a 3-foot clear zone around fire hydrant, water meter, DCVA, PIV, and FDC
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS Sheet L4.2: According to Record Drawings the 2-inch water meter located 1-foot, 6-inches east of fire hydrant and 4-foot, 9-inches south of fire hydrant is for the buildings domestic water use. The 1-inch irrigation meter is located 38-foot west of fire hydrant and 5-foot, 4-inches south of fire hydrant.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS Sheet C3.1: The existing water main is 8-inch ductile iron not 12-inch as called out.
|
|
|
Landscaping Req.: General (VMS)
No landscape plans were submitted.
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Approved
|
03/08/2023
|
02/22/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Tree protection and removal plan needs companion arborist report. [sheet L1.0-1.2]
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Collection Review
|
Approved
|
03/08/2023
|
02/14/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Failed
|
12/04/2022
|
12/28/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The gate need to be be fully retrorefectorized on both sides with vertical stripes alternately red and white at 16-inch intervals measured horizontally. This guidance comes directly from the MUTCD (Section 2B.68).
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Access shall meet AASHTO standards for ESD (280ft @ 25mph). Modify parking spots accordingly. AASHTO is the industry standard for roadway/intersection geometric design & best practices. Remove parking spaces as needed to meet sight distance standards.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
parking spaces should be setback farther from the roadway to accommodate future pedestrian path/sidewalk.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an AutoTurn analysis for the largest anticipated design vehicle
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Access shall meet AASHTO standards for ESD (280ft @ 25mph). Modify parking spots accordingly. AASHTO is the industry standard for roadway/intersection geometric design & best practices. Remove parking spaces as needed to meet sight distance standards.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Access shall meet AASHTO standards for ESD (280ft @ 25mph). Modify parking spots accordingly. AASHTO is the industry standard for roadway/intersection geometric design & best practices. Remove parking spaces as needed to meet sight distance standards.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an AutoTurn analysis for the largest anticipated design vehicle
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Geometry must meet AASHTO SSD standards for approaching vehicles. Assume 25mph design speed (155ft). AASHTO is the industry standard for roadway/intersection geometric design & best practices
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Modify landscaping design as needed to meet sight distance standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Modify landscaping design as needed to meet sight distance standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Modify landscaping design as needed to meet sight distance standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Modify landscaping design as needed to meet sight distance standards
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Sheet SD2 & SD3 - Entering sight distance standards are not met at either driveway location. Parked vehicles and adjacent exiting vehicles will obstruct clear sight lines. Design needs to consolidate driveways and remove parking stalls near driveway.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Sheet SD4 - stopping sight distance analysis is not accurate at this location. -9% downgrade will result in a 130ft SSD requirement @ 20mph. Remove parking parking stalls as-needed to meet SSD requirements. SSD standards must be met throughout entire vehicle movement (not just a single static location on the curve).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Sheet L3.3 - As previously directed, remove conifer tree from planting area C.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Recommend design team reviews current best practice for marked crosswalks (HVC markings, signage, lighting, sight distance, etc.).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
For two-way traffic, the centerline needs to be yellow. College needs a near-term plan to remove white CL striping throughout campus to avoid confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Civil Review
|
Failed
|
12/04/2022
|
12/13/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the proposed cut/fill amounts in cubic yards. [civils, pg 2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clearly show where the work on this sheet is on the site. [civil plans, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove items from the legend that are not shown on this [civil plans, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Is this an existing or proposed storm line or is this the drainage swale and the legend is missing this info? [civil plans, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clearly show where this area is on a vicinity map [civil plans, pg 4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
typo [civil plans, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show where this location is on a vicinity map, it is not clear where this work is being conducted on the site. [civil plans, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add this linetype to the legend [civil plans, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include a section discussing the temporary stormwater mitigation while the project is under construction. [drainage report, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the diameter, slope and size for the proposed drain line [civils plans, pg 4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The swale and drain line appear to intersect. How will this be constructed? [civil plans, pg 4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add existing utilities to the legend on this sheet [civil plans, pg 4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show grading on this sheet showing that the area will be directed to the temporary sediment pond. Existing conditions show the land would collect/pond in this area [civil plans, pg 4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a minimum 1.5' tall berm [civil plans, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a note that the max slope of the swale is 5% [civil plans, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a design calculation for the proposed temporary sediment pond with storage equal to a 100-year/24-hour storm event. [civil plans, pg 4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Proposed drainage pipe? Add to legend, include pipe diameter, slope, cover and material. [civil plans, pg 5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Replace with city standard 02.03.02 [civil plans, pg 7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show were the check dams are proposed on the site. [civil plans, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Typo [civils, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
remove if not proposed to avoid confusion [civil plans, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Reference 1/C4.1 and 2/C4.2 [civil plans, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
CPEP pipe doesn't meet current city standards. What is the pipe manufacturer's minimum pipe cover allowance? Is there curb/gutter along this roadway such that a vehicle will likely never drive over this pipe? [civil plans, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include city standard 02.01.01 Storm Sewer Manhole or 02.01.04 catch basin type II [civil plans, pg 16]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide storm pipe diameter, material, slope and cover [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Reference the detail and page number for the type 2 CB [civil plans, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the prevoius work in this vicinity as part of the re-submittal package that proves the seasonal high groundwater in this area will not reduce capacity of the NW detention pond. [drainage report, pg 159]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Was groundwater continously monitored for TP-2 between December 21st and March 21st? [Drainage report, pg 172]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add hatch to legend [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How is stormwater being collected and filtered through the bioretention cell? Provide catch basins and pipes to the bioretention media to avoid ponding in the parking lot [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Reference this will be and gutter and provide a detail [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide fencing around the pond per Ecology's requirements provide a detail on a separate sheet [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add the access hatch road to the legend. Provide a detail for the access road. [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Silt fence? When is this to be removed? [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The pre-developed basin map for parking lot A states the pre-developed basin is 1.86 acres, whereas the proposed basin area states 1.92 acres. Please address this discrepancy [Drainage Report, pg 21]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide bottom width per WWHM calculation sizing [civil plans, pg 20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note to scarify the sub-grade a minimum 3in before placing the Bioretention soil [civil plans, pg 20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It appears the last page of the WWHM report speaking to the treatment passing for MR 6 is missing from the continuous modeling calculation. Generally this speaks to online and offline flows. [drainage plans, pg 67]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
To meet the full dispersion requirement for list #2 which portion(s) of the site will be retained in a tract to protect at least 65% of the site. Include more informaition within the drainage report [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It does not appear that BMP T5.11 is proposed nor met per the Ecology manual. This BMP requires a berm or drain for every 700SF of area sent to a singular vegetated flow path. The site plan shows the new parking area sheet flowing to catch basins within the road which is being discharged to a singlular dispersion trench/vegetated flow path. Update the site plan and context of the drainage report (page 9 in the SSP) accordingly. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Replace the shear gate with a removable gasketed plug per CS 02.01.07 [civil plans, pg 19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This reference is now show on sheet C2.4. Revise accordingly. [civil plans, pg 19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The northern section of the parking lot is not being treated. Add an additional treatment BMP for this section or revise the design. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
A single bio-retention detail is being used for multiple locations on the plans. Provide specific information on those sheets rather than referencing this detail or provide a separate detail for each specific bio-retention cell proposed. [civil plans, pg 20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It's too busy to read the bio-retention information here. Provide a screenshot of this at a smaller scale. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This pipe is designed at a .36% slope. City standard minimum is 0.5% [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The bioretention IE for the inlet does not match plans vs the storm structure table. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How come this isn't being placed to collect water? The minimum pipe cover on CPEP is 3ft. Revise accordingly [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe crossing information [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add hatching to the legend. Reference 2/C4.2 assuming this will be asphalt. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The size of the pre-developed and post-developed basins for parking lot C do not match. Revise accordingly [civil plans, pg 23]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Modeling for slopes 5-15% are considered moderate. [drainage report, pg 107]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The mitigation techniques proposed contradict each other. The first paragraph mentions sheet flow dispersion will be used whereas the second paragraph references a dispersion trench. The site plan shows a dispersion trench proposed. Update this section to be clear as to what is proposed. [drainage report, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add various hatch types to the legend. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a storm conveyance system within the parking lot to catch and detain the stormwater runoff to the bioretention system. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on sheet C4.5 regarding bioretention detail [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide/reference a detail for the proposed wall. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide contour elevations for the bioretention facilities. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It would be helpful to have these in numerical order rather than randomly mixed together [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide existing and proposed roadway widening impervious surfaces on this sheet. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include the note from the Geotech report regarding the parking lot C dispersion area. It is recommended this area be inspected yearly, during the rain season after heavy precipitation event to evaluate if maintenance is necessary. Also add the Geotech's ersosion control fixes to this note. [drainage report, pg 302]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What does OVERBUILD EXIST mean? CPEP pipe requires a minimum 3' of cover. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It does not appear that CB 201 should be a type 2 catch basin based on the Rim and pipe depth being less than 5 feet. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add the assess riser symbol to the legend. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a profile view showing the detention pipes. Provide the elevations of the top of the pipe showing a minimum 18" of cover. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It does not appear that the flow control manhole is shown on this sheet. Provide the flow control manhole sized per the WWHM Calculations [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The WWHM calculation states Orifice 1 is at 0.5 feet elevation, this conflicts with this details states a minimum 2 feet to the bottom of the tee. Provide this orifice elevation as letter "K" [civil plans, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
12" per the storm structure table on sheet C2.3. [civil plans, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a removable gasketed end plug per city standards [civil plans, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The elevations provided on the plans for the flow control manhole do not match the flow control modeling WWHM calculation. [civil plans, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
During the next submission, ensure the CSWPP does not have track changes on. [CSWPP, pg 6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Explain the proposed temporary sediment pond and how this project will be not increasing speed or volume of stormwater discharges from the site during construction. [CSWPPP, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Speak to how the project will be protecting the slopes during construction of parking lot C and the dispersion trench on the slope. [CSWPPP, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Update these times per Element 5 of the Ecology Manual [CSWPP, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The geotech report speaks to the potential of perched groundwater. Have a relative plan as to how de-watering would occur if encountered. [CSWPPP, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Are there any structures west of this area that will be affected by the re-grading of this area due to any stormwater runoff? [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide permanent fencing around the pond per Ecology's standards. Reference and provide a detail for this fence. [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Illegible [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Where does the protection come into place? This appears to be a detail for for the pipe outfall. The outfall pipe is at a 0% slope on the plans, whereas the detail shows it at a sloped rate. Provide clarity [civil plans, pg 17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide calculations per design standard 204.1 [drainage report, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per city records the storm pipe in College Way is 24" [drainage report, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Figure I-2.4.2, the treatment requirement applies to all new hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas. Provide treatment for the easterly portion of the Parking C lot. [drainage plans, pg 13]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Make note that parking lot 1 has the worst case scenario (largest area leading to a pipe conveyance system). [drainage report, pg 139]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a drain for the proposed keystone wall. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Minimum Requirement #6 of the Ecology Manual, the size of the stormwater treatment facility shall be for the entire area that drains to the, even if some of those areas are not pollution-generating. [drainage report, 106]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a drain for the wall. [civil plans, pg 19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show the proposed overflow structures within the bioretention detail. [civil plans, pg 20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What material is this backfill? Provide drainage piping behind the wall. [civils, pg 17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How will the stormwater sheet flow to the bioretention cells? I see that the parking lot is sloped to the south, but there appears to be a vertical curb along the south side which will inhibit water. Are curb cuts proposed? [civils, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How will the stormwater sheet flow to the bioretention cells? I see that the parking lot is sloped to the north, but there appears to be a vertical curb along which will inhibit water from making it into the bioretention system. Are curb cuts proposed? [civils, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include the IE for the proposed connection to the detention system? It appears to be 510.34 based on 6/C4.4. [civils, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the utilitity crossings for the electrical line and communications. [civils, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Should CB 112 be a vaned grate lid to collect stormwater? What is the purpose of this catch basin? [civils, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Text overlap. [civils, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The orifice 1 elevation and WWHM calculation do not match. The orifice 1 elevation for CB 102 is 0.5' where as the detail shows 24 inches. CB 200 for parking lot B has the same issue, revise accordingly. [civils, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This dimension of the detention system is missing. [civils, pg 19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why is 1.33 acres used for the total basin size rather than the amounts shown in EX-A4.2? [drainage report, pg 69]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The 2nd material layer in the bioretention cell detail A is 1' rather than the 1.5' as defined in the WWHM modeling. Revise accordingly [drainage report, pg 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include CB rim and bottom elevation for CB-200 and CB 102 within this table. There isn't a method to verify the elevation in the WWHM calc to the detail provided as no vertical datum is provided. [civils, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the bottom area square footage for the bioretention cell. [civils. pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Indicate that CB 200 is a flow control manhole. [civils, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Update overbuild exist printout. [civils, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Text overlap. [civils, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Detail 3/C4.3 states a 36" outlet pipe will be installed rather than a 12". Revise accordingly. [civils, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1/C4.5 references a beehive grate which will impede a car being able to park in this stall, revise to a vaned grate per 2/C4.1 [civils, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include city standard 02.07.03 Bioretention overflow outlet structure [civils, pg 20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This detail is missing the incoming storm pipe that is collecting the stormwater for parking lot C. [civils, pg 20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the required surface area calculated by the WWHM calculation for the bottom of the bioretention system on this sheet or the associated detail. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show the 100' flow path for the dispersion trench and the preserved tract [civils, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add a note for the project CESCL to ensure that dirty/silty water isn't discharged from the pond. [civils, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The 300 SQ FT bottom area doesn't appear to match detail 2/C4.5. The bioretention length is 250' and the bottom width is 1'. It appears this value may be representing the bioretention area on this sheet and sheet 10. The 300 SQ FT bottom width on the plan view does not appear to match the WWHM calculation sizing. [civils, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note that states if groundwater is encountered, the contractor will be required to follow the manufacturer recommendations for mitigating buoyancy effects. [civils, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The WWHM calculation shows the bottom width of the bioretention is 1.5' rather than 1'. Revise accordingly. [civils, pg 20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the required size of the bioretention treatment system based on the WWHM calculation. [civils, pg 11]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note to have the contractor clearly mark the preserved dispersion flow path area during construction. [civils, pg 6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an easement for the protection of the preserved area for full dispersion [civils, pg 12].
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The geotech report and the proposed Lot B detention pipes appear to conflict. The Geotech assumes groundwater elevation to be at 534' (NAVD 88), whereas the invert elevation proposed is 527.40'. Add to the notes how the contractor should deal with buoyancy effects of the detention pipes. [civils, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What category is the wetland that the project is discharging to? [drainage report, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include Figure I-3.5 Flow chart for determining wetland protection level requirements. [drainage report, pg 43]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What is this representing? Remove if not necessary to this sheet [civils, pg 14]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a footing drain behind the proposed wall [civils, pg 17]
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Streets Review
|
VOID
|
12/04/2022
|
12/12/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Failed
|
12/04/2022
|
12/07/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. Provide Fire Lane / No Parking Signage sheet with details. Any area that a vehicle can park that is not designated as an approved parking spot will be required to have painted curb / stenciled and No Parking signage.
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Water Review
|
Failed
|
12/04/2022
|
11/23/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS-combined Sheet C1.2: This valve is for a water blow-off located 28.5-feet to the south. Protect this existing utility.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS-combined Sheet C3.1: Adjust water blow-off box to grade.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS-combined Sheet L3.0: If water blow-off box sits in planting area, provide 3-foot clear zone around box.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS-combined Sheet L3.1: Maintain a 3-foot clear zone around fire hydrant, water meter and DCVA boxes. No trees within 10-feet of water features.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS Sheet L3.2 Provide a 3-foot clear zone around fire hydrant, water meter, DCVA, PIV, and FDC
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS Sheet L4.2: According to Record Drawings the 2-inch water meter located 1-foot, 6-inches east of fire hydrant and 4-foot, 9-inches south of fire hydrant is for the buildings domestic water use. The 1-inch irrigation meter is located 38-foot west of fire hydrant and 5-foot, 4-inches south of fire hydrant.
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Collection Review
|
Approved
|
12/04/2022
|
11/17/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The CoP stormwater notes are not current; refer to engineering standards on website for the most updated version. [PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS combined - sheet 4.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The stormwater facility sign standard is for use with publicly owned/maintained facilities. [PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS combined - sheet 4.1]
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Approved
|
12/04/2022
|
11/16/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Tree protection and removal plan needs companion arborist report. [sheet L1.0-1.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provider spec and manufacturer installation detail for all structural soil cells [sheet L2.0-2.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
All landscape islands must contain large canopy (50'+) trees from the city's VMS type I street tree list. NW is a small to medium tree [sheet L3.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
All storm ponds must be landscaped in accordance with SLD-02 design requirements from city VMS manual (section 14.5) [sheet L3.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
There is a SD pipe shown on sheet C2.1 - space trees offset to 10 ft or adjust SD pipe on sheet C2.1 [sheet L3.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
All landscape islands must contain large canopy (50'+) trees from the city's VMS type I street tree list. PV is a small to medium tree [sheet L3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
SD drain pipe under this tree - space to meet 10 ft offset or adjust SD pipe on sheet 2.4 [sheet L3.2]
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Wetland report is being peer reviewed by city's on call wetlands consultant. Report will be sent under a separate cover.
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Applicant needs to supply an arborist report for all significant trees.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Civil Review
|
Failed
|
03/26/2022
|
05/09/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the proposed cut/fill amounts in cubic yards. [civils, pg 2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clearly show where the work on this sheet is on the site. [civil plans, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove items from the legend that are not shown on this [civil plans, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Is this an existing or proposed storm line or is this the drainage swale and the legend is missing this info? [civil plans, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clearly show where this area is on a vicinity map [civil plans, pg 4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
typo [civil plans, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show where this location is on a vicinity map, it is not clear where this work is being conducted on the site. [civil plans, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add this linetype to the legend [civil plans, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include a section discussing the temporary stormwater mitigation while the project is under construction. [drainage report, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the diameter, slope and size for the proposed drain line [civils plans, pg 4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The swale and drain line appear to intersect. How will this be constructed? [civil plans, pg 4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add existing utilities to the legend on this sheet [civil plans, pg 4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show grading on this sheet showing that the area will be directed to the temporary sediment pond. Existing conditions show the land would collect/pond in this area [civil plans, pg 4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a minimum 1.5' tall berm [civil plans, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a note that the max slope of the swale is 5% [civil plans, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a design calculation for the proposed temporary sediment pond with storage equal to a 100-year/24-hour storm event. [civil plans, pg 4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Proposed drainage pipe? Add to legend, include pipe diameter, slope, cover and material. [civil plans, pg 5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Replace with city standard 02.03.02 [civil plans, pg 7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show were the check dams are proposed on the site. [civil plans, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Typo [civils, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
remove if not proposed to avoid confusion [civil plans, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Reference 1/C4.1 and 2/C4.2 [civil plans, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
CPEP pipe doesn't meet current city standards. What is the pipe manufacturer's minimum pipe cover allowance? Is there curb/gutter along this roadway such that a vehicle will likely never drive over this pipe? [civil plans, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include city standard 02.01.01 Storm Sewer Manhole or 02.01.04 catch basin type II [civil plans, pg 16]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide storm pipe diameter, material, slope and cover [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Reference the detail and page number for the type 2 CB [civil plans, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the prevoius work in this vicinity as part of the re-submittal package that proves the seasonal high groundwater in this area will not reduce capacity of the NW detention pond. [drainage report, pg 159]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Was groundwater continously monitored for TP-2 between December 21st and March 21st? [Drainage report, pg 172]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add hatch to legend [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How is stormwater being collected and filtered through the bioretention cell? Provide catch basins and pipes to the bioretention media to avoid ponding in the parking lot [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Reference this will be and gutter and provide a detail [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide fencing around the pond per Ecology's requirements provide a detail on a separate sheet [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add the access hatch road to the legend. Provide a detail for the access road. [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Silt fence? When is this to be removed? [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The pre-developed basin map for parking lot A states the pre-developed basin is 1.86 acres, whereas the proposed basin area states 1.92 acres. Please address this discrepancy [Drainage Report, pg 21]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide bottom width per WWHM calculation sizing [civil plans, pg 20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note to scarify the sub-grade a minimum 3in before placing the Bioretention soil [civil plans, pg 20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It appears the last page of the WWHM report speaking to the treatment passing for MR 6 is missing from the continuous modeling calculation. Generally this speaks to online and offline flows. [drainage plans, pg 67]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
To meet the full dispersion requirement for list #2 which portion(s) of the site will be retained in a tract to protect at least 65% of the site. Include more informaition within the drainage report [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It does not appear that BMP T5.11 is proposed nor met per the Ecology manual. This BMP requires a berm or drain for every 700SF of area sent to a singular vegetated flow path. The site plan shows the new parking area sheet flowing to catch basins within the road which is being discharged to a singlular dispersion trench/vegetated flow path. Update the site plan and context of the drainage report (page 9 in the SSP) accordingly. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Replace the shear gate with a removable gasketed plug per CS 02.01.07 [civil plans, pg 19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This reference is now show on sheet C2.4. Revise accordingly. [civil plans, pg 19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The northern section of the parking lot is not being treated. Add an additional treatment BMP for this section or revise the design. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
A single bio-retention detail is being used for multiple locations on the plans. Provide specific information on those sheets rather than referencing this detail or provide a separate detail for each specific bio-retention cell proposed. [civil plans, pg 20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It's too busy to read the bio-retention information here. Provide a screenshot of this at a smaller scale. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This pipe is designed at a .36% slope. City standard minimum is 0.5% [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The bioretention IE for the inlet does not match plans vs the storm structure table. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How come this isn't being placed to collect water? The minimum pipe cover on CPEP is 3ft. Revise accordingly [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe crossing information [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add hatching to the legend. Reference 2/C4.2 assuming this will be asphalt. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The size of the pre-developed and post-developed basins for parking lot C do not match. Revise accordingly [civil plans, pg 23]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Modeling for slopes 5-15% are considered moderate. [drainage report, pg 107]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The mitigation techniques proposed contradict each other. The first paragraph mentions sheet flow dispersion will be used whereas the second paragraph references a dispersion trench. The site plan shows a dispersion trench proposed. Update this section to be clear as to what is proposed. [drainage report, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add various hatch types to the legend. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a storm conveyance system within the parking lot to catch and detain the stormwater runoff to the bioretention system. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment on sheet C4.5 regarding bioretention detail [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide/reference a detail for the proposed wall. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide contour elevations for the bioretention facilities. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It would be helpful to have these in numerical order rather than randomly mixed together [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide existing and proposed roadway widening impervious surfaces on this sheet. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include the note from the Geotech report regarding the parking lot C dispersion area. It is recommended this area be inspected yearly, during the rain season after heavy precipitation event to evaluate if maintenance is necessary. Also add the Geotech's ersosion control fixes to this note. [drainage report, pg 302]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What does OVERBUILD EXIST mean? CPEP pipe requires a minimum 3' of cover. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It does not appear that CB 201 should be a type 2 catch basin based on the Rim and pipe depth being less than 5 feet. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add the assess riser symbol to the legend. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a profile view showing the detention pipes. Provide the elevations of the top of the pipe showing a minimum 18" of cover. [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It does not appear that the flow control manhole is shown on this sheet. Provide the flow control manhole sized per the WWHM Calculations [civil plans, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The WWHM calculation states Orifice 1 is at 0.5 feet elevation, this conflicts with this details states a minimum 2 feet to the bottom of the tee. Provide this orifice elevation as letter "K" [civil plans, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
12" per the storm structure table on sheet C2.3. [civil plans, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a removable gasketed end plug per city standards [civil plans, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The elevations provided on the plans for the flow control manhole do not match the flow control modeling WWHM calculation. [civil plans, pg 18]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
During the next submission, ensure the CSWPP does not have track changes on. [CSWPP, pg 6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Explain the proposed temporary sediment pond and how this project will be not increasing speed or volume of stormwater discharges from the site during construction. [CSWPPP, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Speak to how the project will be protecting the slopes during construction of parking lot C and the dispersion trench on the slope. [CSWPPP, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Update these times per Element 5 of the Ecology Manual [CSWPP, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The geotech report speaks to the potential of perched groundwater. Have a relative plan as to how de-watering would occur if encountered. [CSWPPP, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Are there any structures west of this area that will be affected by the re-grading of this area due to any stormwater runoff? [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide permanent fencing around the pond per Ecology's standards. Reference and provide a detail for this fence. [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Illegible [civil plans, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Where does the protection come into place? This appears to be a detail for for the pipe outfall. The outfall pipe is at a 0% slope on the plans, whereas the detail shows it at a sloped rate. Provide clarity [civil plans, pg 17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide calculations per design standard 204.1 [drainage report, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per city records the storm pipe in College Way is 24" [drainage report, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Figure I-2.4.2, the treatment requirement applies to all new hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas. Provide treatment for the easterly portion of the Parking C lot. [drainage plans, pg 13]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Make note that parking lot 1 has the worst case scenario (largest area leading to a pipe conveyance system). [drainage report, pg 139]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a drain for the proposed keystone wall. [civil plans, pg 12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Minimum Requirement #6 of the Ecology Manual, the size of the stormwater treatment facility shall be for the entire area that drains to the, even if some of those areas are not pollution-generating. [drainage report, 106]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a drain for the wall. [civil plans, pg 19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show the proposed overflow structures within the bioretention detail. [civil plans, pg 20]
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Failed
|
03/26/2022
|
05/03/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The gate need to be be fully retrorefectorized on both sides with vertical stripes alternately red and white at 16-inch intervals measured horizontally. This guidance comes directly from the MUTCD (Section 2B.68).
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Access shall meet AASHTO standards for ESD (280ft @ 25mph). Modify parking spots accordingly. AASHTO is the industry standard for roadway/intersection geometric design & best practices. Remove parking spaces as needed to meet sight distance standards.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
parking spaces should be setback farther from the roadway to accommodate future pedestrian path/sidewalk.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an AutoTurn analysis for the largest anticipated design vehicle
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Access shall meet AASHTO standards for ESD (280ft @ 25mph). Modify parking spots accordingly. AASHTO is the industry standard for roadway/intersection geometric design & best practices. Remove parking spaces as needed to meet sight distance standards.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Access shall meet AASHTO standards for ESD (280ft @ 25mph). Modify parking spots accordingly. AASHTO is the industry standard for roadway/intersection geometric design & best practices. Remove parking spaces as needed to meet sight distance standards.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an AutoTurn analysis for the largest anticipated design vehicle
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Geometry must meet AASHTO SSD standards for approaching vehicles. Assume 25mph design speed (155ft). AASHTO is the industry standard for roadway/intersection geometric design & best practices
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Modify landscaping design as needed to meet sight distance standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Modify landscaping design as needed to meet sight distance standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Modify landscaping design as needed to meet sight distance standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Modify landscaping design as needed to meet sight distance standards
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Streets Review
|
Approved
|
03/26/2022
|
04/12/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Failed
|
03/26/2022
|
03/30/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Tree protection and removal plan needs companion arborist report. [sheet L1.0-1.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provider spec and manufacturer installation detail for all structural soil cells [sheet L2.0-2.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
All landscape islands must contain large canopy (50'+) trees from the city's VMS type I street tree list. NW is a small to medium tree [sheet L3.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
All storm ponds must be landscaped in accordance with SLD-02 design requirements from city VMS manual (section 14.5) [sheet L3.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
There is a SD pipe shown on sheet C2.1 - space trees offset to 10 ft or adjust SD pipe on sheet C2.1 [sheet L3.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
All landscape islands must contain large canopy (50'+) trees from the city's VMS type I street tree list. PV is a small to medium tree [sheet L3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
SD drain pipe under this tree - space to meet 10 ft offset or adjust SD pipe on sheet 2.4 [sheet L3.2]
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Wetland report is being peer reviewed by city's on call wetlands consultant. Report will be sent under a separate cover.
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Applicant needs to supply an arborist report for all significant trees.
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Collection Review
|
Failed
|
03/26/2022
|
03/23/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The CoP stormwater notes are not current; refer to engineering standards on website for the most updated version. [PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS combined - sheet 4.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The stormwater facility sign standard is for use with publicly owned/maintained facilities. [PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS combined - sheet 4.1]
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Failed
|
03/26/2022
|
03/23/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. Provide Fire Lane / No Parking Signage sheet with details. Any area that a vehicle can park that is not designated as an approved parking spot will be required to have painted curb / stenciled and No Parking signage.
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Water Review
|
Failed
|
03/26/2022
|
03/21/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS-combined Sheet C1.2: This valve is for a water blow-off located 28.5-feet to the south. Protect this existing utility.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS-combined Sheet C3.1: Adjust water blow-off box to grade.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS-combined Sheet L3.0: If water blow-off box sits in planting area, provide 3-foot clear zone around box.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
PIERCE COLLEGE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS-combined Sheet L3.1: Maintain a 3-foot clear zone around fire hydrant, water meter and DCVA boxes. No trees within 10-feet of water features.
|
|
|
|
