| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
Engineering Civil Review
|
Approved
|
11/15/2022
|
11/08/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Re-evaluate this section as necessary after further infiltration testing is conducted. [drainage report, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the datum information on the cover sheet. It is not intuitive to search to the last page to for this information. [civil plans, pg C1.0]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Fill out and include the Runoff Treatment BMP Selection flow chart as part of the drainage report.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The WWHM calculation and bioretention detail do not match. The detail is proposing an 18" BSM layer and a 12" gravel backfill layer. The WWHM calculation shows 18" for the BSM and 18" for the gravel. Additionally, the Soil Layer 1 should be the 3" depth coarse compost, soil layer 2 being the BSM soil layer and soil layer 3 being the gravel layer. [drainage report, pg 64/256)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The project determined a feasible corrected infiltration rate based on the PIT-1 test (greater than 0.3in/hr). The CFv correction factor per the Ecology manual accounts for site variability and number of test pits. Additional infiltration testing is warranted if the Geotech is concerned with the location/depth of the PIT test. The WWHM calculation should be adjusted to account for some infiltration based on the defined rate.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why was a length of 52 inches used instead of the 79.2 inches which the Stormtech MC-7200 chamber detail 3 states on sheet C5.5 of the civil plans? [drainage report, pg 40]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Update the volume of a single chamber. [drainage report, pg 40]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
142 chambers X 404.5CF = 57,439CF, not including the end caps. Provide a calculation converting volume to linear feet or provide the WHMM calc showing this to verify the calculation and what is proposed on the civil plans match. [civils, pg 40]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Keynote 8 not shown on the plans. [Civils, C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It appears that water will pond in this section of the parking lot. How will this be mitigated? [civil plans, C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Is this bold line a contour without the elevation? [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The detail and calculation for the bioretention provides a 6" underdrain, is an 8" underdrain also proposed for the bioretention? Provide clarity. [civils, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Where is keynote 3 on the plans? [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe crossing information for the proposed power and storm piping. [civils, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add this hatch to the legend. Ensure this sheet matches View A on sheet C3.5
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Building overhang? Add a note? [civils, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It appears SDCB 1 should be shifted to the SE to avoid ponding near this location. [civil plans, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What is going on with stormwater here? [civils, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What is the dark gray hatch representing in View A? [civils, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Stormwater does not appear to be collected within this area and conveyed to the detention system [civils, pg C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What are these outlines? [civils, pg C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How is stormwater being collected and mitigated for these areas? [civils, pg C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What is this dark hatch representing? Define it in the legend. [civil plans, pg C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What are the X keynotes representing? [civils, pg C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add the number of nominal chambers to the parts required list. This appears to be 142 based on this depiction. [civils, pg C5.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Ensure that Kenton dates his signature during the next submission on his stamped sheets. [civils, C6.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why is the 8" ductile iron pipe being shown with a curve in the pipe? [civil plans, pg C6.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note to install a reducer on the gate valve and tee as the water service line this is being installed is 3" [civil plans, pg C6.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note on this sheet stating that the contractor should excercise caution due to utility pipe crossings. [civil plans, pg C6.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The plans show this is an 8" line. Revise accordingly. [civil plans, pg C6.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Replace the Development Engineering approval block with the Planning Division approval block on the landscape plans. The block can be found here: https://www.cityofpuyallup.org/DocumentCenter/View/6921/Section-10-Engineering-Services-Review-Process?bidId=[civils, pg L1.00]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What are the "x" keynotes representing on this sheet? [civils, pg C4.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Indicate what the asterisks within the crossing table on this plan sheet and C6.3 [civils, pg C6.2]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Provide a basic conveyance calculation using Uniform Flow Analysis (Manning's Equation) showing the pipes convey stormwater to the detention system without surcharging. A single calculation showing the worst case condition (flattest, smallest diameter pipe) will suffice. This requirement comes from design standard 204.3(1). [drainage report]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This drainage report is for th Stem building and associate parking lot. The parking lot expansion project is covered under a seperate civil application. [drainage report, pg 5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The civil plans show three bioretention systems, update the plans or drainage report accordingly [Drainage report, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the existing pervious and imperious areas as part of this map. [Drainage report, pg 15]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the existing pervious and imperious areas as part of this map. [Drainage report, pg 16]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show the dowstream stormwater runoff 1/4 mile downstream. [drainage plan, pg 17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How was the 9" perimeter stone sized? The acceptable fills material: Stormtech MC-7200 Chamber Systems detail on page C5.3 references the depth of stone is to be determined by the site Design Engineer 9 inch min. [Drainage Report, pg 39]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why was a length of 52 inches used instead of the 79.2 inches which the Stormtech MC-7200 chamber detail 3 states on sheet C5.5 of the civil plans? [drainage report, pg 40]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Update the volume of a single chamber. [drainage report, pg 40]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
142 chambers X 404.5CF = 57,439CF, not including the end caps. Provide a calculation converting volume to linear feet or provide the WHMM calc showing this to verify the calculation and what is proposed match. [civils, pg 40]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a calculation that converts the WWHM calculation volume to number of chambers necessary/ Linear footage of MC-7200 to be installed. [Drainage Report, pg 45]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The WWHM model shows that minimum requirement #7 is not met per this analysis. [Drainage report, pg 58]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an additional basin map within the drainage report clearly showing the associated pollution generating surfaces leading to the treatment systems. Be sure to include a table or callout providing the area in acres or square feet. [Drainage Report, pg 66]
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Water Review
|
Approved
|
11/15/2022
|
11/08/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: Add 2-inch RPBA 3-feet behind meter. Add City Standard detail 03.04.02 to this plan set.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Landscape-Utility Plans R1 Sheet C6.5 The COP Standard detail 03.04.02 has not been added to the plan set.
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Streets Review
|
VOID
|
11/15/2022
|
11/07/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Collection Review
|
Approved
|
11/15/2022
|
11/07/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Approved
|
11/15/2022
|
11/07/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous discussion, centerline striping needs to be yellow to separate opposing directions of traffic. Needs to be updated throughout college to avoid confusion and increase safety C4.1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Do not stripe centerline on College Way through this intersection. Transition between one-way and two way traffic. C4.1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Unclear what signage is being proposed for the NB approach. MUTCD R3-5L LEFT TURN ONLY sign would be appropriate here.
C4.1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Centerline striping needs to be yellow to separate opposing directions of traffic. C4.1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
MUTCD R5-1 DO NOT ENTER signs (facing west) would be appropriate here.
C4.1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Pavement arrow should be thermoplastic C4.1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Comment responses indicate driveway meets AASHTO ESD standards for a 20 mph road. Please show site lines at this driveway and narrative for why 20 mph design speed is warranted. C4.1
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
VOID
|
11/15/2022
|
11/01/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Approved
|
11/15/2022
|
10/27/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Please provide a archeological site survey, consistent with DAHP and Puyallup Tribe review and consultation.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
All parking lot landscape islands required to be 15 feet wide (interior curb). All three interior landscape islands must have Silva cells (or eqv.) along interior under parking stalls only. [Planning comment, sheet C3.1]
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
The parking lot landscaping islands appear to have a mix of emergent wildflowers; city standards for type IV require woody stemmed shrubs and ground cover for those landscape islands to prevent soil compaction and pedestrians walking in the islands. Please revise plant selection or provide a response as to how the selected plants will meet the performance standards.
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Planning is coordinating with the Puyallup Tribal staff on the archeological study to ensure all information is available for their review. Its not clear based on the submittal if PTI staff has reviewed the report as of yet. City staff routed that report to them as a response to the previous SEPA comment and is awaiting a response as of the date of this comment (09/12/22).
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide two walking paths with curbing to provide ped access through the landscape strips [Planning comment, sheet C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Planning cannot locate a proposed landscape plan for this permit. Please review the type IV standards in the city's Vegetation Management Standards (VMS) manual [Planning comment, sheet C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
All stormw water facilities shall be landscaped consistent with the SLD-01 landscape standard in the VMS design manual [Planning comment, sheet C3.2]
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Failed
|
09/15/2022
|
10/11/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Access shall meet AASHTO standards for ESD (280ft @ 25mph). AASHTO is the industry standard for roadway/intersection geometric design & best practices. Remove on-street parking spaces as needed to meet sight distance standards. [civil C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Frontage should be designed with pedestrian path/sidewalk. The Pierce College Master Plan speaks to improving pedestrian environment and pathways within the campus & enhance pedestrian connections to Bradley Lake Park. To meet these goals, it seems logical to account for sidewalks & ADA ramps adjacent to the proposed parking lots. [civil C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an AutoTurn analysis for the largest anticipated design vehicle [civil C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Recommend signage/striping at driveway to identify one-way operation of College Way. [civil C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous discussion, centerline striping needs to be yellow to separate opposing directions of traffic. Needs to be updated throughout college to avoid confusion and increase safety C4.1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Do not stripe centerline on College Way through this intersection. Transition between one-way and two way traffic. C4.1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Unclear what signage is being proposed for the NB approach. MUTCD R3-5L LEFT TURN ONLY sign would be appropriate here.
C4.1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Centerline striping needs to be yellow to separate opposing directions of traffic. C4.1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
MUTCD R5-1 DO NOT ENTER signs (facing west) would be appropriate here.
C4.1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Pavement arrow should be thermoplastic C4.1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Comment responses indicate driveway meets AASHTO ESD standards for a 20 mph road. Please show site lines at this driveway and narrative for why 20 mph design speed is warranted. C4.1
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Civil Review
|
Failed
|
09/15/2022
|
10/06/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add Cut/Fill and net volume quantities. [Civil Plans, C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include Stamped Survey per Ecology Manual Requirements in Section 1-3.1.1. [Civil Plans, C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide vertical Datum, Benchmark, and Legal Description. [Civil Plans, C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Update City General Notes to latest version found in COP Design Standards Section 2.4. The phone numbers in notes 1 and 6 have been updated. [Civil Plans, C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Make mention in the CSWPP that a sediment trap is proposed. Additionally size the trap per the contributing areas [CSWPP, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
A small-scale PIT test was not conducted for the proposed Stem building and associated parking lot. Test PITs were not dug near the location of the proposed stormwater facility. Approximately 400' away from Test PIT from the parking lot project and 500' or so for PIT -2. [Geotech report, pg 19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Update element 5 to state the 2019 Ecology manual's requirements for soils to be stabilized. [drainage report, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This drainage report is for th Stem building and associate parking lot. The parking lot expansion project is covered under a seperate civil application. [drainage report, pg 5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Re-evaluate this section as necessary after further infiltration testing is conducted. [drainage report, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include Development engineering Approval block on every sheet per design standard 1.4. You can find the approval block and additional info here: https://www.cityofpuyallup.org/DocumentCenter/View/6921/Section-10-Engineering-Services-Review-Process?bidId=[Civil Plans, C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include Landscape Plans in sheet Index. [Civil Plans C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add P linetype to the legend. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the side slopes and bio-retention width [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Rain gardens are not permitted through the department of Ecology for projects meeting List #2. [civil plans, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Make a reference and provide a detail for the high visibility plastic or metal fence per BMP C103 as referred by the CSWPP. [E&S, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a note to amend all disturbed soils per CS 01.02.08a [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include CS 01.02.08a [E&S plans, C2.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show the dowstream stormwater runoff 1/4 mile downstream. [drainage plan, pg 17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Test comment
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a discussion as to how temporary stormwater will be addressed. The civil plans show multiple swales leading to a temporary sediment pond to be pumped into baker tanks. How will the stormwater be disposed from the baker tanks? [CSWPP, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The civil plans show three bioretention systems, update the plans or drainage report accordingly [Drainage report, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an additional basin map within the drainage report clearly showing the associated pollution generating surfaces leading to the treatment systems. Be sure to include a table or callout providing the area in acres or square feet. [Drainage Report, pg 66]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Where does the 0.71 acres of pervious come from? The stem building basin map provides 0.57 acres of landscape whereas the parking lot is proposing 0.14 acres. Clarify which areas lead to the detention system. [Drainage report, pg 43]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How was the 9" perimeter stone sized? The acceptable fills material: Stormtech MC-7200 Chamber Systems detail on page C5.3 references the depth of stone is to be determined by the site Design Engineer 9 inch min. [Drainage Report, pg 39]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the existing pervious and imperious areas as part of this map. [Drainage report, pg 15]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the existing pervious and imperious areas as part of this map. [Drainage report, pg 16]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a calculation that converts the WWHM calculation volume to number of chambers necessary/ Linear footage of MC-7200 to be installed. [Drainage Report, pg 45]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The WWHM model shows that minimum requirement #7 is not met per this analysis. [Drainage report, pg 58]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a small note indicating that site upgrades will occur here. This is a bit challenging to distinguish [civil plans pg C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Construct construction entrance before installing other TESC BMPs [Civil Plans, C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Define what these are in the legend or provide a keynote. They appear to be inspection ports. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe diameter, material, slope. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the sump depth for SDCB 17. Per detail 1/C5.4 this should be a minimum of 24 inches. Additionally this detail references an elevated bypass manifold, is that being installed? Provide the IE information and flow direction. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Is SDCB 1 really a type 1 catch basin with a RIM to IE of 15 plus feet of depth? Type 1 catch basins are typical for depths less than 5 feet from the top of grate to pipe invert. Type 2 catch basins are used for depths greater than 5 feet. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The invert elevation for the upstream catch basin is at a lower elevation. Was this done on purpose? [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This information in the storm structure table and on the plan view do not match for EX SDCB 1 pipe flowing east. What is the actual IE for the pipe flowing east? [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the pipe diameter, material, and slope for the proposed underdrain [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the area in square feet for the proposed bioretention cell. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Rain gardens are not allowed for projects meeting the thresholds of Minimum Requirements 1-9, additionally this doesnt appear to be proposed on the plans, remove this keynote [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Where is keynote 2 located on this sheet? [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How is stormwater from the parking lot being collected/conveyed to the bioretention? I don't see any collection CB's or curb cuts. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe crossing information. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add proposed curb linetype to the legend. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Is the swale to be removed once the permanent storm system has been installed? If it is to remain, provide flowline spot elevations. Additionally, the swale bypasses the detentions system and would need to be modeled as such for MR 7. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What are these symbols representing? a splash pad for the stormwater prior to discharging to the bioretention cell? Clarify/add to legend for all instances on this sheet [civil plans, pg C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include in detail 2/C3.5. [Civil Plans, C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Where does footing drain connect to storm? [Civil Plans, C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Reference Footing drain detail. [Civil Plans, C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide stationing for the proposed callouts otherwise the information on sheet C3.4 isn't very informative. [civil plans, pg C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
SDCB 7 is missing the pipe connection from the south. [civil plans, pg C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
For SDCB 4, the depth from the rim to pipe IE is greater than 5 feet, thus this should be a type II catch basin. [civil plans, pg C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe slope. Additionally, why is a swale and solid pipe being proposed to convey stormwater? [civil plans, pg C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Rain gardens are not appropriate for this project. A professional must calculate the necessary size of the bioretention systems. Remove this keynote and any associated rain garden references/details. [civil plans, pg C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This pipe system is flowing east. Revise accordingly the west flow direction. [civil plans, pg C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Match proposed topo to existing topo [Civil Plans, C3.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How is stormwater being mitigated for these replaced surfaces? [civil plans, pg C3.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Markups added in CV 6.23.22
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How is stormwater being collected via surfaces east of SDCB 2? The paving appears to be graded to the north. An additional CB may be warranted in the NE corner of this area to collect all associated stormwater runoff from the proposed hard surfaces. [civil plans, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The hatches shown on sheet C3.2 does not match this View A. Revise accordingly. [civil plans, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What is this dashed line representing? A grade break? Is this collecting stormwater? [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The 2.92% slope arrow is pointing in the wrong direction. [civil plans, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
add spot elevations at the corners of this section. [Civil Plans, C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This pipe is flowing uphill according to the IE's. [civil plans, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a legend on this sheet. [civil plans pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note that the running slope of any walkway must be 5% or less otherwise this is considered a ramp and must meet ADA accessibility guidelines. [civil plans, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Call out all storm conveyance features. [Civil Plans, C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Label pipe material, diameter and slope. [Civil Plans, C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Label diameter, material, slope [Civil Plans, C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove random arrow from this sheet. [civil plans, pg C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Label diameter, material, slope. [Civil Plans, C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add match line. [Civil Plans, C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Indicate what these line are representing. [civil plans, pg C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What are these?
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add legend to this sheet. [civil plans, pg C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise to reference CS 06.01.02 [civil plans, pg C5.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Match Rim elevation given in sheet C3.1.[Civil Plans, C5.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise to be CS 06.01.03 [civil plans, pg C5.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the elevations proposed for Orifices 1,2 and 3. [civil plans, pg C5.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The site plan and bioretention detail do not match. Are two underdrains proposed? [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Amend this detail to show the rock-line swale as shown on sheet C3.2 or amend the plans and detail to provide a 2 inch section of woodchip mulch or aggregate to mimic the 2019 Ecology manual detail. [civil plans pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an overflow structure for the bioretention cell. Be sure to provide the IE's. [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Typo in elevation. [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why is an underdrain proposed? The Ecology manual states underdrain systems should only be installed when the bioretention is: 1. Located near sensitive infrastructure (e.g., unsealed basements) and potential for flooding is likely. 2. Used for filtering storm flows from gas stations or other pollutant hotspots (requires impermeable liner). 3.Located above native soils with infiltration rates that are not adequate to meet maximum pool and system dewater rates, or are below a minimum rate allowed by the local government. 4.In an area that does not provide the minimum depth to a hydraulic restriction layer, e.g., high seasonal ground water. [Civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What is the proposed slope of the underdrain? The Ecology manual suggersts a minimum 0.5% slope unless specified by an Engineer. [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Typo [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove the proposed raingarden detail. [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show/reference the isolator row location on the plan view. [Civil Plans, C4.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Indicate on the detail that the underdrain will be 6 inches [civil plans, pg C5.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the WWHM printout to go along with this calculation. [CSWPPP, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove the proposed landscape islands from the Tesc and demo plan [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Adjacent inlets still subject to sedimentation from potential track runoff. Protect all inlets in vicinity of work [TESC, C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Removed the proposed curb from this sheet. [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add note to protect all downstream inlets within vicinity not shown on plans. [TESC, C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide IE for the baker tank discharge. Provide pipe material, length and slope. [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a detail for the proposed baker tank, be sure to include the dimensions. [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include the required volume for storage and proposed volume via each baker tank. [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide application reference to the Electrical plans, as they were not submitted along with the associated documents. [civil plans. pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Existing bollards not shown on this sheet. Update the plans to reflect this keynote. [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a detail for the proposed pump and calculation to ensure the pump is sized adequately to address stormwater. [civil plans, pg C2.1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note that the demo and installation of power is not reviewed/approved by the City of Puyallup. [civil plans, C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Proposed power? Remove from this sheet as it is not applicable to the Tesc and Demo plan. [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise text overlap. [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Proposed communications line or to be demolished? The City of Puyallup is not reviewing approving this utility per this civil application. [civil plans, pg C2.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove keynotes that are not applicable to this sheet. [civil plans, pg C2.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise the rain gardens and provide another treatment BMP. [civil plans, pg C2.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove proposed utilities layers from TESC and Demo plan. [TESC, C2.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
add check damns to this swale segment. [TESC, C2.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add existing manhole to legend(s). Create a note to preserve this manhole or replace it.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note that irrigation lines are being removed. [civil plans, pg C2.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Make a note to protect the existing sewer and gas utilities when removing the irrigation lines. [civil plans, pg C2.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove keynotes not applicable to this sheet. [civil plans, pg C2.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include CS 01.02.08A Soil Amendment and Depth [civil plans, pg C2.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Replace with COP Standard detail 02.03.02 for siltation fence. [TESC, C2.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Resolve overlap. [TESC Plans C2.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide specific callouts for details/pages. [civil plans, pg C6.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note that the city is not reviewing the proposal of the gas line nor is approving the location with approval of this plan set. [civil plans, pg C6.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove PSE Gas Facility excavation requirements. This will be reviewed/approved by PSE, rather than the City of Puyallup. [civil plans, pg C6.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add proposed thrust blocks to legend per COP STD DTL 03.02.01-1 [civil plans, pg C6.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Text overlap. [civil plans, pg C6.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
During the next submission ensure this seal is signed and dated otherwise the submittal will be rejected [civil plans, pg C6.1].
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe crossing information. [civil plans, pg C6.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a 0.1 foot drop through the manholes from inlet invert to outlet invert. per design standard 401.11. [civil plans, pg C6.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
label the sewer manhole numbers on the profile view. [civil plans, pg C6.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Call out the hydrant to be installed per CS 03.05.01 [civil plans, pg C6.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
label the sewer manhole number on the profile view. [civil plans, pg C6.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add these symbols to the legend on sheet C6.1. Further is the water main already existing in this location to the north or will it be extended south then east? [civil plans, C6.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise text overlap. [civil plans, pg C6.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe crossing information. [civil plans, pg C6.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How is this to be built in the field when the profile view shows a vertical bend? [civil plans, pg C6.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The domestic water service tee and gate valve is 4 inches whereas the water service line is called out as 3 inches. [civil plans, pg C6.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What are all these dark gray lines representing? [civil plans, pg C6.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe diameters and length of pipes. [civil plans, pg C6.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show pipe crossing info. [civil plans, pg C6.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe crossing information. [civil plans, pg C6.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the datum information on the cover sheet. It is not intuitive to search to the last page to for this information. [civil plans, pg C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Fill out and include the Runoff Treatment BMP Selection flow chart as part of the drainage report.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The WWHM calculation and bioretention detail do not match. The detail is proposing an 18" BSM layer and a 12" gravel backfill layer. The WWHM calculation shows 18" for the BSM and 18" for the gravel. Additionally, the Soil Layer 1 should be the 3" depth coarse compost, soil layer 2 being the BSM soil layer and soil layer 3 being the gravel layer. [drainage report, pg 64/256)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The project determined a feasible corrected infiltration rate based on the PIT-1 test (greater than 0.3in/hr). The CFv correction factor per the Ecology manual accounts for site variability and number of test pits. Additional infiltration testing is warranted if the Geotech is concerned with the location/depth of the PIT test. The WWHM calculation should be adjusted to account for some infiltration based on the defined rate.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why was a length of 52 inches used instead of the 79.2 inches which the Stormtech MC-7200 chamber detail 3 states on sheet C5.5 of the civil plans? [drainage report, pg 40]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Update the volume of a single chamber. [drainage report, pg 40]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
142 chambers X 404.5CF = 57,439CF, not including the end caps. Provide a calculation converting volume to linear feet or provide the WHMM calc showing this to verify the calculation and what is proposed on the civil plans match. [civils, pg 40]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Keynote 8 not shown on the plans. [Civils, C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a callout for the proposed curb and associate detail. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It appears that water will pond in this section of the parking lot. How will this be mitigated? [civil plans, C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Is this bold line a contour without the elevation? [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The detail and calculation for the bioretention provides a 6" underdrain, is an 8" underdrain also proposed for the bioretention? Provide clarity. [civils, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Where is keynote 3 on the plans? [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe crossing information for the proposed power and storm piping. [civils, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add this hatch to the legend. Ensure this sheet matches View A on sheet C3.5
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Building overhang? Add a note? [civils, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It appears SDCB 1 should be shifted to the SE to avoid ponding near this location. [civil plans, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What is going on with stormwater here? [civils, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What is the dark gray hatch representing in View A? [civils, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Stormwater does not appear to be collected within this area and conveyed to the detention system [civils, pg C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What are these outlines? [civils, pg C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How is stormwater being collected and mitigated for these areas? [civils, pg C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What is this dark hatch representing? Define it in the legend. [civil plans, pg C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What are the X keynotes representing? [civils, pg C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Is this intended to be a driveway approach? What is the purpose of the bollards? [civil plans, pg C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add the number of nominal chambers to the parts required list. This appears to be 142 based on this depiction. [civils, pg C5.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Ensure that Kenton dates his signature during the next submission on his stamped sheets. [civils, C6.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why is the 8" ductile iron pipe being shown with a curve in the pipe? [civil plans, pg C6.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note to install a reducer on the gate valve and tee as the water service line this is being installed is 3" [civil plans, pg C6.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note on this sheet stating that the contractor should excercise caution due to utility pipe crossings. [civil plans, pg C6.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The plans show this is an 8" line. Revise accordingly. [civil plans, pg C6.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Replace the Development Engineering approval block with the Planning Division approval block on the landscape plans. The block can be found here: https://www.cityofpuyallup.org/DocumentCenter/View/6921/Section-10-Engineering-Services-Review-Process?bidId=[civils, pg L1.00]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What are the "x" keynotes representing on this sheet? [civils, pg C4.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Indicate what the asterisks within the crossing table on this plan sheet and C6.3 [civils, pg C6.2]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Provide a basic conveyance calculation using Uniform Flow Analysis (Manning's Equation) showing the pipes convey stormwater to the detention system without surcharging. A single calculation showing the worst case condition (flattest, smallest diameter pipe) will suffice. This requirement comes from design standard 204.3(1). [drainage report]
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Approved
|
09/15/2022
|
10/05/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please show fire access within 150 feet of all points. IFC Appendix D ( C3.0)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Please provide details for signage and demarcation of fire lanes as needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Streets Review
|
VOID
|
09/15/2022
|
09/15/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Collection Review
|
Approved
|
09/15/2022
|
09/15/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Water Review
|
Failed
|
09/15/2022
|
09/15/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.4: Add - Removed existing blow-off assembly.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.4: Do not plant trees within 10-feet of water main.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: Add 2-inch RPBA 3-feet behind meter. Add City Standard detail 03.04.02 to this plan set.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: This could be a double strap saddle with 2-inch gate valve instead.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: Is an irrigation service needed for this area? If so, protect with DCVA and add City Standard detail 03.04.01 to this plan set.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: Do not plan trees within 10-feet of water main.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: Maximum hydrant run allowed is 20-feet.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: Consider adding an 8-inch gate valve to the northeast side of the proposed tee. This would help with control of this private water system.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: Do not plan trees within 10-feet of water main.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Landscape-Utility Plans R1 Sheet C6.5 The COP Standard detail 03.04.02 has not been added to the plan set.
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Failed
|
09/15/2022
|
09/12/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
The arborist report is not specific to the site development plan; the report notes: "Development plans have not been provided to provide an opinion on tree protection specific to each tree". Please have the project arborist re-assess the trees near the new development area and provide a supplement memo and tree protection recommendations.
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Please provide a archeological site survey, consistent with DAHP and Puyallup Tribe review and consultation.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
SEPT 2022 UPDATED COMMENT: The reduced island dimensions will be accepted if the reduced above ground planting area is replaced with Silva Cells. For example, perimeter landscape islands are required to be 12 feet wide with one silva cell around the perimeter. For perimeter islands reduced to 6 feet planter area, a total of six (3 on each side) silva cells must be provided as mitigation. Please show on the landscape sheets. This assumes each cell is 2 feet wide. Apply the same ratio to interior landscape islands as well. Silva cells can only be used under parking spaces and not drive aisles, per manf. specs.
All parking lot landscape islands required to be 15 feet wide (interior curb). All three interior landscape islands must have Silva cells (or eqv.) along interior under parking stalls only. [Planning comment, sheet C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide two walking paths with curbing to provide ped access through the landscape strips [Planning comment, sheet C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Planning cannot locate a proposed landscape plan for this permit. Please review the type IV standards in the city's Vegetation Management Standards (VMS) manual [Planning comment, sheet C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
All stormw water facilities shall be landscaped consistent with the SLD-01 landscape standard in the VMS design manual [Planning comment, sheet C3.2]
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
The parking lot landscaping islands appear to have a mix of emergent wildflowers; city standards for type IV require woody stemmed shrubs and ground cover for those landscape islands to prevent soil compaction and pedestrians walking in the islands. Please revise plant selection or provide a response as to how the selected plants will meet the performance standards.
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Planning is coordinating with the Puyallup Tribal staff on the archeological study to ensure all information is available for their review. Its not clear based on the submittal if PTI staff has reviewed the report as of yet. City staff routed that report to them as a response to the previous SEPA comment and is awaiting a response as of the date of this comment (09/12/22).
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Failed
|
06/27/2022
|
07/08/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Access shall meet AASHTO standards for ESD (280ft @ 25mph). AASHTO is the industry standard for roadway/intersection geometric design & best practices. Remove on-street parking spaces as needed to meet sight distance standards. [civil C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Frontage should be designed with pedestrian path/sidewalk. The Pierce College Master Plan speaks to improving pedestrian environment and pathways within the campus & enhance pedestrian connections to Bradley Lake Park. To meet these goals, it seems logical to account for sidewalks & ADA ramps adjacent to the proposed parking lots. [civil C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an AutoTurn analysis for the largest anticipated design vehicle [civil C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Recommend signage/striping at driveway to identify one-way operation of College Way. [civil C3.1]
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Streets Review
|
VOID
|
06/27/2022
|
07/06/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Collection Review
|
Approved
|
06/27/2022
|
06/27/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Civil Review
|
Failed
|
06/27/2022
|
06/27/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add Cut/Fill and net volume quantities. [Civil Plans, C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include Stamped Survey per Ecology Manual Requirements in Section 1-3.1.1. [Civil Plans, C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide vertical Datum, Benchmark, and Legal Description. [Civil Plans, C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Update City General Notes to latest version found in COP Design Standards Section 2.4. The phone numbers in notes 1 and 6 have been updated. [Civil Plans, C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Make mention in the CSWPP that a sediment trap is proposed. Additionally size the trap per the contributing areas [CSWPP, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
A small-scale PIT test was not conducted for the proposed Stem building and associated parking lot. Test PITs were not dug near the location of the proposed stormwater facility. Approximately 400' away from Test PIT from the parking lot project and 500' or so for PIT -2. [Geotech report, pg 19]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Update element 5 to state the 2019 Ecology manual's requirements for soils to be stabilized. [drainage report, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This drainage report is for th Stem building and associate parking lot. The parking lot expansion project is covered under a seperate civil application. [drainage report, pg 5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Re-evaluate this section as necessary after further infiltration testing is conducted. [drainage report, pg 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include Development engineering Approval block on every sheet per design standard 1.4. You can find the approval block and additional info here: https://www.cityofpuyallup.org/DocumentCenter/View/6921/Section-10-Engineering-Services-Review-Process?bidId=[Civil Plans, C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include Landscape Plans in sheet Index. [Civil Plans C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add P linetype to the legend. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the side slopes and bio-retention width [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Rain gardens are not permitted through the department of Ecology for projects meeting List #2. [civil plans, pg 10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Make a reference and provide a detail for the high visibility plastic or metal fence per BMP C103 as referred by the CSWPP. [E&S, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a note to amend all disturbed soils per CS 01.02.08a [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include CS 01.02.08a [E&S plans, C2.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show the dowstream stormwater runoff 1/4 mile downstream. [drainage plan, pg 17]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Test comment
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a discussion as to how temporary stormwater will be addressed. The civil plans show multiple swales leading to a temporary sediment pond to be pumped into baker tanks. How will the stormwater be disposed from the baker tanks? [CSWPP, pg 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The civil plans show three bioretention systems, update the plans or drainage report accordingly [Drainage report, pg 11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an additional basin map within the drainage report clearly showing the associated pollution generating surfaces leading to the treatment systems. Be sure to include a table or callout providing the area in acres or square feet. [Drainage Report, pg 66]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Where does the 0.71 acres of pervious come from? The stem building basin map provides 0.57 acres of landscape whereas the parking lot is proposing 0.14 acres. Clarify which areas lead to the detention system. [Drainage report, pg 43]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How was the 9" perimeter stone sized? The acceptable fills material: Stormtech MC-7200 Chamber Systems detail on page C5.3 references the depth of stone is to be determined by the site Design Engineer 9 inch min. [Drainage Report, pg 39]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the existing pervious and imperious areas as part of this map. [Drainage report, pg 15]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the existing pervious and imperious areas as part of this map. [Drainage report, pg 16]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a calculation that converts the WWHM calculation volume to number of chambers necessary/ Linear footage of MC-7200 to be installed. [Drainage Report, pg 45]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The WWHM model shows that minimum requirement #7 is not met per this analysis. [Drainage report, pg 58]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a small note indicating that site upgrades will occur here. This is a bit challenging to distinguish [civil plans pg C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Construct construction entrance before installing other TESC BMPs [Civil Plans, C1.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Define what these are in the legend or provide a keynote. They appear to be inspection ports. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe diameter, material, slope. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the sump depth for SDCB 17. Per detail 1/C5.4 this should be a minimum of 24 inches. Additionally this detail references an elevated bypass manifold, is that being installed? Provide the IE information and flow direction. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Is SDCB 1 really a type 1 catch basin with a RIM to IE of 15 plus feet of depth? Type 1 catch basins are typical for depths less than 5 feet from the top of grate to pipe invert. Type 2 catch basins are used for depths greater than 5 feet. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The invert elevation for the upstream catch basin is at a lower elevation. Was this done on purpose? [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This information in the storm structure table and on the plan view do not match for EX SDCB 1 pipe flowing east. What is the actual IE for the pipe flowing east? [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the pipe diameter, material, and slope for the proposed underdrain [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the area in square feet for the proposed bioretention cell. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Rain gardens are not allowed for projects meeting the thresholds of Minimum Requirements 1-9, additionally this doesnt appear to be proposed on the plans, remove this keynote [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Where is keynote 2 located on this sheet? [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How is stormwater from the parking lot being collected/conveyed to the bioretention? I don't see any collection CB's or curb cuts. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe crossing information. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add proposed curb linetype to the legend. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Is the swale to be removed once the permanent storm system has been installed? If it is to remain, provide flowline spot elevations. Additionally, the swale bypasses the detentions system and would need to be modeled as such for MR 7. [civil plans, pg C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What are these symbols representing? a splash pad for the stormwater prior to discharging to the bioretention cell? Clarify/add to legend for all instances on this sheet [civil plans, pg C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include in detail 2/C3.5. [Civil Plans, C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Where does footing drain connect to storm? [Civil Plans, C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Reference Footing drain detail. [Civil Plans, C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide stationing for the proposed callouts otherwise the information on sheet C3.4 isn't very informative. [civil plans, pg C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
SDCB 7 is missing the pipe connection from the south. [civil plans, pg C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
For SDCB 4, the depth from the rim to pipe IE is greater than 5 feet, thus this should be a type II catch basin. [civil plans, pg C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe slope. Additionally, why is a swale and solid pipe being proposed to convey stormwater? [civil plans, pg C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Rain gardens are not appropriate for this project. A professional must calculate the necessary size of the bioretention systems. Remove this keynote and any associated rain garden references/details. [civil plans, pg C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This pipe system is flowing east. Revise accordingly the west flow direction. [civil plans, pg C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Match proposed topo to existing topo [Civil Plans, C3.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How is stormwater being mitigated for these replaced surfaces? [civil plans, pg C3.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Markups added in CV 6.23.22
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How is stormwater being collected via surfaces east of SDCB 2? The paving appears to be graded to the north. An additional CB may be warranted in the NE corner of this area to collect all associated stormwater runoff from the proposed hard surfaces. [civil plans, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The hatches shown on sheet C3.2 does not match this View A. Revise accordingly. [civil plans, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What is this dashed line representing? A grade break? Is this collecting stormwater? [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The 2.92% slope arrow is pointing in the wrong direction. [civil plans, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
add spot elevations at the corners of this section. [Civil Plans, C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This pipe is flowing uphill according to the IE's. [civil plans, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a legend on this sheet. [civil plans pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note that the running slope of any walkway must be 5% or less otherwise this is considered a ramp and must meet ADA accessibility guidelines. [civil plans, pg C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Call out all storm conveyance features. [Civil Plans, C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Label pipe material, diameter and slope. [Civil Plans, C3.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Label diameter, material, slope [Civil Plans, C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove random arrow from this sheet. [civil plans, pg C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Label diameter, material, slope. [Civil Plans, C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add match line. [Civil Plans, C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Indicate what these line are representing. [civil plans, pg C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What are these?
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add legend to this sheet. [civil plans, pg C3.6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise to reference CS 06.01.02 [civil plans, pg C5.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Match Rim elevation given in sheet C3.1.[Civil Plans, C5.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise to be CS 06.01.03 [civil plans, pg C5.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the elevations proposed for Orifices 1,2 and 3. [civil plans, pg C5.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The site plan and bioretention detail do not match. Are two underdrains proposed? [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Amend this detail to show the rock-line swale as shown on sheet C3.2 or amend the plans and detail to provide a 2 inch section of woodchip mulch or aggregate to mimic the 2019 Ecology manual detail. [civil plans pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an overflow structure for the bioretention cell. Be sure to provide the IE's. [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Typo in elevation. [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why is an underdrain proposed? The Ecology manual states underdrain systems should only be installed when the bioretention is: 1. Located near sensitive infrastructure (e.g., unsealed basements) and potential for flooding is likely. 2. Used for filtering storm flows from gas stations or other pollutant hotspots (requires impermeable liner). 3.Located above native soils with infiltration rates that are not adequate to meet maximum pool and system dewater rates, or are below a minimum rate allowed by the local government. 4.In an area that does not provide the minimum depth to a hydraulic restriction layer, e.g., high seasonal ground water. [Civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What is the proposed slope of the underdrain? The Ecology manual suggersts a minimum 0.5% slope unless specified by an Engineer. [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Typo [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove the proposed raingarden detail. [civil plans, pg C5.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show/reference the isolator row location on the plan view. [Civil Plans, C4.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Indicate on the detail that the underdrain will be 6 inches [civil plans, pg C5.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide the WWHM printout to go along with this calculation. [CSWPPP, pg 9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove the proposed landscape islands from the Tesc and demo plan [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Adjacent inlets still subject to sedimentation from potential track runoff. Protect all inlets in vicinity of work [TESC, C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Removed the proposed curb from this sheet. [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add note to protect all downstream inlets within vicinity not shown on plans. [TESC, C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide IE for the baker tank discharge. Provide pipe material, length and slope. [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a detail for the proposed baker tank, be sure to include the dimensions. [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include the required volume for storage and proposed volume via each baker tank. [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide application reference to the Electrical plans, as they were not submitted along with the associated documents. [civil plans. pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Existing bollards not shown on this sheet. Update the plans to reflect this keynote. [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a detail for the proposed pump and calculation to ensure the pump is sized adequately to address stormwater. [civil plans, pg C2.1
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note that the demo and installation of power is not reviewed/approved by the City of Puyallup. [civil plans, C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Proposed power? Remove from this sheet as it is not applicable to the Tesc and Demo plan. [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise text overlap. [civil plans, pg C2.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Proposed communications line or to be demolished? The City of Puyallup is not reviewing approving this utility per this civil application. [civil plans, pg C2.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove keynotes that are not applicable to this sheet. [civil plans, pg C2.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise the rain gardens and provide another treatment BMP. [civil plans, pg C2.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove proposed utilities layers from TESC and Demo plan. [TESC, C2.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
add check damns to this swale segment. [TESC, C2.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add existing manhole to legend(s). Create a note to preserve this manhole or replace it.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note that irrigation lines are being removed. [civil plans, pg C2.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Make a note to protect the existing sewer and gas utilities when removing the irrigation lines. [civil plans, pg C2.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove keynotes not applicable to this sheet. [civil plans, pg C2.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Include CS 01.02.08A Soil Amendment and Depth [civil plans, pg C2.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Replace with COP Standard detail 02.03.02 for siltation fence. [TESC, C2.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Resolve overlap. [TESC Plans C2.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide specific callouts for details/pages. [civil plans, pg C6.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Create a note that the city is not reviewing the proposal of the gas line nor is approving the location with approval of this plan set. [civil plans, pg C6.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove PSE Gas Facility excavation requirements. This will be reviewed/approved by PSE, rather than the City of Puyallup. [civil plans, pg C6.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add proposed thrust blocks to legend per COP STD DTL 03.02.01-1 [civil plans, pg C6.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Text overlap. [civil plans, pg C6.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
During the next submission ensure this seal is signed and dated otherwise the submittal will be rejected [civil plans, pg C6.1].
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe crossing information. [civil plans, pg C6.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a 0.1 foot drop through the manholes from inlet invert to outlet invert. per design standard 401.11. [civil plans, pg C6.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
label the sewer manhole numbers on the profile view. [civil plans, pg C6.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Call out the hydrant to be installed per CS 03.05.01 [civil plans, pg C6.3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
label the sewer manhole number on the profile view. [civil plans, pg C6.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add these symbols to the legend on sheet C6.1. Further is the water main already existing in this location to the north or will it be extended south then east? [civil plans, C6.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise text overlap. [civil plans, pg C6.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe crossing information. [civil plans, pg C6.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
How is this to be built in the field when the profile view shows a vertical bend? [civil plans, pg C6.4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The domestic water service tee and gate valve is 4 inches whereas the water service line is called out as 3 inches. [civil plans, pg C6.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What are all these dark gray lines representing? [civil plans, pg C6.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe diameters and length of pipes. [civil plans, pg C6.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show pipe crossing info. [civil plans, pg C6.5]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide pipe crossing information. [civil plans, pg C6.4]
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Failed
|
06/27/2022
|
06/24/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please show fire access within 150 feet of all points. IFC Appendix D ( C3.0)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Please provide details for signage and demarcation of fire lanes as needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Failed
|
06/27/2022
|
06/23/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
The arborist report is not specific to the site development plan; the report notes: "Development plans have not been provided to provide an opinion on tree protection specific to each tree". Please have the project arborist re-assess the trees near the new development area and provide a supplement memo and tree protection recommendations.
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Please provide a archeological site survey, consistent with DAHP and Puyallup Tribe review and consultation.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
All parking lot landscape islands required to be 15 feet wide (interior curb). All three interior landscape islands must have Silva cells (or eqv.) along interior under parking stalls only. [Planning comment, sheet C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide two walking paths with curbing to provide ped access through the landscape strips [Planning comment, sheet C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Planning cannot locate a proposed landscape plan for this permit. Please review the type IV standards in the city's Vegetation Management Standards (VMS) manual [Planning comment, sheet C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
All stormw water facilities shall be landscaped consistent with the SLD-01 landscape standard in the VMS design manual [Planning comment, sheet C3.2]
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Water Review
|
Failed
|
06/27/2022
|
06/13/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.4: Add - Removed existing blow-off assembly.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.4: Do not plant trees within 10-feet of water main.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: Add 2-inch RPBA 3-feet behind meter. Add City Standard detail 03.04.02 to this plan set.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: This could be a double strap saddle with 2-inch gate valve instead.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: Is an irrigation service needed for this area? If so, protect with DCVA and add City Standard detail 03.04.01 to this plan set.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: Do not plan trees within 10-feet of water main.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: Maximum hydrant run allowed is 20-feet.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: Consider adding an 8-inch gate valve to the northeast side of the proposed tee. This would help with control of this private water system.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Utility and Landscape Plans Sheet C6.5: Do not plan trees within 10-feet of water main.
|
|
|
|
