Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
Building Review
|
No Comments
|
08/21/2024
|
07/26/2024
|
|
|
|
Earth moving during the grading process will require a Geo Engineers report for Building
Envelope soils compaction and bearing capacity.
See conditions subject to application of building permits.
|
Planning Review
|
Comments
|
07/14/2023
|
07/28/2023
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The site appears to be marked as PENDING CLEAN UP for site contamination with the Tacoma Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD); previous SEPA comments from Ecology also indicate environmental clean up issues (see Ecology letter dated April, 2018). SEPA mitigation conditions are forthcoming regarding site environmental assessment, and possible site clean up at the direction of Ecology, to be addressed at the time of civil review. Applicant must coordinate with Ecology and/or TPCHD to resolve. February, 2022 staff follow up comment to this correct: The Ecology clean up report data was obtained in 2020 (Ecology clean up ID 11739). Also see the Ecology SEPA comment letter with requirements (dated April 27, 2018) under the Toxic Clean ups section. The response report (Environmental associates phase 1 report, dated January 14, 2005) provided does not resolve this comment. Please contact the Toxic Clean ups coordinator and Ecology and obtain updated guidance on needed remediation steps to resolve site contamination issues and provide upon resubmittal. UPDATED COMMENT: (July 28, 2023) Staff has reviewed the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the site by Earth Solutions NW and transmitted the report to Ecology for review under SEPA. Ecology provided a response on July 26, 2023 - see file in documents and images. We will require pollution in the environment be cleaned up in compliance with WAC 173-340 before allowing any grading, filling, or other construction activities at the site. or an independent cleanup conducted under WAC 173-340-515, the cleanup would be complete when a no further action opinion (NFA) letter is issued under WAC 173-340-515(5)(b). Please follow up with a response to the Ecology email with a plan of action on the part of the owner/applicant to address the recommendations from the Toxic Cleanup program staff.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
At the time of civil permit application, the applicant shall provide an access and grading plan for proposed lots 7 and 8 that demonstrates access drive will not exceed 10% slope, that storm water design will direct water to the proposed dispersion area to the west and that retaining walls needed to support access to lots 7 and 8 meet the retaining wall codes (PMC 19.12.070 (3) and PMC 20.58.005 (2)). The access tract may need to shift south to avoid conflicts and meet code which may impact final plat layout. See corresponding comments from Fire Prevention and Engineering. UPDATED COMMENT: (July 28, 2023) Staff has reviewed the preliminary exhibit and cannot determine if the wall proposed will meet the setback and height regulations in PMC 19.12.070 (3) and PMC 20.58.005 (2). See mark ups. The feasibility of lot 8 appears dependent upon tract c access and grading and walls.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
All pedestrian walkways shall be dedicated as use by the public at the time of final plat; the walk way between lots 14/15, site wetlands, lots 3/5 will be a public right of way dedication at the time of final plat. These walkways shall be 15’ wide right of way, and fully improved with blacktop asphalt or other approved surfacing by Public Works, 10’ wide improved surface, with 24” gravel shoulders, access restrictions (bollards or other method as approved by Public Works) and landscaping, at the time of civil permitting. UPDATED COMMENT: (July 28, 2023) These do not appear to be called out as ROW dedication and are not shown as improved as required. Please note this will be a condition of recommended approval.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
A 25’ Native Growth Protection Area shall be provided on the rear of lots 13 due to slopes and protective buffer areas for 40%+ slopes and wetlands, per the Geotech report. These areas shall be landscaped and a landscape plan shall be provided for these lots during final landscape plan approval. February, 2022 staff follow up comment: Please revise the lot layout with this protection area shown on the plat sheet(s) as 40%+ area (using the same call out as on tract A) and show buffer setback.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Other conditions outlined in the December, 2020 DRT letter remain in effect and will be carried forward to the Hearing Examiner once all issues related to the plat are resolved.
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm that the NGPA will not be disturbed during site grading. Its not clear if a retaining wall is proposed or a storm drainage line? [R6-02 Prelim plat sheet P2, planning comment]
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm the height and setback of this wall meets PMC 20.58.005 (2). The feasibility of lot 8 appears dependent upon tract c access and grading and walls. [R6-02 Prelim plat sheet P2, planning comment]
|
|
See Document Markup
Add a list of tracts and purpose of each tract to the cover sheet. Please note that tract E, the trail area between pond A and B and trail along west side of tract B are required to be dedicated as public right of way [R6-02 Prelim plat sheet 1, planning comment]
|
|
See Document Markup
Note condition from December 2020 letter that applies to this connection between Highlands DR and 19th Ave extension. Public right of way dedication of 80’ for future roadway connection from the extended 19th Ave to Highlands
Drive shall be provided at the time of final plat on parcel A; [R6-02 Prelim plat sheet 1, planning comment]
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Comments
|
07/14/2023
|
07/18/2023
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Documents reviewed: Although comments were addressed in the December 30, 2021 letter, very few actual updates were presented to reviewers. The following list summarizes documents reviewed. If there are any newer versions of these documents, they were not included in the most recent submittal and were not reviewed.
12/15/2020 – Updated grading plan (sheet P2)
10/23/2020 – Site Plans Sheets 1-5
10/23/2020 – Geotecnical Addendum
10/1/2020 - Revised Storm Report
6/25/2019 - Geo report updated
6/25/2019 - Storm report updated
9/21/2018 – Critical Areas Report updated
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
First and foremost, there will be no further review of the civil portion of the Major Plat due to the non-response to repeated requests for detailed long term ground water monitoring. In addition, 2 test pits are not adequate for a site this size. Infiltration must be shown as infeasible in order for the project to claim that it is infeasible and not use it.
Provide detailed accounts of testing and tabulated results.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following City comment is to address the Engineers response to a previous City comment:
PREVIOUS CITY COMMENT (12/31/2020): The State highway basin does not meet the criteria for full dispersion. The total impervious area exceeds the 10 percent threshold. The overall site is 13.319 acres (2.579 acre onsite plus 10.74-acre native easement). The total impervious is 1.62 acres (.59 acres within the roadway and tracts as measure of drawing plus .844 acres for roof plus .184 acres for driveways). The impervious percentage equals 12.2%. Also, the eastern most flow path slope exceeds 15% based on existing contours. Please revise stormwater report to address this issue.
RESPONSE FROM CLIENT'S ENGINEER (12/30/2021): The storm drainage report will reduce the amount of roof area to 3,600 square feet per lot for a total of 0.66 acres, 0.184 acres driveway (average of 1,000 sf per lot) and 0.474 acres of roadway. The basin will have a total of 1.318 acres which meets the ten (10) percent threshold.
CITY COMMENT ON RESPONSE: It is unclear to reviewers how the roadway will be reduced from 0.59 acres to 0.474. Although a Storm Report and Plans were submitted with this response, the documents either had not been updated since October 2020, or it was not made clear which portions of the documents had been updated. They are both still showing a date of October 2020 which is before the 4th correction notice; from which these comments came, was issued. The client will need to clearly demonstrate on the Civil Plans that the roadway impervious has been reduced and that the total basin meets the 10% requirement.
Also, eastern most flow path slope comment not addressed. Revise stormwater report to address these issues.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following City comment is to address the Engineers response to a previous City comment:
PREVIOUS CITY COMMENT (12/31/2020): A portion of lot 6 and 7 and all of lot 8, tract C and the proposed 5’ walkway is graded towards the north east. The storm report shows a portion of this as a bypass basin that is included in the Shaw Road basin. The bypass basin does not match the grading. Show how the increase in runoff for the northeast corner of the plat will be mitigated? Please revise stormwater report and provide a qualitative description/analysis to address this issue.
RESPONSE FROM CLIENT'S ENGINEER (12/30/2021): The proposed drainage for these lots is being directed to the dispersion area to the north. The post developed basin shows a small bypass area which has been accounted for in the drainage model.
CITY COMMENT ON RESPONSE: It will need to be clearly demonstrated on the civil plans how the water is being conveyed from the lots to the dispersion system. Also clearly demonstrated and described will be the bypass scheme for this basin. The current submittal does not provide enough detail to completely review the drainage in relation to the basins.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following City comment is to address the engineers response to a previous City comment:
PREVIOUS CITY COMMENT (12/31/2020): The access tract shown the storm pond is 20’; City Engineering standards requires a 40’ easement. Previous response noted that an AMR will be submitted to reduce the width at the time of Civil Permit. If the AMR is not approved the buildable area of lot 16 will be impacted. Either the easement shall be widened as part of the preliminary Plat or the AMR shall be submitted and approved prior to Preliminary Plat approval; please address this upon resubmittal.
RESPONSE FROM CLIENT'S ENGINEER (12/31/2021): Attached is the AMR requesting the reduction of the easement width.
CITY COMMENT ON RESPONSE: After further review and discussion the City has determined that an easement is not required because it is in a dedicated tract. City Standard 206(2) discusses the requirements:
Publicly maintained water quality and R/D facilities shall be located in tracts dedicated to the City. The size of the tract shall be based on the size of the stormwater facility. At a minimum, the tract shall include the entire facility, site access area, and at least 5-feet of clearance around the facility. All publicly owned and maintained stormwater tracts/parcels shall be fenced at the property line. Fencing shall meet the minimum requirements of City Standard Detail 06.01.08 – Type 1, Chain Link Fence.
Section 205.2 of the City Standards requires the access road in a tract to be a minimum of 15 feet wide. Employing the minimum 5-foot buffer to each side of the access road would result in a 25-foot access road within Tract B with the pipe centered in the access road.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following City comment is to address the engineers response to a previous City comment:
PREVIOUS CITY COMMENT (12/31/2020): The storm pond does not meet City Stormwater Standards; revise the design upon resubmittal addressing the following issues.
a. The Storm pond shall setback 20’ from any property line.
b. The storm pond is located within a steep slope buffer. Per the DOE stormwater manual, the facility shall not be located above a slope that exceeds 15%.
c. The Drainage Report models to have a bottom that is 79.1’ by 79.1’. The bottom of the pond shown on the preliminary plat is approximately half that size.
d. The storm pond will be City owned infrastructure. The city does not accept its current location above a steep slope that leads to a wetland. This configuration will likely case additional maintenance and has a potential for failure over time. The pond shall be relocated to a more suitable location outside of any critical areas or buffers.
RESPONSE FROM CLIENT'S ENGINEER (12/30/2021):
a. Please provide specific location where the pond does not meet the 20-feet
b. The geotechnic engineer addressed this in their previous memo
c. The pond bottom is 60 x 120 feet which is approximately the same area
d. The previous Geotechnical Engineering memo addressed the location of the proposed pond in relation to the steep slope
CITY COMMENT ON RESPONSE:
a. Ensure that the pond is a minimum of 20-feet from any structure, property line, or vegetative buffer and 50-feet from steep slopes per Volume V, Chapter 10.3 of the SWMMWW.
b. Cannot locate information in “previous memo”. Specify document version and page number where this is addressed. Reviewers read the 6/24/2019 updated Geotech report, the 10/23/2020 addendum to the Geotechnical Report and the updated October 2020 Storm Report and cannot find any mention of how the design will conform to the Ecology Manual’s provisions for ponds near steep slopes and, in fact, these documents still refer sporadically to a stormwater vault.
c. Model the pond as it is proposed to be constructed.
d. See Comment on Response 8.b.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following City comment is to address the engineers response to a previous City comment:
PREVIOUS CITY COMMENT (12/31/2020): The storm design does not adequately show that the project meets MR #8 of the 2014 DOE Stormwater Manual. Please revise stormwater report to address this issue.
a. The Hydroperiod needs to match the guidance included in Appendix I-D. Provide a revised analysis/design that shows the project meets MR #8. The hydraulic analysis shall also be evaluated by the project wetland Biologist to verify that there is no new loss.
b. The three consecutive wetlands have been modeled as one wetland. The conveyance between wetland A and B appears undersized. Provide an analysis that show the three are hydraulically connected to function as one.
RESPONSE FROM CLIENT'S ENGINEER (12/30/2021):
a. The wetland biologist reviewed the analysis and the calculations to verify there is no new loss b. Please provide direction on what the city would consider the critical path with regards to the wetland and drainage. The intent was to preserve the wetland removing and replacing culverts will impact the wetland and require mitigation.
CITY COMMENT ON RESPONSE:
a. The direction from the City was to revise the stormwater report and analysis to demonstrate to reviewers that the project meets Minimum Requirement #8.
b. The critical path is conforming with applicable City and State design standards. Provide an analysis that demonstrates proper culvert capacity and that the wetlands are hydraulically connected.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following City comment is to address the engineers response to a previous City comment:
PREVIOUS CITY COMMENT (12/31/2020): The storm report does not provide enough information to determine how the wetlands and storm system will function. Once the storm pond is constructed the wetland will function as part of the onsite storm system.
a. The existing culvert between Wetland A&B appears undersize for the volume of water that is being contributed to wetland A from the adjacent neighborhood.
b. Provide a complete hydraulic analysis of the wetlands, ex culvert/control structure, inlet to the wetlands and outlet.
c. As part of the analysis show how the downstream storm system will be affected by any changes to the existing wetlands hydraulics.
RESPONSE FROM CLIENT'S ENGINEER (12/30/2021):
a. The wetland has functioned for several years in the existing condition. The intent of the storm design was to maintain the wetland hydrology while meeting the flow control requirements. Adjusting or changing the wetland culverts will impact the wetland function. Is the city suggestion we replace the 3 existing culverts so the drainage can flowthrough the wetlands? A note can be placed on the plans indicating the culvert replacement.
b. An analysis was provided in the preliminary storm report.
c. It was not our intention to change the downstream hydraulics.
CITY COMMENT ON RESPONSE:
a. The existing condition is being changed by the development. Sine it is the applicant that wants to discharge to the wetlands, thereby altering the historical function, it shall be the applicant that demonstrates compliance with local regulations.
b. The analysis shall be enhanced prior to civil submittal to include details about the proposed control structure, inlet and outlet to and from wetlands, and capacity of the system on-site and downstream.
c. All new development impacts the downstream areas and hydraulics.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
-Geotech Report and other documentation still refer to a detention vault and older lot configurations. Ensure that all documents including reports, plans and model outputs on subsequent submittals represent the most current design. Any reference to design elements that are not part of the project will result in the review being halted. This will help lower the amount of subsequent reviews and re-submittals.
-The modeling and the design discount groundwater. Wet weather modeling to determine the peak groundwater level to inform pond and general site design is required. See #3 under Engineering Conditions from DRT Letter #4. Display results of wet weather monitoring in detail including groundwater levels on particular wet weather dates showing a peak over a specific period of time.
-The Stormwater Report claims that the State Highway Basin is dispersed over a full ¼ mile, but the easement is only for 100 feet. If the full quarter mile is to be used for stormwater dispersion, then the size of the easement (unbuildable area) must be commensurate. In addition:
• Dispersion area is located in right of way. Unless it was previously discussed by past reviewers, CBs #14. #16, and #18 should be relocated to the future curbline within the newly dedicated ROW on 19th Ave SE and the dispersion infrastructure moved outside of the ROW not only for 19th Ave SE, but for the future dedication of 21st St E.
• The area proposed for the dispersion paths needs to be a part of the project. Either an easement or a dedicated tract (City Standard 206(2)).
• According to documents submitted by the applicant there are wetlands and slopes that may exceed regulations for dispersion on parcel number 0420353009. There are also wetlands on the west side of 21st St E. Dispersion is not allowed in critical area buffers or on slopes exceeding 20%. Provide rationale or revise, clearly indicating all wetlands and buffers.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
NOTE TO DESIGNER: As this project has a lot of history and several reviews/reviewers, on this round of Major Plat Review we have included many notes regarding plat layout and construction. This is to ensure that notes from previous reviews are not lost or forgotten. Many of these engineering comments do not require responses or corrections and are included as reminders or placeholders for items and design concepts that shall be included with the civil submittal. Other comments will require clarification or correction for this phase of development review. Please review the notes thoroughly in order to reduce subsequent submittals and review times.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
STORM GENERAL
- Development and redevelopment projects are required to employ, wherever feasable, Low Impact Development practices to meet the design criteria set forth in PMC 21.10.190 and the Ecology Manual.
- Public ROW runoff shall be detained and treated independently from proposed private stormwater faciities. This shall be accomplished by providing separate publicly maintained storm facilities within a tract or dedicated ROW; enlarging the private facilities to account for bypass runoff; or other methods as approved by the City Engineer. PMC 21.10.190(3).
- At the time of civil permit application the applicant is responsible for submitting a permanent stormwater management plan which meets the design requirements provided by PMC 21.10. The plan and accompanying information shall provide sufficient information to evaluate the environmental characteristics of the affected areas, the potential impacts of the proposed development on surface water resources, and the effectiveness and acceptability of measures proposed for managing storm water runoff. The findings, existing and proposed impervious areas, facility sizing, and overflow control shall be summarized in a written report. PMC 21.10.190, 21.10.060.
- In the event that during civil design there is insufficient room for proposed stormwater facilities in the area(s) shown on the plat, the stormwater area(s) shall be increased as necessary so that the final design will be in compliance with city and state standards. This may result in the number of lots being reduced, or a reduction in other site amenities. PMC 21.10.060(4), PMC 21.10.150.
- At the time of preliminary plat construction all storm drains shall be signed according to City of Puyallup Design Standard 204.11.
- All private storm drainage facilities shall be covered by a maintenance agreement provided by the city and recorded by Pierce County. Under this agreement, if the owner fails to properly maintain the facilities, the city, after giving the owner notice, may perform necessary maintenance at the owners expense. PMC 21.10.270
- Erosion control measures for this site will be critical. A comprehensive erosion control plan will be required as part of the civil permit application.
- Prior to the final plat being accepted by the city, all disturbed areas within the site shall be stabilized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
- A Stormwater System Development Charge (SDC) will be assessed for each new Single Family Residence (SFR). The current SDC as of this writing is $4,013.00 per unit. Stormwater SDCs are due at the time of site development permit, or in the case where no site development permit is required, at the time of building permit issuance for the individual lot(s), and the fees do not vest until the time of site development permit issuance, or at the time of building permit issuance in the case where a site development permit is not required.
- A Construction Stormwater General Permit shall be obtained from the Washington State Department of Ecology if any land disturbing activities will disturb one or more acres of land, or are part of a larger common plat of development or sale that will ultimately disturb one or more acres of land.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
FULL DISPERSION - The concept of FULL DISPERSION is acceptable to the City and is a preferred method of controlling runoff. However, there are specific design standards laid out by the ECY Manual that have to be met in order to qualify the design. The Drainage Report at CIVIL SUBMITTAL must clearly demonstrate how the design will achieve these requirements. Specifically:
-According to the 2019 SWMMWW the design must be laid out to allow the runoff from the impervious or cleared areas to fully disperse into the preserved area, meaning that the flows cannot be intercepted by PIPES, ditches, streams, rivers, lakes, or wetlands. See BMP T5.30.
-The entire parcel set aside for dispersion must be in an easement or be dedicated to the City. Showing the 100 foot flow path is correct for stormwater analysis, but the entire parcel is to be preserved.
-Specify that the project is using FULL DISPERSION FROM ROADWAY SURFACES under BMP T5.30 to mitigate roofs and driveways. Address each bullet (requirement) from that section in detail or describe how the roof and driveway runoff will be otherwise conveyed and dispersed through the preserved parcel.
-Refer to FULL DISPERSION FROM CLEARED AREAS IN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS for requirements related to landscaped and cleared areas. Address each bullet from that section in detail or describe how the cleared areas will be dispersed through the preserved parcel.
-What is the true size of the proposed preserved parcel? Page 8 of the stormwater report says 10.74 while other docs claim about 11.13. GIS says 10.77. Measure the parcel POST-DEDICATION and use that number for the 10% impervious area within a dispersion basin calculation.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
RECHARGE BASIN - This project basin ultimately discharges to existing wetlands/ponds within the development. To that end the project must demonstrate compliance with the following conditions:
- Document the tributary area to the wetland/ponds and provide an analysis of surface water elevations and volume using a continuous runoff model for the 100-year recurrence interval developed condition.
- Any developed flows to the ponds shall match the pre-developed flowrates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year recurrence interval flows.
- The overflow route from the wetlands/ponds shall be analyzed, using the fully developed contributing basin and any potential adverse impacts shall be identified and mitigated.
- Provide hydroperiod analysis in accordance with the ECY Manual MR#8 and Appendix I-C.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
RECHARGE BASIN - Will roofs from lots 16-18 be hard piped to manifold in back of lots? Is manifold to be installed in "forrested" area? How will runoff from Lots 9-12 drain to the buffer?
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
RECHARGE BASIN - Minor discrepensies persist between the Basin Maps and the model. Lawn is 0.76 on Basin Map and is modeled as 0.543 acres. Totals do not match: 5.45 acres on the map and 5.238 acres modeled. Clarify or revise.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
RECHARGE BASIN: Existing culverts should be analyzed in conjunction with the recharge of the ponds/wetlands for proper capacity based on the developed condition. The analysis shall be enhanced prior to civil submittal to include details about the proposed control structures and the specific inputs and outflows to the existing ponds/wetlands.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
ROADWAY BASIN - 23rd St Pl SE - Model this basin like the recharge basin. Clearly step through each phase of the drainage (ex: lawn->forest->buffer->pond) for both routes (23rd St Pl SE and through the buffer behind Lot 15). Current modeling shows that mitigated flows exceed pre-developed flows. Provide more information and show the graph of the mitigated versus the pre-developed. Incorporate the model results into the Hydroperiod Analysis and clearly illustrate the nexus between the two.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM - Clarify for reviewers the results of the groundwater monitoring program. The purpose is to record the highest and median groundwater levels in order for the project to be allowed to exclude infiltration from the design (in this case). In TP-104 the peak depth is recorded, but the peak groundwater level would correspond with the smallest depth BGS recorded thus revealing the highest elevation that the groundwater reached. Also, it is unclear to reviewers why the other 2 wells (TP-201 and TP-202) were only dug to depths that represent a level that is just above all recorded groundwater levels resulting in negative (?) depths to groundwater and N/A readings in the table. If the level of the water is known can it not be reported and analyzed? Revise or clarify.
|
|
See Document Markup
Correct typo as indicated. [R6-05 Prelim Report 2023_05_23*, Page 15/281]
|
|
See Document Markup
Correct typo as indicated. [R6-05 Prelim Report 2023_05_23*, Page 38/281]
|
|
See Document Markup
Why are CB#1 and CB#2 proposed to drain directly into the City's system? Report says the roadway for 23rd St Pl SE will flow to dispersion trench in Tract B. [R6-02 Preliminary Plat Plans, Sheet P2]
|
|
See Document Markup
Symbol not in legend. Is this a retaining wall? Provide details including drainage and structural engineering if required with civil submittal. [R6-02 Preliminary Plat Plans, Sheet P2]
|
|
See Document Markup
What does this shape and linetype represent? Legend shows this linetype as an easement line. [R6-02 Preliminary Plat Plans, Sheet P2]
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
WATER PMC Chapter 14.02 and Puyallup Design Standards Section 300
- A new 8-inch diameter water main shall be extended into the site. The 4-inch main proposed on the plans on 23rd St Pl SE may be acceptable as it is a dead-end run with no possibility of being expanded in the future. If a fire hydrant is required then the pipe will need to be upsized. Pipe for water mains shall be ductile iron conforming to Section 7-9 of the Standard Specifications.
- Water mains shall have a minimum cover of 36-inches from paved final grade in improved ROW and easements, and 48-inches of cover in unimproved ROW and easements.
- 2-inch blow off assemblies are required on dead-end water lines except where fire hydrants are installed at the dead-end. See Detail 03.06.01.
- A 3/4-inch water service shall be provided for each building lot and shall be extended 10-feet into each of the proposed lots.
- The water main shall be located generally 10 or 12-feet west or south of roadway centerlines per city standard details.
- The minimum distance between water lines and sewer lines shall be 10-feet horizontally and 18-inches vertically. If this criterion cannot be met the applicant shall isolate the sewer and water lines by encasement, shielding, or other approved methods. CS 301.1(8).
- Fire Hydrants and other appurtenances shall be placed as directed by the Puyallup Fire Code Official. Fire Hydrants shall be placed so that there is a minimum of 50-feet separation from hydrants to any building walls.
- Air relief valves are required at high points in water lines. See detail 03.07.01.
- Water valves shall be installed along the water line at a maximum spacing of 400 feet and at the intersection of lateral lines. Water valves shall be clustered generally and shall be designed and located so that each leg of the main line system can be isolated.
- Detectable marking tape shall be installed on all new water mains including water service lines. The tape shall be placed approximately 1.5 feet above the top of pipe and shall extend its full length. Detectable marking tape shall be blue in color and meet the material requirements specified in the Standard Specifications 9-15.18.
- A water systems development charge (SDC) will be assessed for each new single-family residence. The current amount as of this writing is $5,218.00. SDCs are due at the time of building permit issuance and do not vest until time of permit issuance.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SEWER PMC Chapter 14.08 and Puyallup Design Standards Section 400
- The applicant shall extend the existing public sewer main located within 23rd St Pl SE into the new cul-de-sac.
- 6-inch side sewers shall be extended 15 feet into the proposed lots. The depth at the property line shall be a minimum depth of 5-feet.
- Side sewers shall have a cleanout at the property line, at the building, and every 100 feet between the two points.
- A sewer systems development charge (SDC) will be assessed for each new single-family residence. The current amount as of this writing is $5,218.00. SDCs are due at the time of building permit issuance and do not vest until time of permit issuance.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
TRAFFIC SCOPING WORKSHEET - Traffic scoping worksheet says 15 units and current plans show 18. Update scoping document for civil submittal.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
STREETS GENERAL
- Root barriers in accordance with City Standard Detail 01.02.03 shall be installed for all street trees within 10-feet of the ROW.
- Wheel chair ramps, driveways, etc. shall be constructed in accordance with city standards and current ADA regulations. If there is a conflict between the city standards and ADA regulations, the ADA regulations shall take precedence over the city's requirements.
- A separate street lighting and channelization plan is required for the city's review as part of the civil permit review.
- The sidewalks fronting home sites within the plat shall be poured at the time the homes are built. All other sidewalks are to be poured at the time of plat development. The developer shall be responsible to post an assignment of funds to guarantee all sidewalks are poured within 18 months of final plat approval.
- The asphalt within the sub-division shall be placed in two 2-inch lifts. The first lift shall be placed prior to final plat approval. The second lift shall be delayed until 90% of the homes are built or until18 months after time of final plat, whichever occurs first. The developer shall be required to post an assignment of funds to guarantee the second lift.
- Street numbering and addressing shall be provided by Engineering Services and reflected on the final plat documents.
- Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall post a maintenance bond with the city in an amount set by the city to guarantee all workmanship for a one-year period from the time of plat completion.
- Existing private utilities that are in conflict with city maintained ROW and utilities shall be relocated outside of the traveled road section, i.e., behind the curb and under the sidewalk area at the developers expense.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
What will become of the newly created areas of 23rd St Pl SE where the 'existing cul-de-sac is to be removed'? While these areas are dedicated to the City, they still need to be reconstructed or stabilized.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Identify/locate and label with the AFN the storm easement depicted between 22nd St SE and 23rd St Pl SE.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Label entire 40 foot utility easement on and near 19th Ave SE on the plans. The lines are shown, but more labels/dimensions are needed.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
GRADING GENERAL
- A Grading Plan conforming to all requirements of PMC Section 21.14.120 will be required for this project during civil submittal.
- Note on the plat shall indicate: Certified safe bearing load for the building lots.
- Note on the plat shall indicate: Geotech report required for each building lot prior to issuance of a building permit for said lot.
- Cross sections will be required at various points along the property lines extending 30-feet onto adjacent properties to assure no impact from storm water damming or runoff.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following dedication language shall be provided on the final plat document:
- FURTHER, THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF THE LAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED, WAIVE FOR THEMSELVES, THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS, AND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY DERIVING TITLE FROM THE UNDERSIGNED, ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE CITY OF PUYALLUP, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, WHICH MAY BE OCCASIONED TO ADJACENT LAND BY THE CONSTRUCTION, DRAINAGE OR MAINTENANCE OF DEDICATED ROADS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION, OTHER THAN CLAIMS RESULTING FROM INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE BY THE CITY OF PUYALLUP.
FURTHER, THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF THE LAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED, AGREE FOR THEMSELVES, THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS, TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD THE CITY OF PUYALLUP, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, HARMLESS FROM ANY LOSSES, INCLUDING ANY REASONABLE COSTS OF DEFENSE, SUFFERED BY THE CITY OF PUYALLUP, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, RESULTING FROM CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES BY PERSONS WITHIN OR WITHOUT THIS SUBDIVISION FINALLY ADJUDICATED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OR WRONGFUL ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, THEIR EMPLOYEES, AGENTS OR CONTRACTORS, IN ALTERING THE GROUND SURFACE, DRAINAGE OR SURFACE OR SUB-SURFACE WATER FLOWS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION, OR IN ESTABLISHING OR CONSTRUCTING THE ROADS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION.
PROVIDED, THIS WAIVER AND INDEMNIFICATION SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY LIABILITY OR DAMAGES RESULT IN WHOLE OR IN PART FORM THE NEGLIGENCE OR WRONGFUL ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE CITY OF PUYALLUP, OR ITS EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, CONTRACTORS, SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS.
SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THIS SUBDIVISION, DEDICATION, WAIVER OF CLAIMS AND AGREEMENT TO HOLD HARMLESS IS MADE WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF SAID OWNERS.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
GENERAL
- Clearly indicate that all Tracts will be dedicated to the city as open space and/or critical area. The city requires adequate provisions for access and maintenance to all public storm facilities located within these tracts and shall condition the review of the civil plans to provide it.
- Utility extensions shall be completed prior to building permit issuance.
- Benchmark and monumentation to the City of Puyallup datum (NAVD 88) will be required as part of this project/plat.
- Prior to permit approval, the applicant shall provide documentation that the United States Post Office has been contacted to coordiante mailbox locations for the project.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Submit a comment response letter detailing how each correction has been addressed and confirming that the conditions and standards requested for future permit submittals have either been prepared or will be.
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
No Comments
|
07/14/2023
|
07/12/2023
|
|
|
|
|
Building Review
|
No Comments
|
07/14/2023
|
07/06/2023
|
|
|
|
original reviews by Eric B and David L.
See Conditions.
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
07/14/2023
|
06/14/2023
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
02/14/2022
|
05/13/2022
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
No Comments
|
02/14/2022
|
03/02/2022
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Revisions Required
|
02/14/2022
|
02/22/2022
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Documents reviewed: Although comments were addressed in the December 30, 2021 letter, very few actual updates were presented to reviewers. The following list summarizes documents reviewed. If there are any newer versions of these documents, they were not included in the most recent submittal and were not reviewed.
12/15/2020 – Updated grading plan (sheet P2)
10/23/2020 – Site Plans Sheets 1-5
10/23/2020 – Geotecnical Addendum
10/1/2020 - Revised Storm Report
6/25/2019 - Geo report updated
6/25/2019 - Storm report updated
9/21/2018 – Critical Areas Report updated
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
First and foremost, there will be no further review of the civil portion of the Major Plat due to the non-response to repeated requests for detailed long term ground water monitoring. In addition, 2 test pits are not adequate for a site this size. Infiltration must be shown as infeasible in order for the project to claim that it is infeasible and not use it.
Provide detailed accounts of testing and tabulated results.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following City comment is to address the Engineers response to a previous City comment:
PREVIOUS CITY COMMENT (12/31/2020): The State highway basin does not meet the criteria for full dispersion. The total impervious area exceeds the 10 percent threshold. The overall site is 13.319 acres (2.579 acre onsite plus 10.74-acre native easement). The total impervious is 1.62 acres (.59 acres within the roadway and tracts as measure of drawing plus .844 acres for roof plus .184 acres for driveways). The impervious percentage equals 12.2%. Also, the eastern most flow path slope exceeds 15% based on existing contours. Please revise stormwater report to address this issue.
RESPONSE FROM CLIENT'S ENGINEER (12/30/2021): The storm drainage report will reduce the amount of roof area to 3,600 square feet per lot for a total of 0.66 acres, 0.184 acres driveway (average of 1,000 sf per lot) and 0.474 acres of roadway. The basin will have a total of 1.318 acres which meets the ten (10) percent threshold.
CITY COMMENT ON RESPONSE: It is unclear to reviewers how the roadway will be reduced from 0.59 acres to 0.474. Although a Storm Report and Plans were submitted with this response, the documents either had not been updated since October 2020, or it was not made clear which portions of the documents had been updated. They are both still showing a date of October 2020 which is before the 4th correction notice; from which these comments came, was issued. The client will need to clearly demonstrate on the Civil Plans that the roadway impervious has been reduced and that the total basin meets the 10% requirement.
Also, eastern most flow path slope comment not addressed. Revise stormwater report to address these issues.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following City comment is to address the Engineers response to a previous City comment:
PREVIOUS CITY COMMENT (12/31/2020): A portion of lot 6 and 7 and all of lot 8, tract C and the proposed 5’ walkway is graded towards the north east. The storm report shows a portion of this as a bypass basin that is included in the Shaw Road basin. The bypass basin does not match the grading. Show how the increase in runoff for the northeast corner of the plat will be mitigated? Please revise stormwater report and provide a qualitative description/analysis to address this issue.
RESPONSE FROM CLIENT'S ENGINEER (12/30/2021): The proposed drainage for these lots is being directed to the dispersion area to the north. The post developed basin shows a small bypass area which has been accounted for in the drainage model.
CITY COMMENT ON RESPONSE: It will need to be clearly demonstrated on the civil plans how the water is being conveyed from the lots to the dispersion system. Also clearly demonstrated and described will be the bypass scheme for this basin. The current submittal does not provide enough detail to completely review the drainage in relation to the basins.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following City comment is to address the engineers response to a previous City comment:
PREVIOUS CITY COMMENT (12/31/2020): The access tract shown the storm pond is 20’; City Engineering standards requires a 40’ easement. Previous response noted that an AMR will be submitted to reduce the width at the time of Civil Permit. If the AMR is not approved the buildable area of lot 16 will be impacted. Either the easement shall be widened as part of the preliminary Plat or the AMR shall be submitted and approved prior to Preliminary Plat approval; please address this upon resubmittal.
RESPONSE FROM CLIENT'S ENGINEER (12/31/2021): Attached is the AMR requesting the reduction of the easement width.
CITY COMMENT ON RESPONSE: After further review and discussion the City has determined that an easement is not required because it is in a dedicated tract. City Standard 206(2) discusses the requirements:
Publicly maintained water quality and R/D facilities shall be located in tracts dedicated to the City. The size of the tract shall be based on the size of the stormwater facility. At a minimum, the tract shall include the entire facility, site access area, and at least 5-feet of clearance around the facility. All publicly owned and maintained stormwater tracts/parcels shall be fenced at the property line. Fencing shall meet the minimum requirements of City Standard Detail 06.01.08 – Type 1, Chain Link Fence.
Section 205.2 of the City Standards requires the access road in a tract to be a minimum of 15 feet wide. Employing the minimum 5-foot buffer to each side of the access road would result in a 25-foot access road within Tract B with the pipe centered in the access road.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following City comment is to address the engineers response to a previous City comment:
PREVIOUS CITY COMMENT (12/31/2020): The storm pond does not meet City Stormwater Standards; revise the design upon resubmittal addressing the following issues.
a. The Storm pond shall setback 20’ from any property line.
b. The storm pond is located within a steep slope buffer. Per the DOE stormwater manual, the facility shall not be located above a slope that exceeds 15%.
c. The Drainage Report models to have a bottom that is 79.1’ by 79.1’. The bottom of the pond shown on the preliminary plat is approximately half that size.
d. The storm pond will be City owned infrastructure. The city does not accept its current location above a steep slope that leads to a wetland. This configuration will likely case additional maintenance and has a potential for failure over time. The pond shall be relocated to a more suitable location outside of any critical areas or buffers.
RESPONSE FROM CLIENT'S ENGINEER (12/30/2021):
a. Please provide specific location where the pond does not meet the 20-feet
b. The geotechnic engineer addressed this in their previous memo
c. The pond bottom is 60 x 120 feet which is approximately the same area
d. The previous Geotechnical Engineering memo addressed the location of the proposed pond in relation to the steep slope
CITY COMMENT ON RESPONSE:
a. Ensure that the pond is a minimum of 20-feet from any structure, property line, or vegetative buffer and 50-feet from steep slopes per Volume V, Chapter 10.3 of the SWMMWW.
b. Cannot locate information in “previous memo”. Specify document version and page number where this is addressed. Reviewers read the 6/24/2019 updated Geotech report, the 10/23/2020 addendum to the Geotechnical Report and the updated October 2020 Storm Report and cannot find any mention of how the design will conform to the Ecology Manual’s provisions for ponds near steep slopes and, in fact, these documents still refer sporadically to a stormwater vault.
c. Model the pond as it is proposed to be constructed.
d. See Comment on Response 8.b.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following City comment is to address the engineers response to a previous City comment:
PREVIOUS CITY COMMENT (12/31/2020): The storm design does not adequately show that the project meets MR #8 of the 2014 DOE Stormwater Manual. Please revise stormwater report to address this issue.
a. The Hydroperiod needs to match the guidance included in Appendix I-D. Provide a revised analysis/design that shows the project meets MR #8. The hydraulic analysis shall also be evaluated by the project wetland Biologist to verify that there is no new loss.
b. The three consecutive wetlands have been modeled as one wetland. The conveyance between wetland A and B appears undersized. Provide an analysis that show the three are hydraulically connected to function as one.
RESPONSE FROM CLIENT'S ENGINEER (12/30/2021):
a. The wetland biologist reviewed the analysis and the calculations to verify there is no new loss b. Please provide direction on what the city would consider the critical path with regards to the wetland and drainage. The intent was to preserve the wetland removing and replacing culverts will impact the wetland and require mitigation.
CITY COMMENT ON RESPONSE:
a. The direction from the City was to revise the stormwater report and analysis to demonstrate to reviewers that the project meets Minimum Requirement #8.
b. The critical path is conforming with applicable City and State design standards. Provide an analysis that demonstrates proper culvert capacity and that the wetlands are hydraulically connected.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following City comment is to address the engineers response to a previous City comment:
PREVIOUS CITY COMMENT (12/31/2020): The storm report does not provide enough information to determine how the wetlands and storm system will function. Once the storm pond is constructed the wetland will function as part of the onsite storm system.
a. The existing culvert between Wetland A&B appears undersize for the volume of water that is being contributed to wetland A from the adjacent neighborhood.
b. Provide a complete hydraulic analysis of the wetlands, ex culvert/control structure, inlet to the wetlands and outlet.
c. As part of the analysis show how the downstream storm system will be affected by any changes to the existing wetlands hydraulics.
RESPONSE FROM CLIENT'S ENGINEER (12/30/2021):
a. The wetland has functioned for several years in the existing condition. The intent of the storm design was to maintain the wetland hydrology while meeting the flow control requirements. Adjusting or changing the wetland culverts will impact the wetland function. Is the city suggestion we replace the 3 existing culverts so the drainage can flowthrough the wetlands? A note can be placed on the plans indicating the culvert replacement.
b. An analysis was provided in the preliminary storm report.
c. It was not our intention to change the downstream hydraulics.
CITY COMMENT ON RESPONSE:
a. The existing condition is being changed by the development. Sine it is the applicant that wants to discharge to the wetlands, thereby altering the historical function, it shall be the applicant that demonstrates compliance with local regulations.
b. The analysis shall be enhanced prior to civil submittal to include details about the proposed control structure, inlet and outlet to and from wetlands, and capacity of the system on-site and downstream.
c. All new development impacts the downstream areas and hydraulics.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
-Geotech Report and other documentation still refer to a detention vault and older lot configurations. Ensure that all documents including reports, plans and model outputs on subsequent submittals represent the most current design. Any reference to design elements that are not part of the project will result in the review being halted. This will help lower the amount of subsequent reviews and re-submittals.
-The modeling and the design discount groundwater. Wet weather modeling to determine the peak groundwater level to inform pond and general site design is required. See #3 under Engineering Conditions from DRT Letter #4. Display results of wet weather monitoring in detail including groundwater levels on particular wet weather dates showing a peak over a specific period of time.
-The Stormwater Report claims that the State Highway Basin is dispersed over a full ¼ mile, but the easement is only for 100 feet. If the full quarter mile is to be used for stormwater dispersion, then the size of the easement (unbuildable area) must be commensurate. In addition:
• Dispersion area is located in right of way. Unless it was previously discussed by past reviewers, CBs #14. #16, and #18 should be relocated to the future curbline within the newly dedicated ROW on 19th Ave SE and the dispersion infrastructure moved outside of the ROW not only for 19th Ave SE, but for the future dedication of 21st St E.
• The area proposed for the dispersion paths needs to be a part of the project. Either an easement or a dedicated tract (City Standard 206(2)).
• According to documents submitted by the applicant there are wetlands and slopes that may exceed regulations for dispersion on parcel number 0420353009. There are also wetlands on the west side of 21st St E. Dispersion is not allowed in critical area buffers or on slopes exceeding 20%. Provide rationale or revise, clearly indicating all wetlands and buffers.
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Revisions Required
|
02/14/2022
|
02/11/2022
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The site appears to be marked as PENDING CLEAN UP for site contamination with the Tacoma Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD); previous SEPA comments from Ecology also indicate environmental clean up issues (see Ecology letter dated April, 2018). SEPA mitigation conditions are forthcoming regarding site environmental assessment, and possible site clean up at the direction of Ecology, to be addressed at the time of civil review. Applicant must coordinate with Ecology and/or TPCHD to resolve. February, 2022 staff follow up comment to this correct: The Ecology clean up report data was obtained in 2020 (Ecology clean up ID 11739). Also see the Ecology SEPA comment letter with requirements (dated April 27, 2018) under the Toxic Clean ups section. The response report (Environmental associates phase 1 report, dated January 14, 2005) provided does not resolve this comment. Please contact the Toxic Clean ups coordinator and Ecology and obtain updated guidance on needed remediation steps to resolve site contamination issues and provide upon resubmittal.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
At the time of civil permit application, the applicant shall provide an access and grading plan for proposed lots 7 and 8 that demonstrates access drive will not exceed 10% slope, that storm water design will direct water to the proposed dispersion area to the west and that retaining walls needed to support access to lots 7 and 8 meet the retaining wall codes (PMC 19.12.070 (3) and PMC 20.58.005 (2)). The access tract may need to shift south to avoid conflicts and meet code which may impact final plat layout. See corresponding comments from Fire Prevention and Engineering.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
All pedestrian walkways shall be dedicated as use by the public at the time of final plat; the walk way between lots 14/15, site wetlands, lots 3/5 will be a public right of way dedication at the time of final plat. These walkways shall be 15’ wide right of way, and fully improved with blacktop asphalt or other approved surfacing by Public Works, 10’ wide improved surface, with 24” gravel shoulders, access restrictions (bollards or other method as approved by Public Works) and landscaping, at the time of civil permitting
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
A 25’ Native Growth Protection Area shall be provided on the rear of lots 13 due to slopes and protective buffer areas for 40%+ slopes and wetlands, per the Geotech report. These areas shall be landscaped and a landscape plan shall be provided for these lots during final landscape plan approval. February, 2022 staff follow up comment: Please revise the lot layout with this protection area shown on the plat sheet(s) as 40%+ area (using the same call out as on tract A) and show buffer setback.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Other conditions outlined in the December, 2020 DRT letter remain in effect and will be carried forward to the Hearing Examiner once all issues related to the plat are resolved.
|
|
|
Building Review
|
No Comments
|
02/14/2022
|
02/11/2022
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Approved
|
|
12/30/2020
|
|
|
|
PLAN CURRENT PLANNING - No Comments
|
Building Review
|
Approved
|
|
12/09/2020
|
|
|
|
BLDG PLAN REVIEW - No Comments
|
Fire Review
|
Pending
|
08/21/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Pending
|
08/21/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Pending
|
08/21/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Pending
|
08/21/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|