Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
Building Review
|
VOID
|
04/22/2022
|
04/26/2022
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Comply with all applicable building codes at time of application(s).
|
|
JK 4/26/2022 - incomplete resubmittal - need to provide complete resubmittal as noted in DRT letter dated 2/17/2022
emailed phil becker 4/26/2022 after receiving another document named Engineered Soils for Storm and Structural Fill Exhibit - need complete submittal
|
Fire Review
|
VOID
|
04/22/2022
|
04/26/2022
|
|
|
|
JK 4/26/2022 - incomplete resubmittal - need to provide complete resubmittal as noted in DRT letter dated 2/17/2022
emailed phil becker 4/26/2022 after receiving another document named Engineered Soils for Storm and Structural Fill Exhibit - need complete submittal
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
VOID
|
04/22/2022
|
04/26/2022
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, please verify 56ft dimension. City estimates only 52.5ft is necessary from centerline
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, please verify 56ft dimension. City estimates only 52.5ft is necessary from centerline
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an exhibit that shows proposed ETC frontage design with proposed ROW location
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide AutoTurn analysis for this radius (NBR movement from outside Shaw Rd lane) to ensure design vehicles can safely maneuver without impacting WBL turn pocket
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an exhibit that shows proposed ETC frontage design & traffic signal pole location in relation to proposed ROW/easement line
|
|
JK 4/26/2022 - incomplete resubmittal - need to provide complete resubmittal as noted in DRT letter dated 2/17/2022
emailed phil becker 4/26/2022 after receiving another document named Engineered Soils for Storm and Structural Fill Exhibit - need complete submittal
|
Engineering Review
|
VOID
|
04/22/2022
|
04/26/2022
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add Phone Number [Short Plat; Sht 1]
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise to 2022 [Short Plat; Sht 1]
|
|
See Document Markup
The recording reference is problematic unless it can be assured that the storm agreement is recorded prior to recording of the short plat. Can Note 4, Sheet 2 (or similar language) replace the paragraph here?[Short Plat; Sht 1]
|
|
See Document Markup
This language may not be necessary pending outcome of Development Agreement [Short Plat; Sht 2]
|
|
See Document Markup
"and/or" [Short Plat; Sht 2]
|
|
See Document Markup
Delete recording reference unless it can be assured that the storm agreement is recorded prior to recording of the short plat. [Short Plat; Sht 2]
|
|
See Document Markup
Legal Description does not agree with updated Title Report {Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
FYI...described bearings are slightly off w/ those shown on Sheet 5 {Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
This bearing is way off w/ Sheet 5 (1d7'47") [Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Does not agree w/ updated Title Report [Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Should reflect updated Title Report provided w/ this submittal. [Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Should reflect updated Title Report provided w/ this submittal. [Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Should reflect updated Title Report provided w/ this submittal. [Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Legal Description does not agree with updated Title Report {Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
This bearing is way off w/ Sheet 5 (1d7'47") [Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
FYI...described bearings are slightly off w/ those shown on Sheet 5 {Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Should reflect updated Title Report provided w/ this submittal. [Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Legal Description does not agree with updated Title Report {Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Legal Description does not agree with updated Title Report {Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
FYI...described bearings are slightly off w/ those shown on Sheet 5 {Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Error in Title Report...should read "Pierce County". Please notify Title Company of Error. [Short Plat; Sht 4]
|
|
See Document Markup
Bearing does not agree w/ Revised Title Report Legal Desc. [Short Plat; Sht 5]
|
|
See Document Markup
Could not locate the well record online...please clarify well type and whether the well will remain.... [Short Plat; Sht 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
Could not locate the well record online...please clarify well type and whether the well will remain.... [Short Plat; Sht 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
Watermain w/in the limits of this short plat (private property) shall remain private (typ) [Short Plat; Sht 7]
|
|
See Document Markup
See comments on Sht 10 [Short Plat; Sht 7]
|
|
See Document Markup
If a sewer stub is provided to the adjacent Nix property per the DA, there may be a need to add language for a future Covenant and/or delineate on the short plat. [Short Plat; Sht 2]
|
|
See Document Markup
Private Storm Drain Esmt? [Short Plat; Sht 7]
|
|
See Document Markup
**...Verify ROW Dedication (34' CL to curb + 0.5' curb + 10' LS + 8' SW= 52.5' [Short Plat; Sht 7]
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per comments, Sht 7 [Short Plat; Sht 8]
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per comments, Sht 7 [Short Plat; Sht 9]
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per comments, Sht 7 [Short Plat; Sht 10]
|
|
See Document Markup
-Left voicemail for Gil 2/3/22 to verify this is to serve outside properties to the east.-If East Town will be utilizing the sewer main, then the line must remain private until such time that a party outside of the Short Plat connects unless a prior agreement is negotiated with the City. [Short Plat; Sht 10]
|
|
See Document Markup
there must be adequate depth to provide for future connection from the East. [Short Plat; Sht 10]
|
|
See Document Markup
Easement width must be agreed to by the City. Current standards require 40-ft min. [Short Plat; Sht 10]
|
|
See Document Markup
Need discussion with City management for future sewer line serving parcels east of the site. Depending on the outcome of those discussions, it is likely a Covenant must be recorded which will dedicate an easement to the City upon future connection of the adjacent parcels.[Short Plat; Sht 10]
|
|
See Document Markup
Watermain outside of ROW on private property shall remain private...revise callouts accordingly. [Short Plat; Sht 11]
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per comments, Sht 7 [Short Plat; Sht 11]
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per comments, Sht 7 [Short Plat; Sht 12]
|
|
See Document Markup
-The proposed engineered fill below the permeable pavement section must comply with the Soil Suitability Criteria for treatment...otherwise, permeable pavement is infeasible. Provide acknowlegement from a licensed geotechnical engineer that the proposed import fill can/will meet the treatment criteria as well as the assumed infiltration rate. [Storm Report; Cover]
|
|
See Document Markup
Per MR5 concrete area should be permeable if feasible. [Storm Report; Pg 4]
|
|
See Document Markup
The City's recommendation would be to connect the existing grass-lined ditch east of the project site with the proposed stream to avoid mixing "clean" ditch runoff and "clean" stream water with the polluted road runoff...see add'l review comments on Pioneer Basin Map, Appendix D. [Storm Report; Pg 5]
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...is the intent to strip the site to these lower elevations? Considering the results of the PIT testing, its obvious that any existing soil above the "restrictive layer" elevation is also non-infiltrative. [Storm Report; Pg 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
-This design approach appears to be recirculating stormwater between the splitter and the biocell...see add'l comments Pioneer Basin Map, Appendix D. [Storm Report; Pg 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
Since flow control (MR7) is triggered, is the biocell large enough to treat (MR6) the entire frontage basin? This would eliminate the need for the "splitter" structure. Also, see add'l review comments on Pioneer Basin Map, Appendix D. [Storm Report; Pg 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
Hard surfaces must be permeable to the extent feasible per MR5...essentially no run-on allowed. [Storm Report; Pg 7]
|
|
See Document Markup
NOTE: The engineered fill must also meet the WQ Soil Suitability Criteria per Ecology, Sect. 3.3.7, SSC-6. This will require geotechnical confirmation prior to short approval to ensure that permeable pavement is feasible. [Storm Report; Pg 7]
|
|
See Document Markup
Due to the minimal depth to the restrictive layer on this site, any infiltration facility other than permeable pavement will require a mounding analysis in accordance with Ecology 3.3.4. [Storm Report; Pg 8]
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Ecology, roof runoff must be evaluated per MR5 BMPs. BMP T5.10A is not applicable (high density multi-family) then bioretention must be considered. If bioretention infeasible, then roof infiltration would require a minimum separation of 5ft to the restrictive layer...which is not possible based on the geotech analysis. (A separation down to 3ft would be allowed if supported by a mounding analysis). [Storm Report; Pg 8]
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide confirming CEC testing of engineered soil at time of civil. Provide geotechnical confirmation prior to short plat approval that the proposed engineered fill can meet Ecology SSC-6. (Note: if engineered soil cannot meet the WQ suitability criteria outlined in Ecology SSC-6, then permeable pavement is not feasible) [Storm Report; Pg 9]
|
|
See Document Markup
clarify...offsite area east of the site? South of the site? [Storm Report; Pg 9]
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise per comments in Section 1 and on the individual basin maps. [Storm Report; Pg 9]
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Fig. F5, the biocell will remain saturated and not provide treatment. Revise accordingly. [Storm Report; Pg 9]
|
|
See Document Markup
also the 1/2-2yr release rate [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
Datum conversion factor at Puyallup should be 3.5' [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...how are the new improvements over the top of the converted pond being accounted for flow control and water quality? If permeable pavement how is the infiltrated water prevented from entering the gravel/glass bed? [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
This may be due to the pond filling with sediment as a result of the sidewall failure and lack of maintenance over the decades. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please note that the converted pond must provide the same volumes and stages for both WQ an FC (not appropriate to match the existing pond condition for water quality). [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
Also need to account for wetpool storage for WQ (23,454cf below live storage per CES Design Report) [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
and 1/2-2yr event (ref. CES Para 3.4) [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
This is ok for the control riser, but facility volumes must be "equivalent" to those in the CES Design Report. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
In order to meet WQ, the dead storage must match the CES design, not the blown out pond condition. CES WQ Storage = 23,454cf. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
If this is the footprint, then only 8,192cf of WQ volume is provided. Need to match the CES Design WQ Volume of 23,454cf. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
Once WQ wetpool volume (23454cf) is accounted for, will the same flow frequency results be obtained? [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
These WQ values have no meaning (hypothetical pond). Need to match the original CES design WQ volume to provide the same level of treatment at the time of pond approval. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
Gravel Bed Footprint = 20,480sfGravel Bed Porosity = 0.40Wetpool depth (dead storage) = 1ftWQ Volume provided = 20480*0.4*1= 8,192cfWQ Volume required = 23, 454cf No Good.
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise per review comments. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please label as "Dead Storage" (wetpool for WQ) [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Per CES design report, total dead storage below El 66.55 (70.05) for WQ should be 23,454cf. [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Adjust elevations for 3.5ft conversion factor from NGVD29 to NAVD88. [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Shouldn't this be zero (bottom of live storage)? [Storm Report; Fig 5}
|
|
See Document Markup
Shouldn't this be zero (bottom of live storage)? [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 5]
|
|
See Document Markup
These WQ values have no meaning. WQ volume should be based on CES's original wetpond design (23,454cf) [Storm Report, Pond Conv; Fig 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
This appears to be the pond volumes based on the as-surveyed condition. The conversion design must match the FC volumes (and release rates) as well as the original WQ volume of 23,454cf. [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
Match original WQ volume of 23, 454cf and account for the backfill void space. [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
Review comments associated with the preliminary storm report may be addressed through the Preliminary Site Plan Application, P-21-0034 so that the Short Plat Application, P-21-0025, may continue through landuse process independently. [Storm Report; Cover]
|
|
See Document Markup
Although it is acceptable to record an independent Right of Way Deed, it is preferable to callout the dedication on the Short Plat document. However, there are still discrepancies associated with the needed ROW widths. See Engineering and Traffic's ROW comments on the short plat document, 2nd Submittal, dated December 22, 2021. [ROW Deed]
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide Property Owner Acknowledgment per City Standard Short Plat template. [Short Plat; Sht 1]
|
|
See Document Markup
Per the Storm Report, there is a bioretention cell proposed to serve the Pioneer Way frontage. Any stormwater facility serving public infrastructure must be wholly located in ROW or a separate tract dedicated to the City. Show on plat document. [Short Plat; Sht 7]
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
See review comments on the short plat document and respond accordingly.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
At the time of Short Plat application, the site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area Unnumbered A-Zone as determined by the National Flood Insurance Program Community Panel Number 53053C0342E, dated March 7, 2017. However, the applicant has recently submitted a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to FEMA requesting approval of a revised floodplain delineation. Please be aware that landuse approval cannot be granted until the flood study is approved by FEMA, or prior to executing a separate written agreement between the applicant and City.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
If any portion of the project site remains in a regulated floodplain after FEMA’s LOMR determination, development of the property shall adhere to the regulations contained in PMC Chapter 21.07. Specifically:
- The applicant shall submit a habitat assessment prepared by a qualified professional evaluating the effects and/or indirect effects of the proposed development (during both construction and post-construction) on floodplain functions and documenting that the proposed development will not result in “take” of any species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
- If it is determined that the proposed project will impact any listed species or their habitat, the applicant shall provide a mitigation plan to achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions as those lost prior to development of the site.
- Provide compensatory storage, if necessary, in accordance with PMC 21.07.060(1)f.
- The lowest floor of the structure, including any basement, shall be elevated 1-foot above the BFE and/or floodproofed to 1-foot above the BFE. Please be aware that providing additional freeboard above the BFE can reduce insurance premiums.
- No occupancy permit shall be issued until such time as a Federal Emergency Management Agency Elevation Certificate is completed based on “Finished Construction” and submitted to the Engineering Services Manager.
- Plats shall indicate the regulated floodplain boundary, the BFE, and the minimum finished floor elevation(s) on the face of the plat document(s).
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
During a recent site visit it was indicated that a regulated stream runs along the east property line discharging to the Pioneer Way ditch. The proposed stream conveyance design shall be reviewed and approved by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) prior to short plat approval to ensure adequate ROW is dedicated on the short plat document.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Review comments associated with the preliminary storm report may be addressed through the Preliminary Site Plan Application, P-21-0034 so that this Short Plat Application, P-21-0025, may continue through landuse process independently.
|
|
JK 4/26/2022 - incomplete resubmittal - need to provide complete resubmittal as noted in DRT letter dated 2/17/2022
emailed phil becker 4/26/2022 after receiving another document named Engineered Soils for Storm and Structural Fill Exhibit - need complete submittal
|
Planning Review
|
VOID
|
04/22/2022
|
04/26/2022
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The habitat assessment dated revised 12/14/21 does not meet the planning conditions issued to the applicant on 12/06/21 (related to E-21-0435 and -0426), which stated: The Selected Development Action on page 9 of the October 23, 2021 Habitat Tech report states the report covers the entire property development of 11 acres. The response letter (related to E-21-0435 and -0426) of 11/30/21 from Abbey Road states the submitted habitat assessment report only applies to the selected development action under E-21-0426 and E-21-0425. The response from Abbey Road may be acceptable to the smaller scope of work if the project biologist provides a corrected habitat assessment report and analysis that supports the conclusions that no impacts to flood storage and no impacts to storm water run off will occur based on the scope of work being permitted. The selected development proposal on page 9 still states the habitat assessment covers the entire development proposal. The letter Abbey Road provided to the city on 12/03/21 stated the habitat assessment covered only the area of work and scope of work covered under E-21-0426 and -0435. The habitat assessment is not approved for the entire site development proposal at this time and will be subject to further review under the underlying parent SEPA and land use permits for the East Town Crossing site. This includes the short plat application (P-21-0025). Nothing shall be construed under the approval of E-21-0426 or -0435 as an approval of a habitat assessment for the entire site development application as comments from the city's consultant (Confluence) are still unresolved (see Confluence letter dated 11/22/21). If the applicant provided a letter of map amendment approval from FEMA, these comments will change accordingly.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Please add citation for zoning match line on sheet 8 of 12. Is this taken from an official zoning map / GIS data? The match line for RM-20 and CG appear off along Pioneer when comparing to GIS zoning layer.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The stream buffer areas must be placed into critical area tracts per PMC 21.06.830. Confluence previous review (October 28, 2021) agrees with a type III category (50' buffer) for road side creek on south side of East Pioneer and a type IV category (35' buffer) for the eastern creek. Given the review status of the buffer area and tract issues with the short plat, the tract area cannot be determined until review is reconciled with preliminary site plan application P-21-0034.
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Puyallup/#!/Puyallup21/Puyallup2106.html#21.06.830
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following critical area notes are required on sheet #2:
o All lots in this short plat contain critical aquifer recharge areas. A critical aquifer recharge area note for each affected lot shall indicate: “The site is within a high susceptibility/critical aquifer recharge area. Uses and activities on this site shall comply with the city’s critical area ordinance (Puyallup Municipal Code 21.06, Article XI). Activities that do not cause degradation of ground water quality and will not adversely affect the recharging of the aquifer may be permitted in a critical aquifer recharge area and do not require preparation of a critical area report; provided, that they comply with the city storm water management regulations and other applicable local, state and federal regulations.”
o All lots in this short plat contain a volcanic hazard area. A volcanic hazard area note for each lot affected shall indicate: “The site is within a volcanic hazard area (Lahar). In the event of an eruption of Mt. Rainier, the site is expected to be inundated by mud and debris flows of a catastrophic nature. Uses and activities on this site shall comply with the city’s critical area ordinance (Puyallup Municipal Code 21.06, Article XII, section 21.06.1260, or succeeding section, regarding volcanic hazard areas.”
o Lots XX and XX have a Native Growth Protection Area easement placed over them (OR Tract XX) contain wetland areas and protective wetland buffers which is set aside as a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) pursuant to PMC 21.06. A note shall be included on the face of the plat for each affected lot indicating: “This lot contains a [insert type, class or category of critical area] wetland and/or wetland buffer that is protected by federal, state and local regulations. A wetland is a permanently, semi-permanently, or seasonally flooded area of land with a distinct ecosystem based on hydrology, hydric soils, and vegetation adapted for life in water saturated soils. Wetlands provide numerous benefits to the natural environment including water quality, flood control, wildlife habitat, shoreline stability, and aesthetic values. Since the 1780s, Washington has lost 31 percent of its wetland areas, from 1.35 million acres to 938,000 acres, contributing to loss of flood storage and habitat areas. Wetlands are critical to the overall health of watersheds and property owners are key for protecting, restoring, and managing our state's remaining wetland resources. Modification of land or vegetation and/or encroachment/conversion of these areas is strictly prohibited without prior government approval.”
o Lots XX and XX contain a fish and wildlife conservation area. A note shall be included on the face of the plat for each affected lot indicating: “This lot contains a fish and wildlife habitat area that is protected by federal, state and local regulations. These areas serve a critical role in sustaining needed habitats and species for the functional integrity of the ecosystem, and which, if altered, may cause species to become extinct. Property owners are key for protecting, restoring, and managing our state's remaining habitat areas. Modification of land or vegetation and/or encroachment/conversion of these areas is strictly prohibited without prior government approval.
o All lots in this short plat contain 100-year floodplain areas. A note shall be included on the face of the plat for each affected lot indicating: “This lot is located within the regulated 100-year floodplain; this area has a 1% chance every year of flooding/inundation that could affect life, property, structures and improvements. All development and land modifications of floodplain areas requires city approval and consistency with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), critical areas ordinance (PMC 21.06) and flood protection ordinance (PMC 21.07), as well as any other applicable state, federal and local laws. Modification of land or vegetation, especially land filling that could reduce flood storage capacity, and/or encroachment/conversion of these areas is strictly prohibited without prior government approval.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
• All lots in this short plat with frontage on a public road contain a Vegetation Buffer area; these areas are designated to promote the visual quality of the streetscapes and provide additional buffering from transportation corridors. Please add the following note to the face of the plat stating that landscaping in these areas shall follow the city’s standard specifications. Final building / civil permit approval shall be conditioned to include landscaping in these areas.
“A XX-foot “Native Vegetation Protection Easement (NVPE)” area is required along the frontage of Lot X (insert lot #s). The NVPE is meant to promote the visual quality of the streetscapes and provide additional buffering from major street corridors. A landscape plan meeting city standards shall be provided by the applicant and the following shall be required:
• The NVPE shall be preserved in accordance with a final landscape plan and shall not be modified, disturbed or otherwise displaced without prior approval from the city’s Planning Division; and,
• It is the right of the city to enforce the terms of the restriction in the easement area.”
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Please provide AFN 201210305003 as noted on sheet 5, reference note 8.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Note #1 sheet 5 notes the survey is for future development. The survey is related to the subdivision of the lots. The application is not a binding site plan.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Please clean up the lots shown as part of the short plat. Sheet 7 shows a mix of existing plat lines and parcels that are not part of the three lot short plat. There needs to be one sheet that does not intermix the easements and existing lot lines outside of the short plat for clarity of what the city is and is not approving.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SEPA will need to be complete (under P-21-0034) prior to approval of the short plat (per PMC 19.07.070).
|
|
JK 4/26/2022 - incomplete resubmittal - need to provide complete resubmittal as noted in DRT letter dated 2/17/2022
emailed phil becker 4/26/2022 after receiving another document named Engineered Soils for Storm and Structural Fill Exhibit - need complete submittal
|
Engineering Review
|
Revisions Required
|
01/21/2022
|
02/15/2022
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add Phone Number [Short Plat; Sht 1]
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise to 2022 [Short Plat; Sht 1]
|
|
See Document Markup
The recording reference is problematic unless it can be assured that the storm agreement is recorded prior to recording of the short plat. Can Note 4, Sheet 2 (or similar language) replace the paragraph here?[Short Plat; Sht 1]
|
|
See Document Markup
This language may not be necessary pending outcome of Development Agreement [Short Plat; Sht 2]
|
|
See Document Markup
"and/or" [Short Plat; Sht 2]
|
|
See Document Markup
Delete recording reference unless it can be assured that the storm agreement is recorded prior to recording of the short plat. [Short Plat; Sht 2]
|
|
See Document Markup
Legal Description does not agree with updated Title Report {Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
FYI...described bearings are slightly off w/ those shown on Sheet 5 {Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
This bearing is way off w/ Sheet 5 (1d7'47") [Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Does not agree w/ updated Title Report [Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Should reflect updated Title Report provided w/ this submittal. [Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Should reflect updated Title Report provided w/ this submittal. [Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Should reflect updated Title Report provided w/ this submittal. [Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Legal Description does not agree with updated Title Report {Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
This bearing is way off w/ Sheet 5 (1d7'47") [Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
FYI...described bearings are slightly off w/ those shown on Sheet 5 {Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Should reflect updated Title Report provided w/ this submittal. [Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Legal Description does not agree with updated Title Report {Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Legal Description does not agree with updated Title Report {Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
FYI...described bearings are slightly off w/ those shown on Sheet 5 {Short Plat; Sht 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Error in Title Report...should read "Pierce County". Please notify Title Company of Error. [Short Plat; Sht 4]
|
|
See Document Markup
Bearing does not agree w/ Revised Title Report Legal Desc. [Short Plat; Sht 5]
|
|
See Document Markup
Could not locate the well record online...please clarify well type and whether the well will remain.... [Short Plat; Sht 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
Could not locate the well record online...please clarify well type and whether the well will remain.... [Short Plat; Sht 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
Watermain w/in the limits of this short plat (private property) shall remain private (typ) [Short Plat; Sht 7]
|
|
See Document Markup
See comments on Sht 10 [Short Plat; Sht 7]
|
|
See Document Markup
If a sewer stub is provided to the adjacent Nix property per the DA, there may be a need to add language for a future Covenant and/or delineate on the short plat. [Short Plat; Sht 2]
|
|
See Document Markup
Private Storm Drain Esmt? [Short Plat; Sht 7]
|
|
See Document Markup
**...Verify ROW Dedication (34' CL to curb + 0.5' curb + 10' LS + 8' SW= 52.5' [Short Plat; Sht 7]
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per comments, Sht 7 [Short Plat; Sht 8]
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per comments, Sht 7 [Short Plat; Sht 9]
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per comments, Sht 7 [Short Plat; Sht 10]
|
|
See Document Markup
-Left voicemail for Gil 2/3/22 to verify this is to serve outside properties to the east.-If East Town will be utilizing the sewer main, then the line must remain private until such time that a party outside of the Short Plat connects unless a prior agreement is negotiated with the City. [Short Plat; Sht 10]
|
|
See Document Markup
there must be adequate depth to provide for future connection from the East. [Short Plat; Sht 10]
|
|
See Document Markup
Easement width must be agreed to by the City. Current standards require 40-ft min. [Short Plat; Sht 10]
|
|
See Document Markup
Need discussion with City management for future sewer line serving parcels east of the site. Depending on the outcome of those discussions, it is likely a Covenant must be recorded which will dedicate an easement to the City upon future connection of the adjacent parcels.[Short Plat; Sht 10]
|
|
See Document Markup
Watermain outside of ROW on private property shall remain private...revise callouts accordingly. [Short Plat; Sht 11]
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per comments, Sht 7 [Short Plat; Sht 11]
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify per comments, Sht 7 [Short Plat; Sht 12]
|
|
See Document Markup
-The proposed engineered fill below the permeable pavement section must comply with the Soil Suitability Criteria for treatment...otherwise, permeable pavement is infeasible. Provide acknowlegement from a licensed geotechnical engineer that the proposed import fill can/will meet the treatment criteria as well as the assumed infiltration rate. [Storm Report; Cover]
|
|
See Document Markup
Per MR5 concrete area should be permeable if feasible. [Storm Report; Pg 4]
|
|
See Document Markup
The City's recommendation would be to connect the existing grass-lined ditch east of the project site with the proposed stream to avoid mixing "clean" ditch runoff and "clean" stream water with the polluted road runoff...see add'l review comments on Pioneer Basin Map, Appendix D. [Storm Report; Pg 5]
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...is the intent to strip the site to these lower elevations? Considering the results of the PIT testing, its obvious that any existing soil above the "restrictive layer" elevation is also non-infiltrative. [Storm Report; Pg 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
-This design approach appears to be recirculating stormwater between the splitter and the biocell...see add'l comments Pioneer Basin Map, Appendix D. [Storm Report; Pg 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
Since flow control (MR7) is triggered, is the biocell large enough to treat (MR6) the entire frontage basin? This would eliminate the need for the "splitter" structure. Also, see add'l review comments on Pioneer Basin Map, Appendix D. [Storm Report; Pg 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
Hard surfaces must be permeable to the extent feasible per MR5...essentially no run-on allowed. [Storm Report; Pg 7]
|
|
See Document Markup
NOTE: The engineered fill must also meet the WQ Soil Suitability Criteria per Ecology, Sect. 3.3.7, SSC-6. This will require geotechnical confirmation prior to short approval to ensure that permeable pavement is feasible. [Storm Report; Pg 7]
|
|
See Document Markup
Due to the minimal depth to the restrictive layer on this site, any infiltration facility other than permeable pavement will require a mounding analysis in accordance with Ecology 3.3.4. [Storm Report; Pg 8]
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Ecology, roof runoff must be evaluated per MR5 BMPs. BMP T5.10A is not applicable (high density multi-family) then bioretention must be considered. If bioretention infeasible, then roof infiltration would require a minimum separation of 5ft to the restrictive layer...which is not possible based on the geotech analysis. (A separation down to 3ft would be allowed if supported by a mounding analysis). [Storm Report; Pg 8]
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide confirming CEC testing of engineered soil at time of civil. Provide geotechnical confirmation prior to short plat approval that the proposed engineered fill can meet Ecology SSC-6. (Note: if engineered soil cannot meet the WQ suitability criteria outlined in Ecology SSC-6, then permeable pavement is not feasible) [Storm Report; Pg 9]
|
|
See Document Markup
clarify...offsite area east of the site? South of the site? [Storm Report; Pg 9]
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise per comments in Section 1 and on the individual basin maps. [Storm Report; Pg 9]
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Fig. F5, the biocell will remain saturated and not provide treatment. Revise accordingly. [Storm Report; Pg 9]
|
|
See Document Markup
also the 1/2-2yr release rate [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
Datum conversion factor at Puyallup should be 3.5' [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...how are the new improvements over the top of the converted pond being accounted for flow control and water quality? If permeable pavement how is the infiltrated water prevented from entering the gravel/glass bed? [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
This may be due to the pond filling with sediment as a result of the sidewall failure and lack of maintenance over the decades. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please note that the converted pond must provide the same volumes and stages for both WQ an FC (not appropriate to match the existing pond condition for water quality). [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
Also need to account for wetpool storage for WQ (23,454cf below live storage per CES Design Report) [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
and 1/2-2yr event (ref. CES Para 3.4) [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
This is ok for the control riser, but facility volumes must be "equivalent" to those in the CES Design Report. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
In order to meet WQ, the dead storage must match the CES design, not the blown out pond condition. CES WQ Storage = 23,454cf. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
If this is the footprint, then only 8,192cf of WQ volume is provided. Need to match the CES Design WQ Volume of 23,454cf. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
Once WQ wetpool volume (23454cf) is accounted for, will the same flow frequency results be obtained? [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
These WQ values have no meaning (hypothetical pond). Need to match the original CES design WQ volume to provide the same level of treatment at the time of pond approval. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
Gravel Bed Footprint = 20,480sfGravel Bed Porosity = 0.40Wetpool depth (dead storage) = 1ftWQ Volume provided = 20480*0.4*1= 8,192cfWQ Volume required = 23, 454cf No Good.
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise per review comments. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]
|
|
See Document Markup
Please label as "Dead Storage" (wetpool for WQ) [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Per CES design report, total dead storage below El 66.55 (70.05) for WQ should be 23,454cf. [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Adjust elevations for 3.5ft conversion factor from NGVD29 to NAVD88. [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 3]
|
|
See Document Markup
Shouldn't this be zero (bottom of live storage)? [Storm Report; Fig 5}
|
|
See Document Markup
Shouldn't this be zero (bottom of live storage)? [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 5]
|
|
See Document Markup
These WQ values have no meaning. WQ volume should be based on CES's original wetpond design (23,454cf) [Storm Report, Pond Conv; Fig 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
This appears to be the pond volumes based on the as-surveyed condition. The conversion design must match the FC volumes (and release rates) as well as the original WQ volume of 23,454cf. [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
Match original WQ volume of 23, 454cf and account for the backfill void space. [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 6]
|
|
See Document Markup
Review comments associated with the preliminary storm report may be addressed through the Preliminary Site Plan Application, P-21-0034 so that the Short Plat Application, P-21-0025, may continue through landuse process independently. [Storm Report; Cover]
|
|
See Document Markup
Although it is acceptable to record an independent Right of Way Deed, it is preferable to callout the dedication on the Short Plat document. However, there are still discrepancies associated with the needed ROW widths. See Engineering and Traffic's ROW comments on the short plat document, 2nd Submittal, dated December 22, 2021. [ROW Deed]
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide Property Owner Acknowledgment per City Standard Short Plat template. [Short Plat; Sht 1]
|
|
See Document Markup
Per the Storm Report, there is a bioretention cell proposed to serve the Pioneer Way frontage. Any stormwater facility serving public infrastructure must be wholly located in ROW or a separate tract dedicated to the City. Show on plat document. [Short Plat; Sht 7]
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
See review comments on the short plat document and respond accordingly.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
At the time of Short Plat application, the site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area Unnumbered A-Zone as determined by the National Flood Insurance Program Community Panel Number 53053C0342E, dated March 7, 2017. However, the applicant has recently submitted a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to FEMA requesting approval of a revised floodplain delineation. Please be aware that landuse approval cannot be granted until the flood study is approved by FEMA, or prior to executing a separate written agreement between the applicant and City.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
If any portion of the project site remains in a regulated floodplain after FEMA’s LOMR determination, development of the property shall adhere to the regulations contained in PMC Chapter 21.07. Specifically:
- The applicant shall submit a habitat assessment prepared by a qualified professional evaluating the effects and/or indirect effects of the proposed development (during both construction and post-construction) on floodplain functions and documenting that the proposed development will not result in “take” of any species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
- If it is determined that the proposed project will impact any listed species or their habitat, the applicant shall provide a mitigation plan to achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions as those lost prior to development of the site.
- Provide compensatory storage, if necessary, in accordance with PMC 21.07.060(1)f.
- The lowest floor of the structure, including any basement, shall be elevated 1-foot above the BFE and/or floodproofed to 1-foot above the BFE. Please be aware that providing additional freeboard above the BFE can reduce insurance premiums.
- No occupancy permit shall be issued until such time as a Federal Emergency Management Agency Elevation Certificate is completed based on “Finished Construction” and submitted to the Engineering Services Manager.
- Plats shall indicate the regulated floodplain boundary, the BFE, and the minimum finished floor elevation(s) on the face of the plat document(s).
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
During a recent site visit it was indicated that a regulated stream runs along the east property line discharging to the Pioneer Way ditch. The proposed stream conveyance design shall be reviewed and approved by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) prior to short plat approval to ensure adequate ROW is dedicated on the short plat document.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Review comments associated with the preliminary storm report may be addressed through the Preliminary Site Plan Application, P-21-0034 so that this Short Plat Application, P-21-0025, may continue through landuse process independently.
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Revisions Required
|
01/21/2022
|
02/04/2022
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, please verify 56ft dimension. City estimates only 52.5ft is necessary from centerline
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, please verify 56ft dimension. City estimates only 52.5ft is necessary from centerline
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an exhibit that shows proposed ETC frontage design with proposed ROW location
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide AutoTurn analysis for this radius (NBR movement from outside Shaw Rd lane) to ensure design vehicles can safely maneuver without impacting WBL turn pocket
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide an exhibit that shows proposed ETC frontage design & traffic signal pole location in relation to proposed ROW/easement line
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
No Comments
|
01/21/2022
|
01/26/2022
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Revisions Required
|
01/21/2022
|
01/18/2022
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The habitat assessment dated revised 12/14/21 does not meet the planning conditions issued to the applicant on 12/06/21 (related to E-21-0435 and -0426), which stated: The Selected Development Action on page 9 of the October 23, 2021 Habitat Tech report states the report covers the entire property development of 11 acres. The response letter (related to E-21-0435 and -0426) of 11/30/21 from Abbey Road states the submitted habitat assessment report only applies to the selected development action under E-21-0426 and E-21-0425. The response from Abbey Road may be acceptable to the smaller scope of work if the project biologist provides a corrected habitat assessment report and analysis that supports the conclusions that no impacts to flood storage and no impacts to storm water run off will occur based on the scope of work being permitted. The selected development proposal on page 9 still states the habitat assessment covers the entire development proposal. The letter Abbey Road provided to the city on 12/03/21 stated the habitat assessment covered only the area of work and scope of work covered under E-21-0426 and -0435. The habitat assessment is not approved for the entire site development proposal at this time and will be subject to further review under the underlying parent SEPA and land use permits for the East Town Crossing site. This includes the short plat application (P-21-0025). Nothing shall be construed under the approval of E-21-0426 or -0435 as an approval of a habitat assessment for the entire site development application as comments from the city's consultant (Confluence) are still unresolved (see Confluence letter dated 11/22/21). If the applicant provided a letter of map amendment approval from FEMA, these comments will change accordingly.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Please add citation for zoning match line on sheet 8 of 12. Is this taken from an official zoning map / GIS data? The match line for RM-20 and CG appear off along Pioneer when comparing to GIS zoning layer.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The stream buffer areas must be placed into critical area tracts per PMC 21.06.830. Confluence previous review (October 28, 2021) agrees with a type III category (50' buffer) for road side creek on south side of East Pioneer and a type IV category (35' buffer) for the eastern creek. Given the review status of the buffer area and tract issues with the short plat, the tract area cannot be determined until review is reconciled with preliminary site plan application P-21-0034.
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Puyallup/#!/Puyallup21/Puyallup2106.html#21.06.830
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The following critical area notes are required on sheet #2:
o All lots in this short plat contain critical aquifer recharge areas. A critical aquifer recharge area note for each affected lot shall indicate: “The site is within a high susceptibility/critical aquifer recharge area. Uses and activities on this site shall comply with the city’s critical area ordinance (Puyallup Municipal Code 21.06, Article XI). Activities that do not cause degradation of ground water quality and will not adversely affect the recharging of the aquifer may be permitted in a critical aquifer recharge area and do not require preparation of a critical area report; provided, that they comply with the city storm water management regulations and other applicable local, state and federal regulations.”
o All lots in this short plat contain a volcanic hazard area. A volcanic hazard area note for each lot affected shall indicate: “The site is within a volcanic hazard area (Lahar). In the event of an eruption of Mt. Rainier, the site is expected to be inundated by mud and debris flows of a catastrophic nature. Uses and activities on this site shall comply with the city’s critical area ordinance (Puyallup Municipal Code 21.06, Article XII, section 21.06.1260, or succeeding section, regarding volcanic hazard areas.”
o Lots XX and XX have a Native Growth Protection Area easement placed over them (OR Tract XX) contain wetland areas and protective wetland buffers which is set aside as a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) pursuant to PMC 21.06. A note shall be included on the face of the plat for each affected lot indicating: “This lot contains a [insert type, class or category of critical area] wetland and/or wetland buffer that is protected by federal, state and local regulations. A wetland is a permanently, semi-permanently, or seasonally flooded area of land with a distinct ecosystem based on hydrology, hydric soils, and vegetation adapted for life in water saturated soils. Wetlands provide numerous benefits to the natural environment including water quality, flood control, wildlife habitat, shoreline stability, and aesthetic values. Since the 1780s, Washington has lost 31 percent of its wetland areas, from 1.35 million acres to 938,000 acres, contributing to loss of flood storage and habitat areas. Wetlands are critical to the overall health of watersheds and property owners are key for protecting, restoring, and managing our state's remaining wetland resources. Modification of land or vegetation and/or encroachment/conversion of these areas is strictly prohibited without prior government approval.”
o Lots XX and XX contain a fish and wildlife conservation area. A note shall be included on the face of the plat for each affected lot indicating: “This lot contains a fish and wildlife habitat area that is protected by federal, state and local regulations. These areas serve a critical role in sustaining needed habitats and species for the functional integrity of the ecosystem, and which, if altered, may cause species to become extinct. Property owners are key for protecting, restoring, and managing our state's remaining habitat areas. Modification of land or vegetation and/or encroachment/conversion of these areas is strictly prohibited without prior government approval.
o All lots in this short plat contain 100-year floodplain areas. A note shall be included on the face of the plat for each affected lot indicating: “This lot is located within the regulated 100-year floodplain; this area has a 1% chance every year of flooding/inundation that could affect life, property, structures and improvements. All development and land modifications of floodplain areas requires city approval and consistency with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), critical areas ordinance (PMC 21.06) and flood protection ordinance (PMC 21.07), as well as any other applicable state, federal and local laws. Modification of land or vegetation, especially land filling that could reduce flood storage capacity, and/or encroachment/conversion of these areas is strictly prohibited without prior government approval.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
• All lots in this short plat with frontage on a public road contain a Vegetation Buffer area; these areas are designated to promote the visual quality of the streetscapes and provide additional buffering from transportation corridors. Please add the following note to the face of the plat stating that landscaping in these areas shall follow the city’s standard specifications. Final building / civil permit approval shall be conditioned to include landscaping in these areas.
“A XX-foot “Native Vegetation Protection Easement (NVPE)” area is required along the frontage of Lot X (insert lot #s). The NVPE is meant to promote the visual quality of the streetscapes and provide additional buffering from major street corridors. A landscape plan meeting city standards shall be provided by the applicant and the following shall be required:
• The NVPE shall be preserved in accordance with a final landscape plan and shall not be modified, disturbed or otherwise displaced without prior approval from the city’s Planning Division; and,
• It is the right of the city to enforce the terms of the restriction in the easement area.”
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Please provide AFN 201210305003 as noted on sheet 5, reference note 8.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Note #1 sheet 5 notes the survey is for future development. The survey is related to the subdivision of the lots. The application is not a binding site plan.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Please clean up the lots shown as part of the short plat. Sheet 7 shows a mix of existing plat lines and parcels that are not part of the three lot short plat. There needs to be one sheet that does not intermix the easements and existing lot lines outside of the short plat for clarity of what the city is and is not approving.
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SEPA will need to be complete (under P-21-0034) prior to approval of the short plat (per PMC 19.07.070).
|
|
|
Building Review
|
Revisions Required
|
01/21/2022
|
01/14/2022
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Comply with all applicable building codes at time of application(s).
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Approved
|
|
04/08/2021
|
|
|
|
PLAN CURRENT PLANNING - No Comments
|
Planning Review
|
Approved
|
|
03/25/2021
|
|
|
|
PLAN CURRENT PLANNING - DRT REVIEW NOTES COMPLETE
-CB
|