8254 civil Review 2December 20, 2001
Dan Bruno
Heritage Homes and Land
PO Box 1269
Eatonville, WA 98328
RE: Hawks Landing –File No. SUB-00-8254-YL
Civil Review Plan Review No. 2
Dear Mr. Bruno
This is a quick review of the November 27, 2001 plans you submitted to the City of Yelm. These comments do not include the review of the SR 507. Perry Shea will review this section
and the review comments will follow.
Note: check the front setbacks shown on the plans. I believe that they should be 15’ to the building, 20’ to the garage you show them larger than required.
All sheets should have an approval block that reads Development Engineer not Public Works Director.
Sheet 1 of 27
No comments
Sheet 2 of 27
Please locate your construction entrance at the current gravel roadway entrance to the project. This will alleviate the need to move it when constructing Carter St SE.
The construction entrance should be 20’ wide and 100’ long per DOE manual.
Show where you are proposing to install filter fabric fence. The symbol is on the plans behind lots 5 thru 12; just add a callout referencing the detail.
Sheet 3 of 27
The section for Mahan Ave SE and Mahan Ct. Se should have 7.5’ paved shoulders not the 7’. Changing this will make the numbers add up to 56’.
The same comment for Bruno Ave SE roadway section.
By using these sections instead of the City of Yelm Standard sections, I did not want you to forget about the street trees and streetlights. They are not shown on the sections.
Sheet 4 of 27
Clearly label which stormwater facility is which. (IE tract a, tract b, etc.)
The following comments are for the pond on sheet 4
Show bottom of the pond or toe of slope.
The bottom of the pond appears to be at or 1 foot below existing grade. By looking at the soil test pits you will not be into adequate infiltration layers.
Show scale of the pond plan.
Show elevations of the rockeries in the pond. Typically we have not allowed the rockeries to be in the wetted zone of the pond. I will review this issue and contact you.
If the rockeries are over 5 feet tall, structural calculations will be required by a structural engineer.
The dispersal trench appears to be concrete because of the AutoCAD hatch. Add additional information to the detail as needed.
Need to verify length of filter strip. I did not see it in the storm drainage report.
The min slope on a storm pipe is 0.5%. There are many that do not meet this requirement.
The by pass conveyance system may be better served as we discussed in our meeting. Routing it to the open space. We will need to talk about this again before you make the changes.
Sheet 5 of 27
The following comments are for the pond on sheet 5
The bioswale needs to be min. 3 feet wide.
Is the bioswale going to be soded or seeded.
The retaining walls need to engineered if over 4 feet in height. This measurement is taken from bottom of the footing to the top of the wall.
It appears that the rebar is shown on the wrong side of the retaining wall detail.
Need more elevations on the walls, bioswale and rockeries.
The sidewalk along side of the rockery will need a handrail or barrier of some sort.
Show the scale of the pond plan.
Some type of energy dissipater will be required at the pipe outflow into the bioswale. The plans have a gabion basket outfall, however I don’t believe that the 8’ long detail will fit
in a 3’ bioswale.
Verify the inverts and pipe slopes match. All pipes need to have 1.5’ of cover or go ductile iron. The cover is measured above the pipe not the centerline elevations. All pipe needs
to be a min of 0.5%.
All stationing needs to be from the centerline of the right of way. Verify the stationing half of the catchbasins appear to be in error.
Please verify the pond configuration, geometry and setbacks. This is on page 3-4-12 of the 1992 DOE manual. This may be a large issue in the layout of the plat. We may be able to
figure out another option to alleviate a redesign. But please review these issues.
Sheet 6 of 27
The pipe inverts and slopes do not calculate.
Show elevations around the curb returns.
The profile needs to have the following:
High point labeled
Low points labeled
PVI info
Site distance for the vertical curves
Monuments at all pt, pc and intersections
Stationing of the catchbasins. See earlier comment.
Thru curb inlets should be installed in the low point of the sage curve at the intersection of SR 507 and Carter Rd SE.
Sheet 7 of 27
The pipe inverts and slopes do not calculate.
Show elevations around the curb returns.
The profile needs to have the following:
High point labeled
Low points labeled
PVI info
Vertical curves on any locations that have an algebraic difference in slope greater than 1% need to have vertical curves.
Storm drainage easements need to be 7.5’ on each side of the pipe for a total of 15’. You show this however the pipe is not located correctly. If this area is to have a sidewalk it
should be located in a tract instead of an easement. If it is in a tract the homeowners association will maintain this area. If in an easement than the indiv. Homeowners will have
to maintain the sidewalk.
Sheet 8 of 27
See comments from sheet 7
Sheet 9 of 27
Same comments form previous stormwater pond sheets and roadway sheets.
Sheet 10 of 27
This sheet is not required. All signs will be per 2001 MUTCD. If you keep this sheet please change the speed limit sign note to the “2001” MUTCD.
Sheet 11 of 27
Are you really going to install this type of roof drain system? I have developed a simpler and cheaper alternative.
Sheet 12 of 27
All H/C Curb Ramps need to be shown on the plans.
Sheet 13 of 27
The rockery needs to have a structural engineers stamp on the calculations. If you get a letter or design from a structural engineer stating this detail is ok than that will be ok.
Sheet 14 of 27
Comments will be from Perry Shea’s Review.
Sheet 15 thru 21 of 27
The sewer depth should be 60” in depth.
The vertical bend of the pipe should follow the profile of the roadway unless a conflict exists with other utilities.
Sheet 20 and 21 have the wrong titles on them.
Detail 7-23 is shown twice.
Please see the previous comment letter. Letter was a complete review of the sewer plans.
Sheet 22 thru 27 of 27
The water depth should be 42”. The water profile should follow the roadway profile unless a conflict exists with other utilities.
See the previous comment letter for the water review.
Following are requirements from the Community Development Department:
Please submit with your revised plans, a landscaping and irrigation plan. This plan shall include detailed landscaping and irrigation for all open space, storm drain facilities, and
planter strips.
An open space improvement plan must be included. Open space must have the following attributes and characteristics:
Use. Open space shall be dedicated for one or more of the following uses:
Environmental interpretation or other education;
Park, recreational land, or athletic fiends;
Off-road footpaths or bicycle trails
Any other use found by the City to further the purposes of this chapter.
Sincerely,
Jim Gibson
Development Services Engineer
cc: Cathie Carlson, Community Development Director