Review Type
Outcome
Est. Completion Date
Completed
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
04/21/2026
04/21/2026
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide "end of road" and "end of sidewalk" treatments per City standards. Provide standard details.
Civil - C12
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This project is served by Fruitland Mutual Water Company. The proposed water system is not being reviewed by the City, and must be reviewed and approved by Fruitland Water. Add Fruitland Water Approval Block to any plan sheets associated with water design. See City Design Standards section 1.4. [Civils, pg. 1]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add the City's Civil Permit Approval Block to all sheets in the civil planset. See City Design Standards section 1.4. [Civils, pg. 1]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per comment made during the preliminary site plan review, refer to City Standards Section 2.0 for cover sheet layout. Update to be compliant with this section. [Civils, pg. 1]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
During the next round of review, submit a draft Right of Way Dedication Deed. This form can be found of the city website here:
https://www.cityofpuyallup.org/DocumentCenter/View/5117/Right-of-Way-Deed-4-6-17?bidId=
[Civils, pg. 1]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correct these: 1" = 40' is for 36" x 24". (typ.) [Civils, pg. 3]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update this soil amendment note to call to updated city standard detail. [Civils, pg. 3]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include relevant details for the proposed sediment pond. [Civils, pg. 3]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Replace with City of Puyallup Standard Detail 01.02.08A for soil amendment and depth. [Civils, pg. 4]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Replace with grading, erosion and sedimentation control notes from section 505 of the city's design standards. [Civils, pg. 4]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Replace with stormwater notes from section 207 of the city's design standards. [Civils, pg. 4]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add city standard detail 05.02.01. [Civils, pg. 4]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add the city's standard roadway notes from section 104 of the design standards. [Civils, pg. 4]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Any retaining walls exceeding 4-feet in in height from the top of wall to the base of the footing will require building permits. Note that the walls appear to have a surcharge load from the proposed townhomes. [Civils, pg. 5]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide the driveway widths (typ.) [Civils, pg. 5]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Replace with City Standard Detail 02.03.01. [Civils, pg. 8]
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide further detailing so that the pond is constructible. Be sure to include specifications as prescribed by the manual including vegetation specifications, sizing of rip rap pads, etc. See BMPT7.10: Infiltration Basins from the 2019 SWMMWW for guidance and design criteria. [Civils, pg. 8]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Sections calling to incorrect location. (typ.) [Civils, pg. 8]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The proposed pond does not meet setbacks for aboveground facilities per city design standards section 212. The minimum setback from facility is 20-feet to property lines and structures. [Civils, pg. 8]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Because the proposed pond is over 2-feet in depth and has steeper than 3:1 side slopes, fencing will be required. Show in resubmittal. [Civils, pg. 8]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The restoration area will need to follow the City's Standard Detail 01.01.20 for street patches. Include this detail in the associated detail sheets, and update the restoration area to meet the requirements. (typ.) [Civils, pg. 9]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
City Standard Utility location for new sewer mains are 5-feet east of the ROW centerline, or 5-feet north of the ROW centerline depending on the direction of the street. Update the proposed sewer main location for compliance. [Civils, pg. 10]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
C12
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Streetlights will be further evaluated in resubmittal. Provide a full street lighting plan in resubmittal. [Civils, pg. 11]
Correction 25:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per PMC 14.20.020, the sewer extension must be carried across the full width of the property being served except in those cases where, in the opinion of the city engineer, the utility involved can never, under any circumstances, be extended beyond the property being served. Please revise the sewer design to extend across the full width of the property. [Civils, pg. 11]
Correction 26:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add the city's standard illumination notes from section 105 of the design standards on the lighting plans. [Civils, pg. 11]
Correction 27:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Elaborate on why a transition panel is necessary. There does not apprear to be an existing sidewalk in this location. [Civils, pg. 11]
Correction 28:
See Document Markup
Comments:
In this area, call out the infiltration trench. Clearly identify the edges of the trench in reference to the curbline and property line. [Civils, pg. 12]
Correction 29:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update the infiltration trench detail so that it aligns with the infiltration trench detail and design criteria from the 2019 SWMMWW. [Civils, pg. 12]
Correction 30:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Replace this detail with City Standard Detail 02.01.10 for Storm Drain Inspection Ports. [Civils, pg. 12]
Correction 31:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Ensure that minimum cover requirements are being met. (typ.) The minimum allowed cover for PVC is 3-feet. Alternatively, ductile iron is an allowed pipe material that only requires 1-foot of cover. [Civils, pg. 13]
Correction 32:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Sewer runs need to terminate with a manhole rather than a cleanout. [Civils, pg. 14]
Correction 33:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The matchlines provided do not line up with matchlines from other sheets. Revise the matchlines for consistency and accuracy in resubmittal (typ.). [Civils, pg. 15]
Correction 34:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show the wall footing drain, and show where it will ultimately drain to. [Civils, pg. 18]
Correction 35:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per section 204.3 of the city's design standards, the minimum private stormwater pipe diameter for laterals is 8-inches. Update accordingly. [Civils, pg. 18]
Correction 36:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Ensure that minimum cover requirements are being met. The minimum allowed cover for PVC is 3-feet. Alternatively, ductile iron is an allowed pipe material that only requires 1-foot of cover. [Civils, pg. 18]
Correction 37:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add city standard detail 01.01.19 for half street improvements. Verify that the street section detail from sheet C12 doesn't have conflicting information from detail 01.01.19. [Civils, pg. 19]
Correction 38:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add city standard detail 06.01.01 for pipe trench bedding and backfill. [Civils, pg. 19]
Correction 39:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide paving details for the on-site paving work (drive aisle, pathways, driveways). [Civils, pg. 19]
Correction 40:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add city standard detail 06.01.02 for manhole frame and cover. [Civils, pg. 19]
Correction 41:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Replace with city standard detail 04.03.04 [Civils, pg. 20]
Correction 42:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide confirmation from manufacturer that the water quality device is sized correctly for the runoff intake. [Civils, pg. 22]
Correction 43:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide confirmation from manufacturer that the water quality device is sized correctly for the runoff intake. [Civils, pg. 23]
Correction 44:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 45:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 46:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 47:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 48:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 49:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 50:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 51:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 52:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A construction stormwater general permit will be required as this project disturbs more than an acre of land. [Storm Report, pg. 3]
Correction 53:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide more information about the selected runoff treatment devices. Provide manufacturer sheets, GULD approval sheets, confirmation from the manufacturer that the selected system is sized for the area draining to it. [Storm Report, pg. 11]
Correction 54:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per preliminary site plan comments, break out the offsite "Area Inflow" acreage for clarity. [Storm Report, pg. 18]
Correction 55:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The total area called out in the predeveloped map is 3.05 AC.The total area called out here is 2.98 AC. These values should total to be the same, and should also match the modeling from WWHM. [Storm Report, pg. 19]
Correction 56:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update to be the current planset. [Storm Report, pg. 22]
Correction 57:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The acreages shown in this section are inconsistent with the basin maps earlier in this report. Coordinate for consistency. [Storm Report, pg. 59]
Correction 58:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Ensure that these values are being calculated in the modeling. The total columns show as 0. [Storm Report, pg. 60]
Correction 59:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The acreages shown in this section are inconsistent with the basin maps earlier in this report. Coordinate for consistency. [Storm Report, pg. 60]
Correction 60:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The acreages shown in this section are inconsistent with the basin maps earlier in this report. Coordinate for consistency. [Storm Report, pg. 61]
Correction 61:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The acreages shown in this section are inconsistent with the basin maps earlier in this report. Coordinate for consistency. [Storm Report, pg. 62]
Correction 62:
See Document Markup
Comments:
43' x 43' = 1849 SF
The plans show a pond with a bottom area of 1,534 SF, which is less than the modeling. Update so that the modeling matches the plans. Ensure that full infiltration is still achieved. [Storm Report, pg. 64]
Correction 63:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The O&M Manual uses City of Tacoma maintenance tables. Update to the City of Puyallup maintenance tables whcih can be found here: https://www.cityofpuyallup.org/2157/Operations-and-Maintenance
[O&M Manual, pg. 1]
Correction 64:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This project is served by Fruitland Mutual Water Company. The proposed water system is not being reviewed by the City, and must be reviewed and approved by Fruitland Water. Add Fruitland Water Approval Block to any plan sheets associated with water design. See City Design Standards section 1.4. [Civils, pg. 1]
Correction 65:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide dimension straight across rather than at a diagonal. [Civil Plans, pg. 5]
Correction 66:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Note that the private storm mains are labeled as HP. Per City standards, "Polypropylene Pipe (PP) shall be dual walled, have a smooth interior and exterior corrugations and meet WSDOT 9-05.24(1). 12-inch through 30-inch pipe shall meet or exceed ASTM F2736 and AASHTO M330, Type S, or Type D." [Civil Plans, pg. 8]
Correction 67:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Several of the Roadway Notes from Section 104 of the City's standards were left off of this list. Update to include all notes. [Civil Plans, pg. 9]
Correction 68:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The pavement restoration limits shown is closer to being shown correctly. Where the disturbance will impact a lane/half street, the full width of that half street will need a grind and overlay. [Civil Plans, pg. 9]
Correction 69:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This will need to be a full half street grind and overlay. [Civil Plans, pg. 10]
Correction 70:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Water Quality facility must not protrude beyond the gutter line into the travel lane. [Civil Plans, pg. 12]
Correction 71:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The sewer needs to terminate at a manhole rather than a cap. [Civil Plans, pg. 12]
Correction 72:
See Document Markup
Comments:
4"
Correction 73:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Minimum cover for polypropylene pipe is 3-feet. Depths provided for the new storm system do not meet this requirement. Either revise to provide a minimum 3-feet of cover for the proposed storm system, or revise to use ductile iron, which only requires 1-foot of cover. [Civil Plans, pg. 15]
Correction 74:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Several of the Stormwater Notes from Section 207 of the City's standards were left off of this list. Update to include all notes. [Civil Plans, pg. 17]
Correction 75:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Several of the Sanitary Sewer Notes from Section 405 of the City's standards were left off of this list. Update to include all notes. [Civil Plans, pg. 17]
Correction 76:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Several of the Water System Notes from Section 304 of the City's standards were left off of this list. Update to include all notes. [Civil Plans, pg. 17]
Correction 77:
See Document Markup
Comments:
ADS N-12 is not an approved roof drain pipe material. Refer to section 204.4.7 of the City's Stormwater Standards for guidance on approved pipe materials. [Civil Plans, pg. 18]
Correction 78:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The highlighted portions of pipe labeled as roof drain are conveying a significant amount of runoff. After the roof drains leave the building, they are considered to be laterals, and will need to be upsized to meet the City's standard for laterals. Refer to section 204.3 of the city's design standards. [Civil Plans, pg. 18]
Correction 79:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Several of these patios intersect with the proposed wall. Deconflict, and consider where the edge of the constructed wall will end up. [Civil Plans, pg. 18]
Correction 80:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show how the runoff generated from the patios will be conveyed to the storm system (typ.) [Civil Plans, pg. 18]
Correction 81:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide crossing information between the base of the wall and the storm line. [Civil Plans, pg. 18]
Correction 82:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Walls to be approved and constructed per an approved building permit. [Civil Plans, pg. 24]
Correction 83:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 84:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 85:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 86:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 87:
See Document Markup
Comments:
ADS N-12 is not an approved pipe material per City of Puyallup standards. Refer to section 204.3 of the city's standards for allowable pipe materials. HP is a type of polypropylene pipe. Polypropylene is an allowable pipe material however, it's required to have a minimum 3-feet of cover. [Storm Report, pg. 10]
Correction 88:
See Document Markup
Comments:
You can get to the same destination, but this "Yes" should be updated to "No". [Storm Report, pg. 14]
Correction 89:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Paved patios shown on the back side of the buildings are shown as pervious, when they should be shown as impervious. Update accordingly, and update in modeling. [Storm Report, pg. 19]
Correction 90:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The exhibit A and B should describe and show the portion to be dedicated instead of the whole project parcel. [Deed of Dedication, pg. 4]
Correction 91:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The trees shown on-site are conflicting with water meters and will conflict with the water services running off of those meters, which are not shown on this overlay. [Landscape Plan, pg. 1]
Correction 92:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Resolve the conflicting sewer stub and tree root zones in these location. [Landscape Plans, pg. 1]
Engineering Traffic Review
Failed
04/21/2026
04/21/2026
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Per PSP approval conditions;
(2) Streetlights will be required along the 5th Street SE frontage. See markups for preliminary locations and details on how these units will be powered.
For both lights, use Leotek GCJ3-30J-MV-40K-2R-GY-080-XX
At the time of civil permit review provide a separate street lighting plan (within the civil sheets) for the City to review.
Streetlight design shall provide the following:
-Location of conduit runs
-Wiring Schedule
-Conduit size and type for each raceway
-Conductors details
-Pole schedule
-STA & offset for each luminaire
-Show location of junction boxes
-Standard details
-Shorting caps required
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show ESD sight lines as shown on Civil sheet C19 & C20. The 85ft approach sight distance triangle would be less applicable at private driveways.
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide sidewalk barricade per 01.02.20
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Type III barricade is necessary at this location. However, I don't believe there are any plans or available ROW for the City to extend roadway in the future. Remove road extension language from barricade
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide sidewalk barricade per 01.02.20
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide standard detail for City standard STOP sign placement.
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide standard detail for City standard STOP bar placement.
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide additional details on painted channelization island. For painted or raised channelization devices, it is my understanding the following practice is used for determining the color of the outer edges:
White Edges: Always on the side where the "porkchop" meets the main road (traffic moving the same way).
Yellow Edges: Always on the side where the "porkchop" meets the driveway/side-street (separating the "in" from the "out").
Please verify this based on MUTCD/WSDOT guidance.
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide MUTCD reference for required diagonal bar color
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
R3-2 signage must be mounted separately in advance of the STOP sign.
MUTCD section 2B.26 permits R3-2 sign to be placed “in conjunction with STOP or YIELD sign located on the near right corner.”
“In conjunction with” does NOT mean “on the same pole". The MUTCD "in conjunction with" means the sign can be placed at the same intersection approach.
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
For the entire site, please label each sign.
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
City standards require 12ft arms.
Public Works Collection Review
Failed
04/21/2026
04/21/2026
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Maximum height for a sanitary manhole is 20'. Utilize the minimum slope for 8" mains of 0.40% throughout whole project to achieve a shallower connection point at the proposed SSMH#110.
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Stormwater control structures are to be 54" Type II per City standards. Reference 02.01.06, 02.01.07 and 02.01.08.
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This reference is on page C27
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
All sanitary mains are to begin and end with a manhole. Structure should be channeled for any future potential connection.
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Lay sanitary main slightly deeper to avoid having to adjust water main depth. Keeping 1.5' clearance will prevent either utility from having to encase with concrete.
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Keep all shrub and tree plantings a minimum of 10' from the infiltration gallery and all appurtenances.
Public Works Streets Review
Failed
04/21/2026
04/20/2026
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
extend the pavement restoration so these "slivers" of asphalt are not left, most likely compromised during construction SH sheet C1
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
it is the LeoTek LED luminaire noted above , not a GE cobra head for streetlights, include 2" spare conduit when running streetlight conduit
SH sheet C 11
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Fire Review
Failed
04/21/2026
04/20/2026
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
1. 2021 IFC D103.6.1 No Parking signs will be required on both sides of the street. Provide a No Parking Fire Lane page. This page will need to include the following. All parking sign locations, painted curb, fire hydrants, PIV, FDC, and Riser Room locations. Provide street dimensions.
2. Provide FDC, PIV, and Riser Room locations.
3. Placement of Fire Hydrants are required to reach all points of a structure within 400' as a hose lays. There will be no parking allowed within 15' of fire hydrants with a total painted curb line of 30' WAC 478-116-193. Plans are called out at 24x36 but the scale is for 22x34 or 11x17? Can not scale.
4. Provide auto-turn.
5. Provide FDC details.
Correction 2:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
1. Plans still do not meet the City Municipal Code for No Parking. Provide a separate page showing the Fire Lane No Parking layout. Signs shall be 12x18 and placed 50' apart on both sides of the street. Curbs shall be painted and stenciled per the PMC. 16.04.015 Emergency vehicle parking. I'm only seeing a couple random areas called out on the plans.
2. 13D system will be approved after verification of Building permits meet the requirements of a Townhome. If the plans do not meet the requirements to be permitted as a Townhome, Riser rooms, FDC's, and PIV's will be required. Systems will be required to be monitored.
Planning Review
Failed
04/21/2026
04/16/2026
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Please submit a tree risk assessment (arborist report) documenting the viability of trees to be retained. The report should establish root protection zones and those root protection zones need to be shown on the TESC sheet.
Correction 2:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
LANDSCAPE (UPDATED APRIL 2026):
> Please verify the trees in the landscape islands in front of each unit are not in conflict with the service lines for each unit. Sheets C13-C16 show meter boxes in the landscape islands, but the service lines leading to the units are not shown. A tree is located in each island and there is continued concern there will be a conflict.
> To meet the landscape design requirements, please add three large deciduous shade trees along the project street frontage (within the plantable area outside of the sight distance triangle) within the 12' landscape buffer (back of walk) adjacent to "Play area #1". Please also show one additional large shade tree directly adjacent to "Play area #3". Please consider Platanus X acerifolia.
> To meet the landscape design requirements, please add a third row of shrubs, and ground covers throughout, in the 12' landscape buffer adjacent to 5th St. Also add daffodils at 6" OC to the landscape frontage along the 12' landscape buffer back of walk and modify the plant schedule on sheet L 1.1 to indicate daffodils at 6" OC. Please specify Narcissus 'Dutch Master' to meet the design requirements.
Correction 3:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
GRADING: A break in the wall area should be provided somewhere on the east side of the site plan to provide maintenance access to the perimeter landscape areas. Suggested there be two breaks, one in the NE and one in the SE corner, if possible.
Public Works Water Review
VOID
04/21/2026
04/07/2026
Reviewer:
Engineering Civil Review
Failed
06/10/2025
06/12/2025
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide "end of road" and "end of sidewalk" treatments per City standards. Provide standard details.
Civil - C12
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
This project is served by Fruitland Mutual Water Company. The proposed water system is not being reviewed by the City, and must be reviewed and approved by Fruitland Water. Add Fruitland Water Approval Block to any plan sheets associated with water design. See City Design Standards section 1.4. [Civils, pg. 1]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add the City's Civil Permit Approval Block to all sheets in the civil planset. See City Design Standards section 1.4. [Civils, pg. 1]
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per comment made during the preliminary site plan review, refer to City Standards Section 2.0 for cover sheet layout. Update to be compliant with this section. [Civils, pg. 1]
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
During the next round of review, submit a draft Right of Way Dedication Deed. This form can be found of the city website here:
https://www.cityofpuyallup.org/DocumentCenter/View/5117/Right-of-Way-Deed-4-6-17?bidId=
[Civils, pg. 1]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correct these: 1" = 40' is for 36" x 24". (typ.) [Civils, pg. 3]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update this soil amendment note to call to updated city standard detail. [Civils, pg. 3]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Include relevant details for the proposed sediment pond. [Civils, pg. 3]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Replace with City of Puyallup Standard Detail 01.02.08A for soil amendment and depth. [Civils, pg. 4]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Replace with grading, erosion and sedimentation control notes from section 505 of the city's design standards. [Civils, pg. 4]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Replace with stormwater notes from section 207 of the city's design standards. [Civils, pg. 4]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add city standard detail 05.02.01. [Civils, pg. 4]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add the city's standard roadway notes from section 104 of the design standards. [Civils, pg. 4]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Any retaining walls exceeding 4-feet in in height from the top of wall to the base of the footing will require building permits. Note that the walls appear to have a surcharge load from the proposed townhomes. [Civils, pg. 5]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide the driveway widths (typ.) [Civils, pg. 5]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Replace with City Standard Detail 02.03.01. [Civils, pg. 8]
Correction 17:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide further detailing so that the pond is constructible. Be sure to include specifications as prescribed by the manual including vegetation specifications, sizing of rip rap pads, etc. See BMPT7.10: Infiltration Basins from the 2019 SWMMWW for guidance and design criteria. [Civils, pg. 8]
Correction 18:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Sections calling to incorrect location. (typ.) [Civils, pg. 8]
Correction 19:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The proposed pond does not meet setbacks for aboveground facilities per city design standards section 212. The minimum setback from facility is 20-feet to property lines and structures. [Civils, pg. 8]
Correction 20:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Because the proposed pond is over 2-feet in depth and has steeper than 3:1 side slopes, fencing will be required. Show in resubmittal. [Civils, pg. 8]
Correction 21:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The restoration area will need to follow the City's Standard Detail 01.01.20 for street patches. Include this detail in the associated detail sheets, and update the restoration area to meet the requirements. (typ.) [Civils, pg. 9]
Correction 22:
See Document Markup
Comments:
City Standard Utility location for new sewer mains are 5-feet east of the ROW centerline, or 5-feet north of the ROW centerline depending on the direction of the street. Update the proposed sewer main location for compliance. [Civils, pg. 10]
Correction 23:
See Document Markup
Comments:
C12
Correction 24:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Streetlights will be further evaluated in resubmittal. Provide a full street lighting plan in resubmittal. [Civils, pg. 11]
Correction 25:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per PMC 14.20.020, the sewer extension must be carried across the full width of the property being served except in those cases where, in the opinion of the city engineer, the utility involved can never, under any circumstances, be extended beyond the property being served. Please revise the sewer design to extend across the full width of the property. [Civils, pg. 11]
Correction 26:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add the city's standard illumination notes from section 105 of the design standards on the lighting plans. [Civils, pg. 11]
Correction 27:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Elaborate on why a transition panel is necessary. There does not apprear to be an existing sidewalk in this location. [Civils, pg. 11]
Correction 28:
See Document Markup
Comments:
In this area, call out the infiltration trench. Clearly identify the edges of the trench in reference to the curbline and property line. [Civils, pg. 12]
Correction 29:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update the infiltration trench detail so that it aligns with the infiltration trench detail and design criteria from the 2019 SWMMWW. [Civils, pg. 12]
Correction 30:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Replace this detail with City Standard Detail 02.01.10 for Storm Drain Inspection Ports. [Civils, pg. 12]
Correction 31:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Ensure that minimum cover requirements are being met. (typ.) The minimum allowed cover for PVC is 3-feet. Alternatively, ductile iron is an allowed pipe material that only requires 1-foot of cover. [Civils, pg. 13]
Correction 32:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Sewer runs need to terminate with a manhole rather than a cleanout. [Civils, pg. 14]
Correction 33:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The matchlines provided do not line up with matchlines from other sheets. Revise the matchlines for consistency and accuracy in resubmittal (typ.). [Civils, pg. 15]
Correction 34:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Show the wall footing drain, and show where it will ultimately drain to. [Civils, pg. 18]
Correction 35:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per section 204.3 of the city's design standards, the minimum private stormwater pipe diameter for laterals is 8-inches. Update accordingly. [Civils, pg. 18]
Correction 36:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Ensure that minimum cover requirements are being met. The minimum allowed cover for PVC is 3-feet. Alternatively, ductile iron is an allowed pipe material that only requires 1-foot of cover. [Civils, pg. 18]
Correction 37:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add city standard detail 01.01.19 for half street improvements. Verify that the street section detail from sheet C12 doesn't have conflicting information from detail 01.01.19. [Civils, pg. 19]
Correction 38:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add city standard detail 06.01.01 for pipe trench bedding and backfill. [Civils, pg. 19]
Correction 39:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide paving details for the on-site paving work (drive aisle, pathways, driveways). [Civils, pg. 19]
Correction 40:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Add city standard detail 06.01.02 for manhole frame and cover. [Civils, pg. 19]
Correction 41:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Replace with city standard detail 04.03.04 [Civils, pg. 20]
Correction 42:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide confirmation from manufacturer that the water quality device is sized correctly for the runoff intake. [Civils, pg. 22]
Correction 43:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide confirmation from manufacturer that the water quality device is sized correctly for the runoff intake. [Civils, pg. 23]
Correction 44:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 45:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 46:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 47:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 48:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 49:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 50:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 51:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 52:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A construction stormwater general permit will be required as this project disturbs more than an acre of land. [Storm Report, pg. 3]
Correction 53:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide more information about the selected runoff treatment devices. Provide manufacturer sheets, GULD approval sheets, confirmation from the manufacturer that the selected system is sized for the area draining to it. [Storm Report, pg. 11]
Correction 54:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per preliminary site plan comments, break out the offsite "Area Inflow" acreage for clarity. [Storm Report, pg. 18]
Correction 55:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The total area called out in the predeveloped map is 3.05 AC.The total area called out here is 2.98 AC. These values should total to be the same, and should also match the modeling from WWHM. [Storm Report, pg. 19]
Correction 56:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Update to be the current planset. [Storm Report, pg. 22]
Correction 57:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The acreages shown in this section are inconsistent with the basin maps earlier in this report. Coordinate for consistency. [Storm Report, pg. 59]
Correction 58:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Ensure that these values are being calculated in the modeling. The total columns show as 0. [Storm Report, pg. 60]
Correction 59:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The acreages shown in this section are inconsistent with the basin maps earlier in this report. Coordinate for consistency. [Storm Report, pg. 60]
Correction 60:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The acreages shown in this section are inconsistent with the basin maps earlier in this report. Coordinate for consistency. [Storm Report, pg. 61]
Correction 61:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The acreages shown in this section are inconsistent with the basin maps earlier in this report. Coordinate for consistency. [Storm Report, pg. 62]
Correction 62:
See Document Markup
Comments:
43' x 43' = 1849 SF
The plans show a pond with a bottom area of 1,534 SF, which is less than the modeling. Update so that the modeling matches the plans. Ensure that full infiltration is still achieved. [Storm Report, pg. 64]
Correction 63:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Location of the proposed infiltration trench appears to conflict with this proposed tree. Rectify so that there is no conflict. [Landscape Plan, pg. 1]
Correction 64:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The O&M Manual uses City of Tacoma maintenance tables. Update to the City of Puyallup maintenance tables whcih can be found here: https://www.cityofpuyallup.org/2157/Operations-and-Maintenance
[O&M Manual, pg. 1]
Public Works Collection Review
Failed
06/10/2025
06/10/2025
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
What is this elevation referencing, please clarify. [Civil Plans, sheet C12]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
0.5 foot minimum would be from the bottom of the frame, not the top of the lid. The top invert of the flow control riser would most likely not have enough clearance. The required ring and lid for this application would also need to follow standard 06.01.02 due to being in the vehicular RoW and not collecting stormwater. [Civil Plans, sheet C12]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
The discharging pipe to the west is not identified on these plans. The invert for the new 12 inch pipe from the east should match existing inverts. [Civil Plans, sheet C12]
Public Works Streets Review
Failed
06/10/2025
06/10/2025
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
extend the pavement restoration so these "slivers" of asphalt are not left, most likely compromised during construction SH sheet C1
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
it is the LeoTek LED luminaire noted above , not a GE cobra head for streetlights, include 2" spare conduit when running streetlight conduit
SH sheet C 11
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Engineering Traffic Review
Failed
06/10/2025
06/10/2025
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
Per PSP approval conditions;
(2) Streetlights will be required along the 5th Street SE frontage. See markups for preliminary locations and details on how these units will be powered.
For both lights, use Leotek GCJ3-30J-MV-40K-2R-GY-080-XX
At the time of civil permit review provide a separate street lighting plan (within the civil sheets) for the City to review.
Streetlight design shall provide the following:
-Location of conduit runs
-Wiring Schedule
-Conduit size and type for each raceway
-Conductors details
-Pole schedule
-STA & offset for each luminaire
-Show location of junction boxes
-Standard details
-Shorting caps required
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
At both driveways, provide entering sight distance exibit (per City standards, 300ft w/14.5ft setback) to ensure there are no obstructions. Coordinate with Chris Beale (Senior Planner) to ensure street tree species will not impact sight distance.
Civil - C1
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove "Road Narrows" signage when roadway widening is completed.
Civil - C2
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Remove C-Curb
Civil - C10
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
More details needed on the proposed channelization island (dimensions, color, type, etc.). Provide a separate pavement striping plan sheet (within the civil set) that includes all striping/signage and applicable City standard details.
Civil - C10
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Per the MUTCD, signage not allowed to be mounted on STOP sign post. Signage must be mounted separately in advance of the STOP sign. Per the latest MUTCD, R3-2 can be post mounted (R3-5 cannot). Please provide MUTCD sign code and sizing
Civil - C10
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
New streetlights shall connect to existing lighting circuit and service. J-box located here.
Civil - C10
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Place streetlight #1 at this location.
Civil - C11
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Place streetlight #2 at this location
Civil - C12
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide "end of road" and "end of sidewalk" treatments per City standards. Provide standard details.
Civil - C12
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide detailed signage & striping layout (on-site/off-site) with next submittal.
Civil - C7
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
For upcoming Fire Apparatus AutoTurn analysis, please include garbage truck navigating site. Will there be a centralized garbage pickup? Please make sure locations will not cause sight obstruction
Civil - C6
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Will there be a mailbox cluster? Please make sure locations will not cause sight obstruction
Civil - C6
Fire Review
Failed
06/10/2025
06/09/2025
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
1. 2021 IFC D103.6.1 No Parking signs will be required on both sides of the street. Provide a No Parking Fire Lane page. This page will need to include the following. All parking sign locations, painted curb, fire hydrants, PIV, FDC, and Riser Room locations. Provide street dimensions.
2. Provide FDC, PIV, and Riser Room locations.
3. Placement of Fire Hydrants are required to reach all points of a structure within 400' as a hose lays. There will be no parking allowed within 15' of fire hydrants with a total painted curb line of 30' WAC 478-116-193. Plans are called out at 24x36 but the scale is for 22x34 or 11x17? Can not scale.
4. Provide auto-turn.
5. Provide FDC details.
Public Works Water Review
VOID
06/10/2025
06/05/2025
Reviewer:
Planning Review
Failed
06/10/2025
05/28/2025
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Please submit a tree risk assessment (arborist report) documenting the viability of trees to be retained. The report should establish root protection zones and those root protection zones need to be shown on the TESC sheet.
Correction 2:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
LANDSCAPE:
>A storm drain line runs along the north property line; there appears to be conflict with trees proposed on the landscape plan in proximity to the SD line.
>Provide a Type III landscape buffer along the east property boundary. Review the Type III standards in the VMS and integrate the correct mix and density of plant materials. https://cityofpuyallup.org/DocumentCenter/View/17925/Vegetation-Management-Standards-VMS-2022
>Are the sewer lines shown on the landscape plans? Are the trees shown near each unit entry/driveway spaced 5' from the sewer and water lines?
>Provide additional native flowering shrub diversity in the storm pond area. Provide additional early season and late season shrubs consistent with standard SLD-02.
Correction 3:
Other/Miscellaneous
Comments:
GRADING: A break in the wall area should be provided somewhere on the east side of the site plan to provide maintenance access to the perimeter landscape areas. Suggested there be two breaks, one in the NE and one in the SE corner, if possible.