| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Comments
|
02/05/2024
|
03/14/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Radius does not meet City standards. Will not accommodate safe future turning movement heading north on Freeman Rd. Revise to meet City standards.
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Straight taper intersection design does not meet City standards
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Identify area where sight lines cross private property. These locations will require easements or property acquisition to ensure clear sight lines will be maintained.
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove parking stalls located within the driveway throat (related terms include the driveway connection depth, reservoir length, stacking distance, storage length etc.). The proposed parking spaces will cause blocking events that will have undesirable effects on traffic.
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Face of curb shall be 23ft from ROW centerline per Fife Standards (22ft shown)
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
2.5ft between ROW and back of sidewalk (3.5ft shown)
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show proposed channelization/striping. For civil submittal provide detailed taper calculations for 35mph design speed
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Identify area where sight lines cross private property. These locations will require easements or property acquisition to ensure clear sight lines will be maintained.
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide sight distance analysis at this EV driveway
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Align driveways on either side 22nd Ave NW. Negitive offset driveways are not acceptable
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove all marked crosswalks within ROW
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Eastern section of 22nd Ave NW does not meet City standard. As previously stated, CoP requires a minimum 60ft ROW.
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Roadway does not meet City standards. 36ft wide road, 12ft of frontage improvements (sidewalk + planter + streetlights) on both sides
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
No AutoTurn provided for total site circulation or 22nd Ave NW driveways
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
EV access will require electronic gate with opticom (CHECK WITH FIRE)
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, provide details on physical access restriction along Freeman Rd
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, provide details on physical access restriction along Freeman Rd. Signage alone is not sufficient. The northern curb radius must be constructed per City standards to accommodate future NB truck movements. Using a substandard curb radius will not restrict right turns. Outbound trucks can defeat small radius by encroaching into SB Freeman Rd (safety hazard).
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, off-site paved transitions are required along Freeman Rd (north driveway)
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, off-site paved transitions are required along Freeman Rd (south driveway)
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide details on how this parcel will access City ROW
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
If acceptable to Fire, there will need to be an agreement that gates will NOT be allowed at any public access unless specifically designated as an emergency access. [Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why does entering sight distance analysis only include one direction?
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
ESD requirement: 1.47*35*11.5
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Combination truck 11.5 second time gap.
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Due to anticipated trucks on-site, 18ft setback should be used. AASHTO recommends 18ft setback for all vehicle types.
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, site circulation and fire apparatus AutoTurn required
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Identify area where sight lines cross private property. These locations will require easements or property acquisition to ensure clear sight lines will be maintained.
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why would entering sight lines be aligned with outward-bound vehicle lanes?
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Assume 35mph design. 85th percentile speeds will increase when road is improved/widened
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, photo documentation is required with sight distance analysis
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
SSD requirement 250ft @ 35mph
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why no AutoTurn for WBR? Future improvements to Freeman will require this intersection to accommodate large trucks.
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, sight distance analysis required per City standards at Levee/Freeman.
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, site circulation and fire apparatus AutoTurn required
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why would entering sight lines be aligned with outward-bound vehicle lanes?
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, photo documentation is required with sight distance analysis
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
ESD requirement: 1.47*35*11.5
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
SSD requirement 250ft @ 35mph
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Due to anticipated trucks on-site, 18ft setback should be used. AASHTO recommends 18ft setback for all vehicle types.
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Combination truck 11.5 second time gap.
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why does entering sight distance analysis only include one direction?
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Assume 35mph design. 85th percentile speeds will increase when road is improved/widened
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why no AutoTurn for WBR? Future improvements to Freeman will require this intersection to accommodate large trucks.
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why is design vehicle using the center TWLTL for right turns??
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide photometric analysis for required streetlights. [CIVIL page 36]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
General Comments:
• Preliminary Civil design does not have streetlight design or photometric analysis
• Per previous comments streetlights are required along Freeman Rd between Levee Rd and proposed project. Show locations on preliminary civil design
• Preliminary Civil design does not provide channelization/striping design.
• During civil review guardrail analysis required on steep roadside sections of Freeman Rd and Levee Rd
• 48th St E will be improved if warranted based on possible utility work or increased traffic volumes, which is yet to be determined. If necessary 48th St E pavement/subgrade design shall be consistent with pavement analysis.
• 22nd Ave NW does not meet City of Puyallup engineering standards
• Per previous comments physical deterrents are required to prevent heavy vehicle movements:
o Physical deterrents will be required to channelize outbound heavy vehicles to utilize the southern section of Freeman Rd. Provide details on how proposed physical deterrents will safely restrict access. Use of tenant lease agreements will not suffice or be accepted.
o Physical deterrents will be considered at Freeman Rd and Valley Ave to preclude semi-trucks from traveling south on Freeman Rd from Valley Ave to the development site.
o Physical deterrents will be considered at Freeman Rd and 48th St to preclude semi-trucks from traveling to or from the development site on 48th St.
• Additional ROW acquisition required at Freeman/Levee intersection to accommodate future ADA improvements and signalization.
• Per previous comments, the Levee/Freeman intersection AutoTurn analysis needs to include streetlight design to ensure placements are protected from trailer off-tracking conflicts
Traffic Scoping
• An updated traffic scoping document was not performed or received the City. The City of Fife & Puyallup have not approved a Traffic Scoping Worksheet for this project. The previously submitted traffic scoping documents by Kimley-Horn have been reviewed by both jurisdictions with comments provided to the applicant. The City of Fife & Puyallup have not received a revised scoping document. The applicant has instead submitted a completed traffic analysis without traffic scoping approval. The TIA that was submitted with the current PSP submittal is not consistent with previous scoping document submitted by Kimley-Horn. The submitted TIA will not reviewed by City staff.
• Once Scoping worksheet has been approved, the City of Fife & Puyallup will meet with the applicant’s traffic engineer to discuss scope of TIA.
Pavement analysis
• 48th Street East was identified as “Poor” condition by the applicant’s geotechnical consultant (Terra). It does not appear the recommended mitigation on 48th Street East have been included in submittal.
• During civil submittal, must show full roadway (including subgrade) improvements must be compatible with geotechnical recommended structural improvements for 48th Street E and Freeman Rd.
• Per previous comment, pavement analysis needs to collect photo documentation of the existing pavement conditions. This was not provided.
• Which AASHTO methodology/guidelines were used for design?
• Analysis needs to show detailed calculation for design ESAL loading. What data was used? What future volumes and truck percentage were assumed over the design life? What growth rate was assumed? This information needs to be provided in this document.
• Provide calculations using defined parameters for flexible pavement structural design.
• What was the assumed design life? 20 years?
• Given the future industrial/commercial land use in the area, this arterial roadway should assume higher reliability.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Traffic Impact Analysis Comments:
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Freeman Rd/Levee Rd Intersection:
-Widen intersection to add southbound left turn lane, southbound right turn lane, eastbound left turn lane, a center refuge lane on North Levee Road E for the southbound left turn to eastbound North Levee Road E movement. Intersection needs to accommodate truck turning movements.
-Interim All-way STOP at Levee/Freeman is not supported by the City of Puyallup. Only under the most intense land use proposal could an all-way STOP be considered. Once end user has been established, the City of Puyallup may require additional analysis to avoid all-way STOP control at Levee/Freeman.
-Lighting enhancements are required.
-Intersection modifications/widening to accommodate truck turning movements impact private property that is not owned by the applicant or WSDOT. How will the applicant mitigate this situation?
-Sight Distance:
Entering sight distance sight lines encroach into private property that is not owned by the applicant or WSDOT.
How will the applicant ensure sight lines remain unobstructed?
Freeman Rd:
-Proposed improvements and roadway widening along Freeman Rd frontage do not meet Fife engineering standards. Eastern curb alignment along frontage is 21.5ft east of CL. City of Fife standards require curb alignment to be 18ft from CL. This will create a misaligned curb alignment when future off-site frontage is constructed.
-Civil submittal shall provide detailed taper calculations for CL and fog line.
-Proposed streetlight near the north property line (#12) is located 12.3ft from roadway CL and is positioned at the end of a lane taper/transition. This is an obstruction hazard and needs to be moved to a safer location.
-North Driveway:
Sight distance analysis in Civil plans does not match separate sight distance exhibit. Driver eye setback needs to assume 18ft from face of curb. For both directions, assume future offset of face of curb for analysis.
Proposed plastic delineators are not sufficient to restrict NB truck movements. Applicant must propose a more permanent solution to the City of Fife.
-Southern driveway must be gated for emergency vehicle access only. This intersection does not meet sight distance requirement or driveway spacing standards to allow for non-emergency use.
-Add signage at Valley Ave to deter trucks from using the north section of Freeman Rd.
22nd Ave NW
-Proposed pavement markings and striping do not meet City of Puyallup standards. Update striping design for Civil permit submittal.
-Include COP standard detail for STOP sign and bar.
-City standards require commercial driveways to be 30ft wide (Per Engineering standard 101.10(2) “No driveway entrance shall be wider than 30 feet unless otherwise approved by the Engineering Services staff”)
-Streetlight design will be reviewed during Civil permit submittal.
Remote photocell to be installed on service cabinet.
Shorting caps are required.
Use Leotek GCM1-60J-MV-2R-40K-GY-105-XX. The luminaire listed within COP standards for commercial use is no longer manufactured.
-Eastern Driveways are not aligned properly.
-Per previous comment, there are no details that show how private home will access City ROW.
-To mitigate substandard eastern terminus access, City of Puyallup will require a large commercial cul-de-sac. Please show this in your next submittal.
48th St E
-Doesn’t appear there are any improvements or deterrents proposed on 48th St East.
Project generated trips will increase volume on this substandard road segment. Pavement analysis identified this road segment as in “poor” condition. Furthermore, there’s insufficient asphalt depth to support grind and overlay option.
Coordinate with the City of Fife to determine the extent of roadway improvements.
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Collection Review
|
VOID
|
02/05/2024
|
02/15/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Sheets C17, C18, C19 for issues that need correction.
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Comments
|
02/05/2024
|
02/15/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
STORM
• Long term wet weather monitoring results for infiltration feasability were included in submittal as requested. If these results trigger stormwater redesign based upon requirements in the 2019 SWMMWW then include at civil submittal the corresponding BMPs for infiltrating. If there are to be no changes to the stormwater design based on this testing then provide justification based on all of the groundwater levels recorded. In other words incorporate the results of the long term wet weather monitoring (and all other in-situ testing) into the project storm report and plans completely.
• For civil submittal include details and modeling for all post-vault structures and systems in order to analyze the regulated release and to confirm the ‘no-rise’ analysis of receiving waters and to confirm that no adverse changes to wetland hydroperiod will occur due to the release of runoff from the project. These analyses shall be in accordance with the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, City of Fife Standards, and property owner concurrence including the Puyallup Tribe of Indians.
• For this submittal the feasability of the proposed stormwater design has not been demonstrated, and will therefore not be approved for land use. The Puyallup Tribe has recently expressed serious concerns about any additional water being released into the Oxbow area and are indicating that the current proposed design will not be viable.
• If infiltration facilities with more than one acre of contributing area are designed then mounding analysis may be required in accordance with Ecology Volume V Section 5.2.7.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SEWER
• Because this property is over 300 feet from a public sewer connection, the applicant has the option to install an on-site septic system. If that option is not exercised then a public connection that satisfies all applicable standards and regulations shall be submitted for review by development engineering and operations staff. The current proposal/routing of a private force main through private properties has the potential to be approved. It is incumbent on the applicant to show the permissions, conforming design, and restoration details throughout the rest of the permitting process. At no time shall the applicant's inability to procure and record the proper easements for installation, restoration and perpetual maintenance of the private sewer line become a burden or an emergency for the city.
• Because the Preliminary Site Plan process is intended to demonstrate feasability of proposed utilities and utility extensions, the review cannot be approved without the draft easement documents and full cooperation and intent of the other parties (property owners who would be burdened by the easement) demonstrated. An email or letter could suffice if the easements are not prepared, although if all parties agree we cannot think of a reason to not prepare the draft easement for review.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
WATER
• Proposed concept seems reasonable, and the City of Puyallup Water Department has tentatively accepted the concept of the public water main across private property within 40-foot wide easements granted to the City. It is the responsibility of the applicant to negotiate all easements with the other private property owners and grant them to the city. If all of the necessary easements are not procured, then the design shall be reconsidered and redrawn at the applicant’s expense. At no time shall the applicant’s inability to procure the proper easements become a burden to the City and at no time shall the City be liable in any way for delays brought to the project timeline due to the applicant’s inability to procure the proper easements or to build the water system to all applicable standards within those easements. All proposed construction within easements will be subject to review for impacts to critical areas, existing infrastructure and for restoration details.
• Because the Preliminary Site Plan process is intended to demonstrate feasability of proposed utilities and utility extensions, the review cannot be approved without the draft easement documents and full cooperation and intent of the other parties (property owners who would be burdened by the easement) demonstrated. An email or letter could suffice if the easements are not prepared, although if all parties agree we cannot think of a reason to not prepare the draft easement for review.
• Remove easements from water line on Vector’s own property. The water line is private here and no easement shall be required.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
FIFE COMMENTS
• Label Freeman Rd. E. as City of Fife right of way (TYP)
• Show city limits on all plan sheets and increase line weights for city name call outs (TYP)
• Include City of Fife approval stamp on relevant sheets
• Clearly label all private utilities as such (TYP)
• Provide utility profiles for all and identify utility conflicts while maintaining City of Fife regulated clearances (Sheet C12 and others)
• Illumination plans shall be to City of Fife standards and review.
• Include both City of Fife and City of Puyallup notes where applicable
• Include City of Fife standard details where applicable
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Clearly indicate city of Fife limits on the east side of Freeman Rd. E. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C6]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Private utility easements shall be secured before Preliminary Site Plan approval can be given. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Utility easements in the city of Fife shall be 15 foot minimum. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Is approved by COF to have private utilities within a public row. The developer will need to enter into a franchise agreement with COF or easement. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Clarify purpose of this note and these dimension arrows. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Provide more detail for emergency ingress/egress. Address 125' minimum spacing requirement from intersections or driveways in Fife's code. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C11]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Show right of way limits. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C12]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: More analysis is required to review the feasibility and conformance of the storm drainage plan at the intersection of Freeman Rd. E. and N. Levee Rd. E.
a. Downstream Analysis required
b. Clarify how free discharge will be allowed on private property and how this meets the 2019 SWMMWW.
c. City of Fife will require a grading permit, street opening permit, and a right of way permit for the work to widen the south to west bound turning lane area. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C23]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Update detail from 2016 specs and provide gravel shoulder. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C23, Detail A]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Provide surface (contour lines) elevations to confirm no ponding of standing water will occur. Final lift of pavement shall be continuous with seam locations based on paver dimensions and not sawcut locations. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C24]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Construction easements are required for Fife tie-ins (TYP) [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C25]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Transition at southern property line shall be ADA compliant and to Fife roadway standards. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C25]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: For arterial road, removal down to base, then 5" HMA over 2" CSTC (TYP) [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C25]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Update spec. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C25]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Reduce radii to local standards for access roads (25').[21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C28]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Truck turning prevention measures. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-1, Sheet C27]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: No curb installation north of 48th St. E. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C28]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT:
1. Truck turning prevention
2. Measures butt joint
[21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C29]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: More analysis is required to review the feasibility and conformance of the channelization and signage plan at the intersection of Freeman Rd. E. and N. Levee Rd.:
a. Show locations of guard rails and gravel shoulders. See COF road design standards.
b. Provide all lane widths and verify that 11 feet is sufficient.
c. This intersection will require illumination.
d. Provide striping details with legend.
e. Check site distance for possible relocation of stop sign next to turn lane. Consider creating an island for the sign next to the turn lane where indicated. See existing stop sign at 70th Ave. E. and N. Levee Rd. E. in Fife. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C31]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Where is signage for right turning lane? [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C32]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Is this adequate or visible enough? See C31. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C32]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Show directional arrows. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C32]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Add signage: semi-trucks prohibited from going west on 48th St. E. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Add signage warning drivers that north bound lanes will be reduced. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
FIFE COMMENT: Reduce turning radii to 25' on 48th St. E. [21585-D-CIVIL-2023-12-01, Sheet C34]
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Comments
|
02/05/2024
|
02/13/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SEPA review: Please refer to the February 8, 2023 from the co-lead agencies for further detail.
Site plan/Design review comments: See mark ups on October, 2022 preliminary civil plan set. Issues remain with design review (foundation line landscape buffering), perimeter landscape buffering, design of the Freeman Road frontage landscape buffer, truck trailer parking landscaping, potential for site plan design to be impacted by critical areas and critical area buffers, height to setback rules.
Critical areas review: WSDOT does not yet have an approved wetland delineation or rating for off site wetlands, we corresponded with staff from the State. Please review the itemized list in the February 8, 2023 letter for an outline of remaining issues. Confluence has not conducted peer review of the reports as they would be reviewing the project under the preparation of the EIS.
FEB. 2024 UPDATE: This is an old comment and is being removed from review list.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Buffer not yet determined [planning, sheet c7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add 15 foot buffer along building frontage [planning, sheet c7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Pipe may impact trust property - no ROW line shown. [planning, sheet c7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Apply retaining wall buffer standard to site frontage - current in VMS design manual (Nov. 2022) [planning, sheet c7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Building may not exceed 42.5' in height with a 40' setback [planning, sheet c7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
8 foot walk, 6 foot planter required [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Move line out of planter [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Are these emergency generators? Relocate away from residential land uses [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Buffer not yet determined [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Off site wetland on WSDOT property may extend buffer into this area of the site [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Truck parking must be broken apart with landscape islands every 8 stalls [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
30 feet of dense evergreen landscape with fence required. Proposed location of lines will reduce available planting area due to spacing requirements [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
12 feet of landscape required [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
30 feet of landscape required - ADA stalls and walkway must be set back [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
12 feet of landscape required [planning, sheet c9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
30 foot buffer required [planning, sheet c9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
12 foot buffer required [planning, sheet c9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
15 foot buffer along foundation required [planning, sheet c9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Building may not exceed 38' in height with a 37' setback [planning, sheet c9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
35 foot buffer required south perimeter. Applicant would need a hearing examiner variance to deviate/reduce width [planning, sheet C10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
15 feet required design review landscape buffer, foundation line. This area tapers to less than 15 feet. [planning, sheet C10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Location of water and sewer extensions may require removal of substantial vegetation within wetland buffer areas. Applicant must demonstrate compliance with mitigation sequencing prior to alignment shown being approved. See PMC 21.06.920 (1) (a - f). [Planning sheet C13]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Off-site wetland on this site. Fife has prelim report from past development proposal. Applicant must study if buffer or wetland will be impacted by road way improvements or storm water [planning sheet c20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Fife indicates tight line pipe design not acceptable [planning sheet c20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Extent of ROW improvements not yet defined. Must be resolved with TIA. [planning sheet c20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Improvements within shoreline jurisdiction will require shoreline permitting, potentially with both Fife and Puyallup [planning sheet c20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Does the applicant have construction easements for pipe if not located in ROW? [planning sheet C25]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Is the pipe located in a wetland and/or stream buffer? [planning sheet C25]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Applicant would need to seek relief from Hearing Examiner for 35 foot buffer requirement. The overlay and the design standards do not supercede base zoning requirements. [planning, response to comment, page 1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Planning reached out to WSDOT and the off site critical area reports are not yet final [planning, response to comment, page 2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Zone specific standards apply. Also see site civil plan mark ups [planning, response to comment, page 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Perhaps the site is being overdeveloped if the project is trading compliance with parking for compliance with design review. [planning, response to comment, page 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The VMS design manual for truck trailer parking/storage is specific on this issue. See VMS, section 14.4, Nov. 2022 [planning, response to comment, page 4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It appears the additional technical report has not been provided (hydraulic analysis) [planning, response to comment, page 7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Global comment on all outstanding wetland issues: Confluence would study these issues and determine impacts in scope of work for EIS [planning, response to comment, page 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Conclusion of report does not analyze the potential for a user that might store hazardous materials. Conclusions of the report are not supported by a proposed use or user [planning, response to comment, page 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The most current VMS design manual (Nov. 2022) requires the bermed standard with interior facing retaining wall. (Type Id, see page 38 of 11/22 VMS [planning, response to comment, page 11]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
NOTE: Plan mark ups made by Planning on the current plan drawing are being marked as 'resolved' by Planning in relation to the December, 2023 resubmittal ONLY because the current version of the plans added additional sheets and the previous mark ups are no longer associated with the previous version. Not all comments are resolved. This is an error with our permit software. Please refer to the current comments and corrections, as noted.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CULTURAL RESOURCES: The May, 2022 archeological evaluation needs to be revised to include the new project land area that was not covered in the previous submittal. City staff received this feedback from Puyallup Tribe staff in response to the revised application materials. Please ensure your consultant uses Tribal accepted standards to conduct additional site investigation.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE: The frontage landscape area along Freeman Road needs a sloping berm with back-side retaining wall (3:1 slope) to meet the landscape standards (Type Id standard, page 38, VMS). The 6' wall atop the berm shall be a masonry sound wall. Neighboring property owners have requested a sound wall to preserve residential areas from potential noise impacts, which could reasonably be expected with industrial users. Please update preliminary plans.
LANDSCAPE: The updated landscape plans state there is "landscape berm refer to civil" for the buffer around TPN 0420201032 (Almont). Prelim grading sheets C9 and C10 do not show a berm. Please provide a 3:1 berm with a wall around this residence.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN: Ensure the storm lines proposed do not conflict with proposed landscaping along the foundation lines of the building where the 15 foot landscaping requirement applies. The civil plan set appears to show a conflict that is not shown on the landscape plans. All utility lines will need to be shown on the final landscape plans at the time of civil. This may require adjustments to the civil utility plan sets.
DESIGN REVIEW: SPECIFICALLY, proposed storm lines cannot be located in the foundation line landscape area on the north and south side of each of the buildings. Placement of those storm lines in those areas would practically eliminate tree planting that is required to meet design review code. Please adjust those storm lines to be under the adjacent parking stalls/drive aisles, aligned closely to the curb line, so as to not also impact tree planting in the parking lot landscape islands. Also, the area north of building A - shorten the paved parking stalls from 20' depth to 15' and transfer that area to the landscape. 20.26.400 requires 15' foundation line landscape. 10' is shown in that area.
LANDSCAPE: Please expect further detail comments on plant types, street tree selection and plant density/design at the time of civil plan submittal.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
UTILITIES: The sanitary sewer and water easement area shown on the Tribe's property (TPN 0420201008) will not approved, according to our conversation with Tribe staff. The applicant has not demonstrated the site being served by sewer or domestic water without these easements.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
STORMWATER: The oxbow hydroperiod analysis has not been submitted and is outstanding. Courtney Flora emailed city staff 01/08/24 stating the analysis would be completed at a later date. This is also noted in the Anchor report. This will require additional critical area and engineering review and coordination, once received. We anticipate coordination with the Tribe staff and Fife staff to occur during review of this report and Confluence will peer review. Tribal owned properties exist downstream at Oxbow wetland – applicant would need approval from Puyallup Tribe planning and fisheries departments, per previous comments from Tribe staff.
STORMWATER: Is the off site stormwater line location in 48th Street and 78th Ave (private) sufficiently off set as to not need or require a construction or maintenance easement from the tribal trust properties (TPN 0420174032, -4031, 0420178007, 0420174707)? Will the permanent maintenance easement be wide enough to satisfy Fife requirements and avoid overlap on trust properties?
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: Confluence's review of Anchor's updated critical areas report will be submitted under a separate cover. WSDOT has additional comments (See comments in Portal - WSDOT, Fuchs email 01/30/24) on Anchor's critical area report as well that needs to be reviewed and response to comment provided by applicant.
CRITICAL AREAS: City staff will not accept the impacts to wetland 87, 93 and stream 14 buffers. The proposed truck parking is not unavoidable impacts to achieve the project objective. Avoidance sequencing criteria requires “Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.” The project site can still be built and objectives achieved without the impacts to the buffers for these off site critical areas.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SHORELINE: All project off-site work within the Shoreline Environment of the Puyallup River will require shoreline substantial development permits from Fife and Puyallup prior to land use approval. SEPA checklist needs revisions to address work within shoreline area; additional critical area reporting may be required. Applicant team should reach out to Chris Larson and Chris Beale to discuss scope of materials needed for those SD permits. This will require further refinements of roadway improvements, lane/intersection configuration, and stormwater management for Levee and Freeman Road prior to SD application. Verification of critical areas in the vicinity of this work is also pending/outstanding and specific critical area (shoreline management) reporting should be provided with any future SD permit application.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
TRAFFIC: Page 10 of the Kimley Horn TIA (Nov. 2023) states: "This is within the 6-year concurrency window for state law so we are entitled to utilize those improvements and shifts of traffic away from local roadways in the analysis." Please provide citation of state law and applicant analysis. Its not clear how a future capital project would change analysis of project impacts in the interim period between current conditions, current conditions w project, and the construction of a future capital project. Is the assertion here that a future capital project allows the applicant to not analyze or mitigate impacts for a 6 year period?
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
TRAFFIC: Please review and respond to all comments from Fife staff and traffic consultant team (KPG).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
TRIBE COORDINATION: Staff reached out to Tribe staff regarding easements shown on TPN 0420201008, street improvements appearing to cross onto TPN 0420201008 at Levee Road/Freeman Road, temporary construction easements and easements for storm water onto TPN 0420201008. All these issues appear on the plan set impacting PTOI land (developed basin off-site, sheet 5, storm water report; sheet C18, utility plans; sheet C31 & C32, civil off site roadway plans). From Andrew Strobel: "Vector has reached out to the Tribe for easements for private sewer on the Tribe’s property off of 19th Ave. We are currently in negotiations regarding if the Tribe is amenable to these easements. However, the Tribe has not been informed of any need for road ROW or construction easements to widen Freeman Road and are not in negotiations to supply any of the necessary easements related to this site plan. For the purposes of the record and commenting on the project the Tribe is in no position to support those easements until Vector has secured them from the Tribe. I would inform the applicant that it would be difficult to approve this site plan without the consent of the Tribe and either engage with us on negotiations or come up with a new site plan that excludes using the Tribe’s property."
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
No Comments
|
02/05/2024
|
01/17/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Based on City of Puyallup Municipal Codes fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be required.
The fire sprinkler system shall be designed and install per NFPA 13, 2016 Edition.
The City of Puyallup Municipal Code requires the fire alarm system to be designed and installed to “Total Coverage” per NFPA 72, 2016 Edition.
A UL Certificate shall be required on the fire alarm system.
A Water Availability/ Fire flow Letter shall be required.
Structures requiring more than 2500 GPM require the fire mains to be looped.
Show Riser Rooms, FDC’s, P.I.V’s, and all Fire Hydrants on site plan.
Fire hydrants to reach all points of the structure within 400’.
Fire Hydrants shall be at least 50’ from the structure and the FDC supporting the fire sprinkler system shall be no closer than 10’ and no greater than 15’ from the hydrant.
26’ wide required in front of fire hydrants.
Do not block FDC’s, P.I.V’s, and all Fire Hydrants with a parking stall. All must be placed in parking islands away from building.
Frontage on Freeman Rd will require Fire Hydrants.
The fire access road (lane) shall be a minimum of 26’.
Provide all site plan dimensions.
At this time the 2018 IFC and referenced standards shall be utilized.
The entrances shall meet ladder truck fire apparatus truck turning radiuses and approval of the angle of inclination.
Auto-turn or equivalent program required to demonstrate fire apparatus turning radiuses.
Maximum road grade shell be 10%.
The Length of building A westside, has no path for Exiting the building at all required Exits.
Southwest Trailer parking lot (32) will be required to meet 2018 IFC Appendix D turn-around dimensions. Show on site plan.
Provide more detail on 20’ private alley with dimensions around it.
Fire lane / Street between Bld A and Bld B, provide more clarification for access. Dimensions, sidewalks, lanes, and intersection to enter the complex.
This is not a full review. More information is required to complete.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. Fire access gate will be required to be electronic with Opticom and manual override. A manual gate will not be allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
Building Review
|
No Comments
|
02/05/2024
|
01/16/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External Agency Review
|
No Comments
|
02/05/2024
|
12/07/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Revisions Required
|
12/19/2022
|
03/15/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Off-site paved transitions required
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Minimum commercial driveway requires 30ft width with 35ft radius. Actual design based on WB-67 AutoTurn. Trucks will not be allowed to encroach into adjacent vehicle lanes.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
paved roadway along frontage not wide enough for center TWLTL as required per City Standards. Fife standards require minimum 36ft wide roadway
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show improvements for 48th St E. Pavement analysis will evaluate existing pavement condition and identify mitigation
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Fife standards, back of sidewalk shall be placed at ROW (35ft from centerline)
|
|
|
See Document Markup
5.5ft is shown between back of sidewalk and ROW. Typically, the back of sidewalk is at the edge of ROW (35ft from centerline in this case). Verify the correct dimension with the City of Fife
|
|
|
See Document Markup
30ft ROW does not meet COP standards. Must be 60ft minimum
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Driveways need to meet commercial driveway standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Dead End City Standard Street into a parking lot?
|
|
|
See Document Markup
26ft Roadway width does not meet commercial roadway standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show roadway improvements south of here. Per City of Fife, the road section may be reduced to two-14 ft. lanes south of the project frontage to Levee Rd. Streetlights are required
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show roadway improvements on 19th Ave NW
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Driveways need to meet commercial driveway standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per City standards, must provide curb/gutter/sidewalks/planter strips/streetlights.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide details on physical access restriction along Freeman Rd
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Curb alignment must remain constant
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Need to show EV access possible
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Fire turnaround at end of ROW? Check with David Drake (Fire) for compliance with Code. What if lots are gated in the future?
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Access design is not feasible, additional ROW necessary. Redesign access using AutoTurn. Show simultaneous inbound/outbound WB-67 trucks maneuvering this intersection. Trucks will not be allowed to encroach into adjacent vehicle lanes. Additional ROW required
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per the City of Fife, a three-lane section will be required along the length of the project frontage. Additional ROW necessary (~20ft) to build necessary roadway widening + frontage improvements (including streetlights)
|
|
|
See Document Markup
ESD + SSD sight distance analysis required at this driveawy
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show modifications at Levee/Freeman intersection to accommodate simultaneous inbound/outbound WB-67 trucks. Turn pockets required on Levee & Freeman Rd. Sight distance analysis required per City standards. Include streetlight design at intersection, ensure placements are protected from trailer off-tracking conflicts
|
|
|
See Document Markup
ESD + SSD sight distance analysis required at this driveawy
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide details on physical access restriction along Freeman Rd
|
|
|
See Document Markup
50th St E/21st Ave NW must be aligned on either side of Freeman Rd
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide details on physical access restriction along Freeman Rd
|
|
|
See Document Markup
52th St E/19th Ave NW must be aligned on either side of Freeman Rd
|
|
|
See Document Markup
ESD + SSD sight distance analysis required at this driveawy
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Driveways need to meet commercial driveway standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Driveways need to meet commercial driveway standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
26.00 ft
|
|
|
See Document Markup
31.00 ft
|
|
|
See Document Markup
5.50 ft
|
|
|
See Document Markup
60.00 ft
|
|
|
See Document Markup
26.00 ft
|
|
|
See Document Markup
30.00 ft
|
|
|
See Document Markup
20.00 ft
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Traffic Comments
Preliminary Site Plan Comments:
•See site plan REDLINES for more detail
•ROW Vacation & Dedication:
o Please reference Jeff Wilson’s 4/14/21 email regarding ROW dedication.
o Please reference Ken Cook’s 1/13/22 email regarding Street Vacation Application R-21-0013
•AutoTurn Analysis:
o In addition to on-site circulation analysis, turning analysis required at site driveways and adjacent intersections. Assume WB-67 truck and fire apparatus.
o Shall include Levee Rd/Freeman Rd
o Trucks will not be allowed to encroach into adjacent vehicle lanes or roadway shoulders
•Identify required ROW acquisitions to meet roadway geometry requirements.
o Show roadway widening along the project frontage on Freeman Rd and extending to Levee Rd. A three-lane section will be required along the length of the project frontage, including TPN that separate the project site frontage (TPN 0420201036 , 0420205004) and the Tribal Trust property at TPN 0420174032. The road section may be reduced to two-14 ft. lanes south of the project frontage to Levee Rd, excluding required turn pocket(s) at Levee Rd.
•Physical deterrents will be required to channelize outbound heavy vehicles to utilize the southern section of Freeman Rd. Provide details on how proposed physical deterrents will safely restrict access. Use of tenant lease agreements will not suffice or be accepted.
•Physical deterrents will be considered at Freeman Rd and Valley Ave to preclude semi-trucks from traveling south on Freeman Rd from Valley Ave to the development site.
•Physical deterrents will be considered at Freeman Rd and 48th St to preclude semi-trucks from traveling to or from the development site on 48th St.
•City roadway/geometric standards must be met by proposed improvements.
o Roadway widening with a center turn lane is Fife’s standard street section for Freeman Rd and is necessary to safely accommodate industrial/commercial traffic.
o Intersection/driveway spacing standards must be met with current design layout
o Per City standards, driveways/intersections must be aligned across the street. Offset alignments are not acceptable.
•Coordination with Union Pacific regarding potential at-grade rail crossing improvements. Such improvements may include:
o Roadway widening, grade-separation, advanced pre-emption, queue detection, pre-signal, increased queue storage, health circuit, supervision circuit, etc
•Any required improvements must meet Union Pacific design requirements.
•Sight distance analysis required at site access + adjacent intersections per City standards (not AASHTO)
o Report the available sight distance.
o Include photo documentation with sight distance analysis
o Sight distance analysis required per City standards at Levee/Freeman.
•Show modifications at Levee/Freeman intersection to accommodate simultaneous inbound/outbound WB-67 trucks. Turn pockets are required on Levee & Freeman Rd. Include streetlight design at intersection, ensure placements are protected from trailer off-tracking conflicts
•Show roadway improvements on Freeman Road (between project and Levee Rd). Per City of Fife, the road section may be reduced to two-14 ft. lanes south of the project frontage to Levee Rd.
•Show preliminary location of City standard streetlights. Lighting must be provided on Freeman Rd extending to Levee Rd.
•Guardrail analysis required on steep roadside sections of Freeman Rd and Levee Rd
•Show improvements to 48th St E
•Traffic Impact fees (TIF) will be assessed in accordance with fees adopted by ordinance, per PMC 21.10. Impact fees are subject to change and are adopted by ordinance. The applicant shall pay the proportionate impact fees adopted at the time of building permit application
•Park impact fee was established by Ordinance 3142 dated July 3, 2017 and shall be charged $0.87 per sqft of building space.
•Per Puyallup Municipal Code Section 11.08.135, the applicant/owner would be expected to construct half-street improvements including curb, gutter, planter strip, sidewalk, roadway base, pavement, and street lighting. Any existing improvements which are damaged now or during construction, or which do not meet current City Standards, shall be replaced.
o As part of these improvements, additional right-of-way (ROW) may need to be dedicated to the City.
•At the time of civil permit review provide a separate street lighting plan and pavement striping plan (channelization) sheet for the City to review.
Traffic Scoping comments:
•Updated scoping worksheet required. Previous draft scoping document has not been approved by Puyallup or Fife. The scoping document will dictate the specifics of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) study – without agreement on the scoping worksheet, the presently submitted TIA is entirely incorrect and must be reconducted after receiving concurrence from the Agencies involved.
o Per previous comment responses, future tenant has not been identified at this time. Therefore, trip generation needs to demonstrate worst-case scenario land use to accurately capture possible traffic impacts particularly if no end user or use is specified and there is no known mechanism to constrain land uses. For warehouse projects with no end user or uses, the City of Puyallup has been using the ITE land use code 155, high cube fulfillment center (Sort), for the purposes of assessment of traffic impacts for warehouse development projects.
o Provide details on how heavy vehicle % was generated.
o Update trip distribution & assignment based on previous comments. Please estimate project splits north/south on Freeman, as well as on 48th.
o Based on updated trip generation assumptions, provide an updated list of study intersection to be evaluated during the AM/PM peak hour (based on Fife threshold)
o Once additional study intersections are identified based on the updated trip generation assumptions, all intersections must be counted at the same time. Older traffic counts will not be accepted.
o The 11th edition of the ITE trip generation manual shall be used for trip generation assumptions.
•Once the scoping document has been approved by Fife & Puyallup, the applicant shall distribute the scoping document to other local agencies & jurisdictions for review (including Union Pacific, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, WSDOT)
TIA Scope requirements:
TIA analysis:
•Report AM/PM peak hour delay, level of service (LOS), segment V/C ratios, queues (average, 95th), by each lane movement.
o Verify the proposed queue capacity at adjacent intersections will accommodate future demand.
o Identify off-site mitigation as necessary.
o Assess traffic impacts at identified intersections consistent with Fife LOS standards for Fife controlled ROW and Puyallup LOS standards for Puyallup controlled ROW.
•Assess existing conditions and document future plans for the Transit Facilities, Railroad Crossing/Operations, and Non-Motorized Facilities.
•Detailed explanation for growth rate assumptions. Typically, short term growth should be assumed at 3% annual growth.
•Channelization warrants for left turn pockets are not necessary in TIA. Center TWLTL and left turn pockets are required per City roadway standards and will be a condition of approval.
•It is not uncommon for the adjacent Union Pacific trains to operate during peak times causing significant delays at the existing at-grade rail crossing. Traffic analysis must assume multiple blocking events during AM/PM peak to simulate worst case scenario.
•The TIA must address how project trip distribution impacts related to Canyon Rd & SR167 build outs.
o Future baseline/build conditions should not assume these projects are completed when evaluating operational impacts caused by this project.
Traffic Safety Analysis:
•Intersection vehicle crash rates at all study intersections (5 years).
•Include crash severity and types.
•Potential countermeasure assessment.
Pavement analysis:
•Pavement analysis needs to be provided per annexation SEPA conditions.
•Heavy vehicles generated by this project will have a significant impact on Puyallup and Fife roads, including capacity, intersection level of service, impacts to the pavement surfacing, etc.
•Once the traffic scoping worksheet is updated, coordinate with Puyallup & Fife on which roadways should be included in analysis.
•Assess condition of existing pavement, identify current pavement structure. At a minimum, pavement analysis needs to include impacted roadways, including Freeman Road, 48th Street and Levee Road. Please specify locations for Fife & Puyallup review prior to conducting field assessment. Collect field samples and analyze existing pavement. Collect photo documentation of the existing pavement conditions.
•Perform pavement analysis to determine expected terminal serviceability of pavement with and without project.
•Identify needs for any roadway reconstruction or asphalt overlay in order to maintain adequate serviceability period.
•Provide a narrative on how heavy vehicles inflict pavement damage compared to passenger cars, and how this can be mitigated.
Comments from Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Scoping comments:
•48th St E is not built to sustain truck traffic in its current form. Please consider restricting freight trucks down this road in order to protect the residential character of the housing in Fife that includes Tribal residential uses.
•Traffic generation and the onsite noise of the facility should be accompanied by a noise/light berm similar to the Prologis project in Tacoma/Fife to mitigate impact to residential uses.
•19th Ave NE (Applicant has it 52nd St E) I believe is a restricted private drive. What percent of trucks will use this drive and has the applicant secured access to this drive by the appropriate parties?
•What street improvement assumptions are proposed under traffic scoping to model these trips? (Freeman road expansion, turn lanes, culvert replacement, complete streets, other road improvements) Current road facility cannot support this level of heavy haul traffic as per Fife Municipal Code Chapter 10.44. Keeping in mind Tribal properties in the vicinity, what is proposed to be the new alignment of Freeman Road?
•What minimum offsite traffic improvements will be necessary for the applicant to contribute to, to be approved for proposed use?
TIA
1. I find the TIA to not adequately address the Union Pacific Railroad Crossing. A 5 hour observation without a demonstrable train event is inadequate for the conclusion derived in the TIA.
"Video of the Union Pacific Railroad crossing south of Valley Avenue was observed for 5 hours during peak travel periods (6-9 AM and 4-6 PM). During those 5 hours of video no trains were observed and no gate closings occurred. Therefore, the rail crossing does not appear to significantly affect operations of the Freeman Road and Valley Avenue signal during the AM or PM peak hours." -Pg 24 TIA
2. The TIA safety analysis doesn't model properly for the truck trips generated by the project. Freeman @ Valley has had 10 collisions in the sample date, which I think it significant for the intersection. Freeman @ Valley currently restricts heavy haul traffic and contains the rail crossing 200 feet back. I feel like a more significant analysis including the newly introduced truck traffic queuing at Valley and the cargo lengths of trucks should be studied so that trucks are properly clearing the railroad tracks.
3. I cannot agree with the conclusions stated in the Channelization Warrants (7.2). I don't believe proper turn radii from the development provides that Freeman as a 2 lane, non-heavy haul corridor can accept truck traffic introduced by the project. The warrants state that no center turn lane is needed, which would mean likely trucks would be turning into oncoming traffic when making right hand turns out of their facility. It is my understanding that the ROW is roughly 20-ish feet and these types of trucks will require at a minimum 27 feet to make a 90 degree turn. These turn radii should be modeled.
4. In the Channelization Warrants (7.2), the applicant consultant claims state that there is no responsibility for widening ROW due to the project. I am confused of this statement because of previous public statements made at the Community Meeting hosted by the Vector where the claim was that Vector had responsibility to widen the frontage of the project site. In any case, I disagree with both statements as the type of traffic, the road construction type, turning radii, and safety concerns warrant that without a full length of road improvement to either Levee Rd or Valley Ave, there would be concerns that the current road would fail under the weight of the trucks, cause undue safety concerns of the turning radii of trucks, and safety concerns of the Union Pacific rail road crossing due to truck queuing at Valley. I believe the entirety of section of road should be a minimum requirement to introducing this type of traffic onto Freeman Rd to properly mitigate safety and traffic concerns.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Radius does not meet City standards. Will not accommodate safe future turning movement heading north on Freeman Rd. Revise to meet City standards.
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Straight taper intersection design does not meet City standards
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Identify area where sight lines cross private property. These locations will require easements or property acquisition to ensure clear sight lines will be maintained.
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove parking stalls located within the driveway throat (related terms include the driveway connection depth, reservoir length, stacking distance, storage length etc.). The proposed parking spaces will cause blocking events that will have undesirable effects on traffic.
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Face of curb shall be 23ft from ROW centerline per Fife Standards (22ft shown)
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
2.5ft between ROW and back of sidewalk (3.5ft shown)
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show proposed channelization/striping. For civil submittal provide detailed taper calculations for 35mph design speed
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Identify area where sight lines cross private property. These locations will require easements or property acquisition to ensure clear sight lines will be maintained.
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide sight distance analysis at this EV driveway
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Align driveways on either side 22nd Ave NW. Negitive offset driveways are not acceptable
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Remove all marked crosswalks within ROW
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Eastern section of 22nd Ave NW does not meet City standard. As previously stated, CoP requires a minimum 60ft ROW.
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Roadway does not meet City standards. 36ft wide road, 12ft of frontage improvements (sidewalk + planter + streetlights) on both sides
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
No AutoTurn provided for total site circulation or 22nd Ave NW driveways
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
EV access will require electronic gate with opticom (CHECK WITH FIRE)
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, provide details on physical access restriction along Freeman Rd
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, provide details on physical access restriction along Freeman Rd. Signage alone is not sufficient. The northern curb radius must be constructed per City standards to accommodate future NB truck movements. Using a substandard curb radius will not restrict right turns. Outbound trucks can defeat small radius by encroaching into SB Freeman Rd (safety hazard).
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, off-site paved transitions are required along Freeman Rd (north driveway)
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, off-site paved transitions are required along Freeman Rd (south driveway)
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide details on how this parcel will access City ROW
[Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
If acceptable to Fire, there will need to be an agreement that gates will NOT be allowed at any public access unless specifically designated as an emergency access. [Site Plan]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why does entering sight distance analysis only include one direction?
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
ESD requirement: 1.47*35*11.5
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Combination truck 11.5 second time gap.
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Due to anticipated trucks on-site, 18ft setback should be used. AASHTO recommends 18ft setback for all vehicle types.
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, site circulation and fire apparatus AutoTurn required
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Identify area where sight lines cross private property. These locations will require easements or property acquisition to ensure clear sight lines will be maintained.
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why would entering sight lines be aligned with outward-bound vehicle lanes?
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Assume 35mph design. 85th percentile speeds will increase when road is improved/widened
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, photo documentation is required with sight distance analysis
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
SSD requirement 250ft @ 35mph
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why no AutoTurn for WBR? Future improvements to Freeman will require this intersection to accommodate large trucks.
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, sight distance analysis required per City standards at Levee/Freeman.
[CIVIL C33]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, site circulation and fire apparatus AutoTurn required
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why would entering sight lines be aligned with outward-bound vehicle lanes?
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, photo documentation is required with sight distance analysis
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
ESD requirement: 1.47*35*11.5
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
SSD requirement 250ft @ 35mph
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Due to anticipated trucks on-site, 18ft setback should be used. AASHTO recommends 18ft setback for all vehicle types.
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Combination truck 11.5 second time gap.
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why does entering sight distance analysis only include one direction?
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Assume 35mph design. 85th percentile speeds will increase when road is improved/widened
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why no AutoTurn for WBR? Future improvements to Freeman will require this intersection to accommodate large trucks.
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why is design vehicle using the center TWLTL for right turns??
[CIVIL C34]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide photometric analysis for required streetlights. [CIVIL page 36]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
General Comments:
• Preliminary Civil design does not have streetlight design or photometric analysis
• Per previous comments streetlights are required along Freeman Rd between Levee Rd and proposed project. Show locations on preliminary civil design
• Preliminary Civil design does not provide channelization/striping design.
• During civil review guardrail analysis required on steep roadside sections of Freeman Rd and Levee Rd
• 48th St E will be improved if warranted based on possible utility work or increased traffic volumes, which is yet to be determined. If necessary 48th St E pavement/subgrade design shall be consistent with pavement analysis.
• 22nd Ave NW does not meet City of Puyallup engineering standards
• Per previous comments physical deterrents are required to prevent heavy vehicle movements:
o Physical deterrents will be required to channelize outbound heavy vehicles to utilize the southern section of Freeman Rd. Provide details on how proposed physical deterrents will safely restrict access. Use of tenant lease agreements will not suffice or be accepted.
o Physical deterrents will be considered at Freeman Rd and Valley Ave to preclude semi-trucks from traveling south on Freeman Rd from Valley Ave to the development site.
o Physical deterrents will be considered at Freeman Rd and 48th St to preclude semi-trucks from traveling to or from the development site on 48th St.
• Additional ROW acquisition required at Freeman/Levee intersection to accommodate future ADA improvements and signalization.
• Per previous comments, the Levee/Freeman intersection AutoTurn analysis needs to include streetlight design to ensure placements are protected from trailer off-tracking conflicts
Traffic Scoping
• An updated traffic scoping document was not performed or received the City. The City of Fife & Puyallup have not approved a Traffic Scoping Worksheet for this project. The previously submitted traffic scoping documents by Kimley-Horn have been reviewed by both jurisdictions with comments provided to the applicant. The City of Fife & Puyallup have not received a revised scoping document. The applicant has instead submitted a completed traffic analysis without traffic scoping approval. The TIA that was submitted with the current PSP submittal is not consistent with previous scoping document submitted by Kimley-Horn. The submitted TIA will not reviewed by City staff.
• Once Scoping worksheet has been approved, the City of Fife & Puyallup will meet with the applicant’s traffic engineer to discuss scope of TIA.
Pavement analysis
• 48th Street East was identified as “Poor” condition by the applicant’s geotechnical consultant (Terra). It does not appear the recommended mitigation on 48th Street East have been included in submittal.
• During civil submittal, must show full roadway (including subgrade) improvements must be compatible with geotechnical recommended structural improvements for 48th Street E and Freeman Rd.
• Per previous comment, pavement analysis needs to collect photo documentation of the existing pavement conditions. This was not provided.
• Which AASHTO methodology/guidelines were used for design?
• Analysis needs to show detailed calculation for design ESAL loading. What data was used? What future volumes and truck percentage were assumed over the design life? What growth rate was assumed? This information needs to be provided in this document.
• Provide calculations using defined parameters for flexible pavement structural design.
• What was the assumed design life? 20 years?
• Given the future industrial/commercial land use in the area, this arterial roadway should assume higher reliability.
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Revisions Required
|
12/19/2022
|
03/08/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Based on City of Puyallup Municipal Codes fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be required.
The fire sprinkler system shall be designed and install per NFPA 13, 2016 Edition.
The City of Puyallup Municipal Code requires the fire alarm system to be designed and installed to “Total Coverage” per NFPA 72, 2016 Edition.
A UL Certificate shall be required on the fire alarm system.
A Water Availability/ Fire flow Letter shall be required.
Structures requiring more than 2500 GPM require the fire mains to be looped.
Show Riser Rooms, FDC’s, P.I.V’s, and all Fire Hydrants on site plan.
Fire hydrants to reach all points of the structure within 400’.
Fire Hydrants shall be at least 50’ from the structure and the FDC supporting the fire sprinkler system shall be no closer than 10’ and no greater than 15’ from the hydrant.
26’ wide required in front of fire hydrants.
Do not block FDC’s, P.I.V’s, and all Fire Hydrants with a parking stall. All must be placed in parking islands away from building.
Frontage on Freeman Rd will require Fire Hydrants.
The fire access road (lane) shall be a minimum of 26’.
Provide all site plan dimensions.
At this time the 2018 IFC and referenced standards shall be utilized.
The entrances shall meet ladder truck fire apparatus truck turning radiuses and approval of the angle of inclination.
Auto-turn or equivalent program required to demonstrate fire apparatus turning radiuses.
Maximum road grade shell be 10%.
The Length of building A westside, has no path for Exiting the building at all required Exits.
Southwest Trailer parking lot (32) will be required to meet 2018 IFC Appendix D turn-around dimensions. Show on site plan.
Provide more detail on 20’ private alley with dimensions around it.
Fire lane / Street between Bld A and Bld B, provide more clarification for access. Dimensions, sidewalks, lanes, and intersection to enter the complex.
This is not a full review. More information is required to complete.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. Fire access gate will be required to be electronic with Opticom and manual override. A manual gate will not be allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Revisions Required
|
12/19/2022
|
03/01/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN – These corrections required to approve Preliminary Site Plan
STORM
• GENERAL - A stand-alone stormwater site plan is required for Preliminary Site Plan approval. The sheets submitted were buried within the Stormwater Report and were inadequate for this stage of design.
• GENERAL – Overall the proposed stormwater design does not meet the level of intensity or complexity that reviewers would expect to see for a development of this size.
• PAGE 38 of the SSP - A proposed development cannot create its own infeasibility. The SSP states that “Due to non-infiltrating soils, high groundwater, and a lack of flow space, no LID BMPs are deemed feasible.” The same report states, “the impervious cover after development will be approximately 84%.” If during civil design it is determined there is insufficient room for adequate stormwater facilities in the area, the area of the facilities shall be increased as necessary so that the final design will conform to City and State requirements.
• Volume 1, Section 2.5.5 of the 2014 SWMMWW refers to Table 2.5.1 for projects over 5 acres outside of the UGA. This table indicates that the LID performance standard and BMPT5.13 must be achieved.
• The SWMMWW requires pre-developed and developed basin maps to estimate the quantity of water on site and determine where it goes. In addition, any discharge to private property requires documented easement rights, adequate conveyance capacity to the proposed offsite discharge locations and a complete downstream analysis to ensure there is no detrimental impact to existing property and/or drainage facilities. The current level of off-site analysis is inadequate even for the Preliminary Site Plan phase.
• The proposal seeks to pump stormwater after the control structure. This is a highly complex operati
• Per pre-application notes dated March 22, 2021: “Public right-of way runoff shall be detained and treated independently from proposed private stormwater facilities. This shall be accomplished by enlarging the private facilities to account for bypass runoff; providing separate publicly maintained storm facilities within a tract or dedicated right-of-way; or other methods as approved by the (Puyallup) City Engineer and the City of Fife.” on and no one to date has been able to provide a design that shows that this type of scenario is feasible. The design would be required to match the flow curve of the outfall with pumps and provide pumping for overflow and emergency flows. Given the large amount of impervious area and the fluctuation that can create this would be an enormous task.
• Geotechnical Report required. Infiltration feasibility/infeasibility and seasonal high groundwater are determined through in-situ testing of site soils and specific tests performed on site (see bullet #1 under Items Required for Civil Submittal - STORM).
• PAGE 172 and 178 SSP/SWPPP: Both the north and south temporary ESC ponds show the mitigated higher than pre-developed. Clarify.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CIVIL SUBMITTAL – These items required to be included in Civil Submittal
STORM
• Preliminary feasibility/infeasibility testing for infiltration facilities shall be in accordance with the site analysis requirements of the Ecology Manual, Volume I, Chapter 3, specifically:
- Groundwater evaluation, either instantaneous (MR1-5) or continuous monitoring well (MR1-9) during the wet weather months (December 21 through April 1).
- Hydraulic conductivity testing:
o If the development triggers Minimum Requirement #7 (flow control), if the site soils are consolidated, or is encumbered by a critical area a Small-Scale Pilot Infiltration Tests (PIT) during the wet weather months (December 21 through April 1) is required.
o If the development does not trigger Minimum Requirement #7, is not encumbered by a critical area, and is located on soils unconsolidated by glacial advance, grain size analyses may be substituted for the Small Scale PIT test at the discretion of the review engineer.
- Testing to determine the hydraulic restriction layer.
- Mounding analysis may be required in accordance with Ecology Volume III Section 3.3.8.
• SSP – Vault dimensions used in modeling do not match dims on plans. Also, it appears that both vaults are being modeled as one. Unless all parameters are exact (orifice height, riser size, etc.) then vaults should be modeled independently.
• Provide calculations and details to illustrate compliance with enhanced water quality standards. Consult SWMMWW Volume 1, Minimum Requirement #6, and Volume 5 – Runoff Treatment.
• If a project proposes to discharge to an adjacent wetland, the applicant shall provide a hydrologic analysis which ensures the wetland’s hydrologic condition, hydrophytic vegetation and substrate characteristics are maintained. See the SWMMWW minimum requirement #8.
• The City has historical evidence of flooding at the project site, and as a result, any structures built on-site shall be flood protected to ensure the facilities are reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with PMC 21.07 – Flood Plain Regulations. The regulatory flood elevation governing protection shall be the Base Flood Elevation designated on the floodplain maps adopted by Pierce County.
• Prior to final building inspection and approval, that applicant shall provide a FEMA Floodproofing Certificate as appropriate, verifying that any structure built has been constructed and protected in accordance with the City’s floodplain regulations.
WATER
• The client has provided draft easements for water main installation from the O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC property and across the Carr Thomas J Trust. In order to complete the water main design and installation an additional easement between the Asbjornsen property and the City of Puyallup must also be drafted and recorded. Even though an easement exists between private property owners for access and utilities, the water main installed will be owned by the City of Puyallup and as such a 40-foot easement must be granted to the City for that portion of the proposed water main alignment for maintenance and repair.
• Hydraulic modeling analysis is required to size the necessary flows for fire suppression systems. The cost of this analysis is $600 and is to be paid by applicant.
SEWER
• This property is currently over 300 feet from the City’s sanitary sewer system. The City’s Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan indicates the need for new sewer infrastructure, including a publicly owned sewer pump station, to serve the project site and surrounding basin. Prior to granting sewer availability for the project the City must conduct an analysis of the basin to refine the sewer needs and improvements necessary to support the project and surrounding area. The basin analysis shall be conducted by a consultant selected by the City and any costs incurred shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
o It is anticipated that the rough estimate of the study could cost approximately $25,000 to $35,000 and take up to 6 months to complete.
• At the conclusion of the sewer basin analysis, if the applicant elects to use the City’s wastewater collection system, the applicant shall be responsible for the infrastructure upgrades to support the project including any oversizing necessary to support the tributary basin area. This may include the need for a public pump station. If a new pump station is required, the applicant shall be responsible to design and construct the facility to the requirements of the new basin analysis and City Standards.
o The applicant may request a Latecomer’s Agreement to seek reimbursement of infrastructure costs in accordance with PMC 14.20 and RCW 35.91.20.
STREETS
• Road and frontage improvements, including required right of way dedication shall be in accordance with the City of Fife’s regulations.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
STORM
• As explained during pre-application and during Preliminary Site Plan 1st review in order to illustrate actual infeasibility of infiltration and to determine the actual wet season maximum ground water level the following in-situ testing is required by City of Puyallup:
o Preliminary feasibility/infeasibility testing for infiltration facilities shall be in accordance with the site analysis requirements of the Ecology Manual, Volume III, Chapter 3.2, specifically:
o Groundwater evaluation, continuous monitoring well (MR1-9) during the wet weather months (December 1 through April 1). NOT COMPLETED. MUST ASSESS ACTUAL GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND TRUE INFILTRATION CAPACITY. THE INFEASABILITY OF INFILTRATION BMPS SHALL BE DOCUMENTED THROUGH IN-SITU CONTINUOUS WET-WEATHER TESTING. Further, from the Storm Water Manual for Western Washington, “If the general site assessment cannot confirm that the seasonal high ground water or hydraulic restricting layer will be greater than 3 feet below the bottom of BMP T7.30: Bioretention, or greater than 1 foot below the bottom of the lowest gravel base course of BMP T5.15: Permeable Pavements, or greater than 5 feet below BMPT7.10: Infiltration Basins, monitoring wells or excavated pits should be placed strategically to assess depth to groundwater.” In Puyallup this is a requirement for demonstrating infeasibility of infiltrative BMPs and actual maximum groundwater levels. The Wet Weather Testing must be performed this winter.
o Hydraulic conductivity testing:
--If the development triggers Minimum Requirement #7 (flow control), if the site soils are consolidated, or is encumbered by a critical area then Small-Scale Pilot Infiltration Tests (PIT) during the wet weather months (December 1 through April 1) are required for properties under 1 acre. Properties that are over 1 acre that have predicted low infiltration rates should perform Large Scale PIT Tests for better accuracy. TEST PITS COMPLETED. ENSURE RESULTS ARE INCORPORATED INTO DESIGN WHERE APPLICABLE.
o Testing to determine the hydraulic restriction layer.
o Mounding analysis may be required in accordance with Ecology Volume V Section 5.2.7.
o Upon submission of the geotechnical infiltration testing, appropriate long-term correction factors shall be noted for any areas utilizing infiltration into the underlying native soils in accordance with the Ecology Manual. Provide the long-term infiltration rate calculation in the stormwater report.
• The plans show a storm pipe continuing in the ditch to the north on the west side of Freeman Road that appears to end in a rock pad 65 feet north of proposed CB 27R. Is this to be a buried pipe? Is the ditch to be filled at all? Are existing flows in this ditch to be captured or accounted for? Provide details of the final release from the proposed system and final build out of the west side ditch and roadside with the civil submittal considering City of Fife’s standards and input.
• For civil submittal include details and modeling for all post-vault structures and systems in order to analyze the regulated release and to confirm the ‘no-rise’ analysis of receiving waters and to confirm that no adverse changes to wetland hydroperiod will occur due to the release of runoff from the project. These analyses shall be in accordance with the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, City of Fife Standards, and property owner concurrence including the Puyallup Tribe of Indians.
• Pump Valve Vaults and Storm Lift Station Manholes are in conflict with landscape. Create clear area around these lids for access and maintenance.
• Represent vaults and all structures in models as they are proposed to be, i.e. vault volumes are not exact and the square dimensions used, while they may yield similar results, are not correct.
• The plans show all of the ROW (Freeman Rd and 22nd Ave NW) drainage being collected and then conveyed to the on-site vaults. (From the pre-application notes: Public right-of-way runoff shall be detained and treated independently from proposed private stormwater facilities. This shall be accomplished by providing separate publicly maintained storm facilities within a tract or dedicated right-of-way; enlarging the private facilities to account for bypass runoff; or other methods as approved by the City Engineer. [PMC 21.10.190]) Revise the plans to correspond with the separation of on- and off-site drainage in conformance with the SWMMWW.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SEWER
• Because this property is over 300 feet from a public sewer connection, the applicant has the option to install an on-site septic system. If that option is not exercised then a public connection that satisfies all applicable standards and regulations shall be submitted for review by development engineering and operations staff. The current proposal/routing has the potential to be approved. It is incumbent on the applicant to show the permissions, conforming design, and restoration details throughout the rest of the permitting process.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
WATER
• Proposed concept seems reasonable, and the City of Puyallup Water Department has tentatively accepted the concept of the public water main across private property within 40-foot easements granted to the City. It is the responsibility of the applicant to negotiate all easements with the private property owners. If all of the necessary easements are not procured prior to Civil Approval, then the design shall be reconsidered and redrawn at the applicant’s expense. At no time shall the applicant’s inability to procure the proper easements become a burden to the City and at no time shall the City be liable in any way for delays brought to the project timeline due to the applicant’s inability to procure the proper easements or to build the water system to all applicable standards. All proposed construction within easements will be subject to review for impacts to critical areas, existing infrastructure and for restoration details.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
FIFE COMMENTS
• Sheets C14-15 – The Cities are currently looking into whether or not the water main will be allowed to be installed in the ROW. Generally, one City’s water line should not be buried in another City’s ROW. In this case there are possible benefits to both Cities including a future intertie and expansion of the system. If it is to be allowed in the Right of Way it would be required to be placed as far to the east as possible to avoid existing and future City of Fife utilities.
• Sheet C20 – Show existing ROW lines and planned dedication(s) for Levee/Freeman intersection. Also provide more details about permanent stormwater controls and discharge of runoff from Levee/Freeman intersection improvements.
• Sheet C20 – Provide elevations and grading information to verify no ponding due to the added pavement. Can be addressed at the time of civil submittal.
• Sheet C20 – The Cities have serious concerns about a proposal to bury large pipes in close proximity to, or under Levee Road. Any work done within these areas will require reviews at the highest levels including, but not limited to, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians.
• Sheet C21 - Turn pocket length shall be based on the approved traffic study.
• GENERAL – Define/locate property lines and Right of Way for entire project.
• GENERAL – Provide channelization plan for all off-site areas. Can be addressed at the time of civil submittal.
• GENERAL – Show the final lift of pavement as continuous with seams based on paver dimensions and not sawcut locations for all off-site. Can be addressed at the time of civil submittal.
• GENERAL – Fife code requires undergrounding of power along frontage areas.
• GENERAL – Street lighting design to conform to City of Fife standards. Should be addressed/shown for this submittal and can be refined and approved during civil submittal.
• GENERAL – Show tie-ins to driveway approaches.
• GENERAL – Provide details of proposed curb and drainage on west side of Freeman Rd.
• GENERAL – In addition to signage, physical controls of vehicle movements will be required.
• GENERAL – Plans and reports should be updated to address dual lead agency. Add City of Fife notes to plans and clearly delineate which jurisdiction’s standards control for each area/process/design component.
|
|
|
|
|
External Agency Review
|
Revisions Required
|
12/19/2022
|
02/24/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Revisions Required
|
12/19/2022
|
02/17/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SEPA review: Please refer to the February 8, 2023 from the co-lead agencies for further detail.
Site plan/Design review comments: See mark ups on October, 2022 preliminary civil plan set. Issues remain with design review (foundation line landscape buffering), perimeter landscape buffering, design of the Freeman Road frontage landscape buffer, truck trailer parking landscaping, potential for site plan design to be impacted by critical areas and critical area buffers, height to setback rules.
Critical areas review: WSDOT does not yet have an approved wetland delineation or rating for off site wetlands, we corresponded with staff from the State. Please review the itemized list in the February 8, 2023 letter for an outline of remaining issues. Confluence has not conducted peer review of the reports as they would be reviewing the project under the preparation of the EIS.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Buffer not yet determined [planning, sheet c7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Add 15 foot buffer along building frontage [planning, sheet c7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Pipe may impact trust property - no ROW line shown. [planning, sheet c7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Apply retaining wall buffer standard to site frontage - current in VMS design manual (Nov. 2022) [planning, sheet c7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Building may not exceed 42.5' in height with a 40' setback [planning, sheet c7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
8 foot walk, 6 foot planter required [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Move line out of planter [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Are these emergency generators? Relocate away from residential land uses [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Buffer not yet determined [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Off site wetland on WSDOT property may extend buffer into this area of the site [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Truck parking must be broken apart with landscape islands every 8 stalls [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
30 feet of dense evergreen landscape with fence required. Proposed location of lines will reduce available planting area due to spacing requirements [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
12 feet of landscape required [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
30 feet of landscape required - ADA stalls and walkway must be set back [planning, sheet c8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
12 feet of landscape required [planning, sheet c9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
30 foot buffer required [planning, sheet c9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
12 foot buffer required [planning, sheet c9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
15 foot buffer along foundation required [planning, sheet c9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Building may not exceed 38' in height with a 37' setback [planning, sheet c9]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
35 foot buffer required south perimeter. Applicant would need a hearing examiner variance to deviate/reduce width [planning, sheet C10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
15 feet required design review landscape buffer, foundation line. This area tapers to less than 15 feet. [planning, sheet C10]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Location of water and sewer extensions may require removal of substantial vegetation within wetland buffer areas. Applicant must demonstrate compliance with mitigation sequencing prior to alignment shown being approved. See PMC 21.06.920 (1) (a - f). [Planning sheet C13]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Off-site wetland on this site. Fife has prelim report from past development proposal. Applicant must study if buffer or wetland will be impacted by road way improvements or storm water [planning sheet c20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Fife indicates tight line pipe design not acceptable [planning sheet c20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Extent of ROW improvements not yet defined. Must be resolved with TIA. [planning sheet c20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Improvements within shoreline jurisdiction will require shoreline permitting, potentially with both Fife and Puyallup [planning sheet c20]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Does the applicant have construction easements for pipe if not located in ROW? [planning sheet C25]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Is the pipe located in a wetland and/or stream buffer? [planning sheet C25]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Applicant would need to seek relief from Hearing Examiner for 35 foot buffer requirement. The overlay and the design standards do not supercede base zoning requirements. [planning, response to comment, page 1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Planning reached out to WSDOT and the off site critical area reports are not yet final [planning, response to comment, page 2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Zone specific standards apply. Also see site civil plan mark ups [planning, response to comment, page 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Perhaps the site is being overdeveloped if the project is trading compliance with parking for compliance with design review. [planning, response to comment, page 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The VMS design manual for truck trailer parking/storage is specific on this issue. See VMS, section 14.4, Nov. 2022 [planning, response to comment, page 4]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It appears the additional technical report has not been provided (hydraulic analysis) [planning, response to comment, page 7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Global comment on all outstanding wetland issues: Confluence would study these issues and determine impacts in scope of work for EIS [planning, response to comment, page 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Conclusion of report does not analyze the potential for a user that might store hazardous materials. Conclusions of the report are not supported by a proposed use or user [planning, response to comment, page 8]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The most current VMS design manual (Nov. 2022) requires the bermed standard with interior facing retaining wall. (Type Id, see page 38 of 11/22 VMS [planning, response to comment, page 11]
|
|
|
|
|
Public Works Collection Review
|
No Comments
|
12/19/2022
|
12/13/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Building Review
|
No Comments
|
12/19/2022
|
11/16/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1.Plans need to be complete with all building, plumbing, mechanical, energy code, accessibility requirements clearly addressed per the Codes in place at the time of complete submittals.
2.Need to provide a Geo-Tech report for the building site area.
3.For office areas must provide details on the required charging stations per IBC section 429 of the Washington State amendments on the plans.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Revisions Required
|
01/06/2022
|
02/15/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Off-site paved transitions required
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Minimum commercial driveway requires 30ft width with 35ft radius. Actual design based on WB-67 AutoTurn. Trucks will not be allowed to encroach into adjacent vehicle lanes.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
paved roadway along frontage not wide enough for center TWLTL as required per City Standards. Fife standards require minimum 36ft wide roadway
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show improvements for 48th St E. Pavement analysis will evaluate existing pavement condition and identify mitigation
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Fife standards, back of sidewalk shall be placed at ROW (35ft from centerline)
|
|
|
See Document Markup
5.5ft is shown between back of sidewalk and ROW. Typically, the back of sidewalk is at the edge of ROW (35ft from centerline in this case). Verify the correct dimension with the City of Fife
|
|
|
See Document Markup
30ft ROW does not meet COP standards. Must be 60ft minimum
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Driveways need to meet commercial driveway standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Dead End City Standard Street into a parking lot?
|
|
|
See Document Markup
26ft Roadway width does not meet commercial roadway standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show roadway improvements south of here. Per City of Fife, the road section may be reduced to two-14 ft. lanes south of the project frontage to Levee Rd. Streetlights are required
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show roadway improvements on 19th Ave NW
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Driveways need to meet commercial driveway standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per City standards, must provide curb/gutter/sidewalks/planter strips/streetlights.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide details on physical access restriction along Freeman Rd
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Curb alignment must remain constant
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Need to show EV access possible
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Fire turnaround at end of ROW? Check with David Drake (Fire) for compliance with Code. What if lots are gated in the future?
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Access design is not feasible, additional ROW necessary. Redesign access using AutoTurn. Show simultaneous inbound/outbound WB-67 trucks maneuvering this intersection. Trucks will not be allowed to encroach into adjacent vehicle lanes. Additional ROW required
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per the City of Fife, a three-lane section will be required along the length of the project frontage. Additional ROW necessary (~20ft) to build necessary roadway widening + frontage improvements (including streetlights)
|
|
|
See Document Markup
ESD + SSD sight distance analysis required at this driveawy
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Show modifications at Levee/Freeman intersection to accommodate simultaneous inbound/outbound WB-67 trucks. Turn pockets required on Levee & Freeman Rd. Sight distance analysis required per City standards. Include streetlight design at intersection, ensure placements are protected from trailer off-tracking conflicts
|
|
|
See Document Markup
ESD + SSD sight distance analysis required at this driveawy
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide details on physical access restriction along Freeman Rd
|
|
|
See Document Markup
50th St E/21st Ave NW must be aligned on either side of Freeman Rd
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide details on physical access restriction along Freeman Rd
|
|
|
See Document Markup
52th St E/19th Ave NW must be aligned on either side of Freeman Rd
|
|
|
See Document Markup
ESD + SSD sight distance analysis required at this driveawy
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Driveways need to meet commercial driveway standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Driveways need to meet commercial driveway standards
|
|
|
See Document Markup
26.00 ft
|
|
|
See Document Markup
31.00 ft
|
|
|
See Document Markup
5.50 ft
|
|
|
See Document Markup
60.00 ft
|
|
|
See Document Markup
26.00 ft
|
|
|
See Document Markup
30.00 ft
|
|
|
See Document Markup
20.00 ft
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Traffic Comments
Preliminary Site Plan Comments:
•See site plan REDLINES for more detail
•ROW Vacation & Dedication:
o Please reference Jeff Wilson’s 4/14/21 email regarding ROW dedication.
o Please reference Ken Cook’s 1/13/22 email regarding Street Vacation Application R-21-0013
•AutoTurn Analysis:
o In addition to on-site circulation analysis, turning analysis required at site driveways and adjacent intersections. Assume WB-67 truck and fire apparatus.
o Shall include Levee Rd/Freeman Rd
o Trucks will not be allowed to encroach into adjacent vehicle lanes or roadway shoulders
•Identify required ROW acquisitions to meet roadway geometry requirements.
o Show roadway widening along the project frontage on Freeman Rd and extending to Levee Rd. A three-lane section will be required along the length of the project frontage, including TPN that separate the project site frontage (TPN 0420201036 , 0420205004) and the Tribal Trust property at TPN 0420174032. The road section may be reduced to two-14 ft. lanes south of the project frontage to Levee Rd, excluding required turn pocket(s) at Levee Rd.
•Physical deterrents will be required to channelize outbound heavy vehicles to utilize the southern section of Freeman Rd. Provide details on how proposed physical deterrents will safely restrict access. Use of tenant lease agreements will not suffice or be accepted.
•Physical deterrents will be considered at Freeman Rd and Valley Ave to preclude semi-trucks from traveling south on Freeman Rd from Valley Ave to the development site.
•Physical deterrents will be considered at Freeman Rd and 48th St to preclude semi-trucks from traveling to or from the development site on 48th St.
•City roadway/geometric standards must be met by proposed improvements.
o Roadway widening with a center turn lane is Fife’s standard street section for Freeman Rd and is necessary to safely accommodate industrial/commercial traffic.
o Intersection/driveway spacing standards must be met with current design layout
o Per City standards, driveways/intersections must be aligned across the street. Offset alignments are not acceptable.
•Coordination with Union Pacific regarding potential at-grade rail crossing improvements. Such improvements may include:
o Roadway widening, grade-separation, advanced pre-emption, queue detection, pre-signal, increased queue storage, health circuit, supervision circuit, etc
•Any required improvements must meet Union Pacific design requirements.
•Sight distance analysis required at site access + adjacent intersections per City standards (not AASHTO)
o Report the available sight distance.
o Include photo documentation with sight distance analysis
o Sight distance analysis required per City standards at Levee/Freeman.
•Show modifications at Levee/Freeman intersection to accommodate simultaneous inbound/outbound WB-67 trucks. Turn pockets are required on Levee & Freeman Rd. Include streetlight design at intersection, ensure placements are protected from trailer off-tracking conflicts
•Show roadway improvements on Freeman Road (between project and Levee Rd). Per City of Fife, the road section may be reduced to two-14 ft. lanes south of the project frontage to Levee Rd.
•Show preliminary location of City standard streetlights. Lighting must be provided on Freeman Rd extending to Levee Rd.
•Guardrail analysis required on steep roadside sections of Freeman Rd and Levee Rd
•Show improvements to 48th St E
•Traffic Impact fees (TIF) will be assessed in accordance with fees adopted by ordinance, per PMC 21.10. Impact fees are subject to change and are adopted by ordinance. The applicant shall pay the proportionate impact fees adopted at the time of building permit application
•Park impact fee was established by Ordinance 3142 dated July 3, 2017 and shall be charged $0.87 per sqft of building space.
•Per Puyallup Municipal Code Section 11.08.135, the applicant/owner would be expected to construct half-street improvements including curb, gutter, planter strip, sidewalk, roadway base, pavement, and street lighting. Any existing improvements which are damaged now or during construction, or which do not meet current City Standards, shall be replaced.
o As part of these improvements, additional right-of-way (ROW) may need to be dedicated to the City.
•At the time of civil permit review provide a separate street lighting plan and pavement striping plan (channelization) sheet for the City to review.
Traffic Scoping comments:
•Updated scoping worksheet required. Previous draft scoping document has not been approved by Puyallup or Fife. The scoping document will dictate the specifics of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) study – without agreement on the scoping worksheet, the presently submitted TIA is entirely incorrect and must be reconducted after receiving concurrence from the Agencies involved.
o Per previous comment responses, future tenant has not been identified at this time. Therefore, trip generation needs to demonstrate worst-case scenario land use to accurately capture possible traffic impacts particularly if no end user or use is specified and there is no known mechanism to constrain land uses. For warehouse projects with no end user or uses, the City of Puyallup has been using the ITE land use code 155, high cube fulfillment center (Sort), for the purposes of assessment of traffic impacts for warehouse development projects.
o Provide details on how heavy vehicle % was generated.
o Update trip distribution & assignment based on previous comments. Please estimate project splits north/south on Freeman, as well as on 48th.
o Based on updated trip generation assumptions, provide an updated list of study intersection to be evaluated during the AM/PM peak hour (based on Fife threshold)
o Once additional study intersections are identified based on the updated trip generation assumptions, all intersections must be counted at the same time. Older traffic counts will not be accepted.
o The 11th edition of the ITE trip generation manual shall be used for trip generation assumptions.
•Once the scoping document has been approved by Fife & Puyallup, the applicant shall distribute the scoping document to other local agencies & jurisdictions for review (including Union Pacific, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, WSDOT)
TIA Scope requirements:
TIA analysis:
•Report AM/PM peak hour delay, level of service (LOS), segment V/C ratios, queues (average, 95th), by each lane movement.
o Verify the proposed queue capacity at adjacent intersections will accommodate future demand.
o Identify off-site mitigation as necessary.
o Assess traffic impacts at identified intersections consistent with Fife LOS standards for Fife controlled ROW and Puyallup LOS standards for Puyallup controlled ROW.
•Assess existing conditions and document future plans for the Transit Facilities, Railroad Crossing/Operations, and Non-Motorized Facilities.
•Detailed explanation for growth rate assumptions. Typically, short term growth should be assumed at 3% annual growth.
•Channelization warrants for left turn pockets are not necessary in TIA. Center TWLTL and left turn pockets are required per City roadway standards and will be a condition of approval.
•It is not uncommon for the adjacent Union Pacific trains to operate during peak times causing significant delays at the existing at-grade rail crossing. Traffic analysis must assume multiple blocking events during AM/PM peak to simulate worst case scenario.
•The TIA must address how project trip distribution impacts related to Canyon Rd & SR167 build outs.
o Future baseline/build conditions should not assume these projects are completed when evaluating operational impacts caused by this project.
Traffic Safety Analysis:
•Intersection vehicle crash rates at all study intersections (5 years).
•Include crash severity and types.
•Potential countermeasure assessment.
Pavement analysis:
•Pavement analysis needs to be provided per annexation SEPA conditions.
•Heavy vehicles generated by this project will have a significant impact on Puyallup and Fife roads, including capacity, intersection level of service, impacts to the pavement surfacing, etc.
•Once the traffic scoping worksheet is updated, coordinate with Puyallup & Fife on which roadways should be included in analysis.
•Assess condition of existing pavement, identify current pavement structure. At a minimum, pavement analysis needs to include impacted roadways, including Freeman Road, 48th Street and Levee Road. Please specify locations for Fife & Puyallup review prior to conducting field assessment. Collect field samples and analyze existing pavement. Collect photo documentation of the existing pavement conditions.
•Perform pavement analysis to determine expected terminal serviceability of pavement with and without project.
•Identify needs for any roadway reconstruction or asphalt overlay in order to maintain adequate serviceability period.
•Provide a narrative on how heavy vehicles inflict pavement damage compared to passenger cars, and how this can be mitigated.
Comments from Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Scoping comments:
•48th St E is not built to sustain truck traffic in its current form. Please consider restricting freight trucks down this road in order to protect the residential character of the housing in Fife that includes Tribal residential uses.
•Traffic generation and the onsite noise of the facility should be accompanied by a noise/light berm similar to the Prologis project in Tacoma/Fife to mitigate impact to residential uses.
•19th Ave NE (Applicant has it 52nd St E) I believe is a restricted private drive. What percent of trucks will use this drive and has the applicant secured access to this drive by the appropriate parties?
•What street improvement assumptions are proposed under traffic scoping to model these trips? (Freeman road expansion, turn lanes, culvert replacement, complete streets, other road improvements) Current road facility cannot support this level of heavy haul traffic as per Fife Municipal Code Chapter 10.44. Keeping in mind Tribal properties in the vicinity, what is proposed to be the new alignment of Freeman Road?
•What minimum offsite traffic improvements will be necessary for the applicant to contribute to, to be approved for proposed use?
TIA
1. I find the TIA to not adequately address the Union Pacific Railroad Crossing. A 5 hour observation without a demonstrable train event is inadequate for the conclusion derived in the TIA.
"Video of the Union Pacific Railroad crossing south of Valley Avenue was observed for 5 hours during peak travel periods (6-9 AM and 4-6 PM). During those 5 hours of video no trains were observed and no gate closings occurred. Therefore, the rail crossing does not appear to significantly affect operations of the Freeman Road and Valley Avenue signal during the AM or PM peak hours." -Pg 24 TIA
2. The TIA safety analysis doesn't model properly for the truck trips generated by the project. Freeman @ Valley has had 10 collisions in the sample date, which I think it significant for the intersection. Freeman @ Valley currently restricts heavy haul traffic and contains the rail crossing 200 feet back. I feel like a more significant analysis including the newly introduced truck traffic queuing at Valley and the cargo lengths of trucks should be studied so that trucks are properly clearing the railroad tracks.
3. I cannot agree with the conclusions stated in the Channelization Warrants (7.2). I don't believe proper turn radii from the development provides that Freeman as a 2 lane, non-heavy haul corridor can accept truck traffic introduced by the project. The warrants state that no center turn lane is needed, which would mean likely trucks would be turning into oncoming traffic when making right hand turns out of their facility. It is my understanding that the ROW is roughly 20-ish feet and these types of trucks will require at a minimum 27 feet to make a 90 degree turn. These turn radii should be modeled.
4. In the Channelization Warrants (7.2), the applicant consultant claims state that there is no responsibility for widening ROW due to the project. I am confused of this statement because of previous public statements made at the Community Meeting hosted by the Vector where the claim was that Vector had responsibility to widen the frontage of the project site. In any case, I disagree with both statements as the type of traffic, the road construction type, turning radii, and safety concerns warrant that without a full length of road improvement to either Levee Rd or Valley Ave, there would be concerns that the current road would fail under the weight of the trucks, cause undue safety concerns of the turning radii of trucks, and safety concerns of the Union Pacific rail road crossing due to truck queuing at Valley. I believe the entirety of section of road should be a minimum requirement to introducing this type of traffic onto Freeman Rd to properly mitigate safety and traffic concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
Building Review
|
Revisions Required
|
01/06/2022
|
01/18/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1.Plans need to be complete with all building, plumbing, mechanical, energy code, accessibility requirements clearly addressed per the Codes in place at the time of complete submittals.
2.Need to provide a Geo-Tech report for the building site area.
3.For office areas must provide details on the required charging stations per IBC section 429 of the Washington State amendments on the plans.
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Revisions Required
|
01/06/2022
|
01/18/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
SITE PLAN: Landscape perimeter buffering of 35?feet is required from the property line interior tothe site development along the private 52nd Streetroadway. The roadway abutment is a zoningadjoining line with a residential zone district,requiring a 35? buffer (PMC 20.35.035 (2)). [sheeta1.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
SITE PLAN: The proposed alleyalong the western propertyedge of 0420201032 (Almont)must provide a 30? bufferbetween the proposed alleyand the property line, whichwill move the alley alignmentover to the west. The alleymust be a public way as itexceeds 200?. Fire Division mayrequire a Fire turn around.[site plan sheet a1.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Off site wetland on WSDOT property [site plan sheet a1.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
SITE PLAN: The proposed new50th Street / 21st Ave NWcannot be a partial ROW.Additionally, a new ROW mustprovide a 30? buffer interior tothe ROW along the north edgeof TPN 0420201036. Seefeedback Director Jeff Wilsonprovided on April 14, 2021(email). None of the previousfeedback was incorporated. SeeTraffic notes for moreinformation. [site plansheet a1.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
SITE PLAN: Building B is located too close to thenew street right of way proposed; the site planshows a 12? setback only. See PMC 20.35.023:“The maximum building height shall be equal tothe proposed building setback within the first 35feet of setback from an adjoining public street orresidential zone. The maximum building heightmay be increased by one and one-half feet foreach additional one foot of setback in excess of35 feet up to the maximum permitted buildingheight set forth in Table 20.35.020”. The setbackarea shall be landscaped with a type I treatment.[site plan sheet a1.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
DESIGN REVIEW: 15? oflandscape border along thenorth and south facingelevations (foundation line) ofbuilding A area required. [siteplan sheet A1.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
DESIGN REVIEW: 15? oflandscape border along thenorth and south facingelevations (foundation line) ofbuilding A area required. [siteplan sheet A1.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
LANDSCAPING: A 30? buffer mustbe provided along the truckparking fronting onto FreemanRoad west of Building B, per theFreeman Road overlay. Pleaserevise. [site plan sheet A1.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
LANDSCAPING: A truck turnaround appears to encroach inthe 30? buffer on the west sideof building B (west side). [siteplan sheet A1.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Truck stalls must contain a landscape break every 8 stalls in accordance with type IV standards [site plan sheet a1.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Truck stalls must contain a landscape break every 8 stalls in accordance with type IV standards [site plan sheet a1.1]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SEPA Review: Please review all comment documents and correspondence posted to the Cityview portal regarding your application. Please review and provide responses.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SEPA Review status: The City of Fife and Puyallup are co-lead agencies for SEPA review. Please see the included cover letter from the co-lead agencies SEPA Responsible Officials. The project the submitted documents and SEPA checklist preliminarily indicate a probable likelihood of significant adverse impact on environmental quality in the following areas: Transportation; utilities, including sanitary sewer, storm water and domestic water; water, including wetlands, groundwater, surface water/runoff and flooding; plants and animal habitat; aesthetics; and, cultural resources
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SEPA - TRANSPORTATION: See Traffic review notes provided by Fife, Puyallup and Tribal agencies. City of Puyallup and City of Fife are coordinating on traffic review. The TIA is not approved and the report was written without approved scope by agencies. The findings of the TIA report are not approved at this stage – the SEPA review is tied to an appropriately scoped and studied TIA report. We are providing substantial feedback to revise the report - see joint Traffic review notes from Fife and Puyallup. Substantial study data is needed and off site impacts are anticipated and associated improvements are also anticipated to be required.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SEPA - PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: See Engineering notes for all technical review.
- SANITARY SEWER: See Engineering notes for technical review. The site as no plan for sanitary sewer service presented in the application. On site large scale industrial septic systems may be environmentally improbable due to the direct proximity of the site to drinking water wells in the immediate areas surrounding the site and lack of set aside area for septic tank or drain field. The site is in the city of Puyallup’s sanitary sewer area and cannot be served by an outside utility (such as Fife) without an appropriate interagency agreement and transference of service area, which may require service area boundary modification or interagency agreement approval by the City Council.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SEPA - PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: See Engineering notes for all technical review. - DOMESTIC WATER: See Engineering notes for technical review. The project proposal has no present approved plan to service the site with water or known water availability presented in the application. Issues with location of and need for a public water easement are not resolved. City staff has contacted the Shenk owners and Steve Asbjornsen and both owners report that no plan or negotiation is on going for water easement rights to be extended to the site. The proposed easement area to extend domestic water on private property must also be studied for critical area impacts on a revised critical area report. See Confluence’s peer review report.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SEPA - PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: See Engineering notes for all technical review. - STORMWATER: See Engineering notes for technical review. In addition to staff’s technical review of the overall on site design approach, staff reached out to Puyallup Tribe government staff regarding discharge downstream of the site, which includes Tribe owned lands and Tribal Trust land (west side of Freeman Road – TPN 0420174031 and 0420174032). According to Tribe staff, discharge of storm water to trust lands will require a negotiated easement; further downstream properties owned by the Tribe will require permit approval to discharge to. See document titled “PUYALLUP TRIBE STORM DRAINAGE RESPONSE” in documents and images in the Cityview Portal for more information.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SEPA – SITE FLOODING: The City has historical evidence and current observations of flooding at the project site. Recent rain events on the weeks of 01/02/22 – 01/09/22 demonstrated flood waters throughout major portions of the site, with overflowing water from the site onto Freeman Road in the NW corner. PMC 21.07.030 dictates the site be regulated under the definition of flood and reasonably safe from flooding. Under SEPA review, the issue of how the structures on site will be built to be safe from flooding and how the site plan design will take into account flood water stored on site during winter rain events and offset the impacts to flood storage (e.g. using compensatory flood storage methods) are unresolved and unaddressed. Habitat assessment report is also required. Resubmitted documents and technical studies are required. See Engineering notes on this issue for further details. Previous notes (see pre-app notes P-21-0011, March 22, 2021) still apply to this project, which stated:
• The City has historical evidence of flooding at the project site, and as a result, any structures built onsite shall be flood protected to ensure the facilities are “reasonably safe from flooding” (RSFE) in accordance with PMC 21.07 flood plain regulations. The regulatory flood elevation governing protection shall be the Base Flood Elevation designated on the floodplain maps adopted by Pierce County.
• If fill is proposed for the property and less than 1:1 compensatory storage is proposed, additional requirements of PMC 21.07 will apply, including but not limited to:
- a written assessment shall include a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to determine any effects on floodplain storage capacity, increased flood heights, or increased velocities.
- 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.
• Prior to final building inspection and approval, the applicant shall provide either a FEMA Elevation Certificate or a FEMA Floodproofing Certificate as appropriate, verifying that any structure built has been constructed and protected in accordance with the City’s floodplain regulations. If using the Elevation Certificate, the certificate shall be completed by a licensed surveyor. If using the Floodproofing Certificate, the certificate shall be completed by a registered professional engineer or architect. Either certificate shall be completed based on “Finished Construction” and submitted to the Engineering Services Manager.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: The city sent the Anchor report to Confluence (city’s review consultants) for peer review; that letter is forthcoming after the issuance of this Development Review Team letter. Confluence is coordinating with WSDOT regarding assessment of the WSDOT parcel to the east of your proposed development. The preliminary findings of Confluences review will include:
- Confluences review preliminarily indicates off site wetlands on the WSDOT property which will impact the development envelope/footprint with application of a buffer onto the subject development site.
- Confluences review preliminarily indicates the likelihood of on site areas meeting characteristics of wetlands that need further investigation.
- Additional off site work to extend domestic water may impact wetlands and/or wetland buffers on the Carr and Asbjornsen properties.
- Separate section must be added to the critical areas report also addressing habitat assessment requirements of PMC 21.07.050.
- Other comments are forthcoming in the Confluence review letter, to be sent under a separate cover.
- Once we are able to transmit the Confluence report, please review, conduct additional site investigation and revise critical area reports and respond. If impacts are proposed, resubmitted documents shall include a proposed compensatory mitigation plan.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: Uses are still yet to be defined. The project is in direct proximity of two domestic water wells (Shenk business park and residential system to the west of Freeman Road and 50th). Please submit a critical aquifer recharge area report (CARA) to analyze potential impacts to water quality and supply. All reports must be consistent with PMC 21.06 Article XI, 21.06.1150 and .530. All reports must be authored by a qualified professional hydrogeologist.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CULTURAL RESOURCES: See comments from Puyallup Tribe dated 12/23/21. Revisions to the site archeological report and additional site investigation is required to fulfill the Tribal requirements. The project is on Tribe reservation lands. Tribe staff comment:
“ESA's methodology looks good based on state guidelines however, for a project area on-reservation, 1/4 mile from the Puyallup River, containing two original allotments, with a high to very high probability for impacting cultural resources, Puyallup tribal guidelines require probes every 15 meters. Had adequate consultation taken place, we would have made the consultants aware that 30 meter spacing was insufficient.”
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN: Please provide updated easement showing Vector has access rights to establish ingress / egress onto the private 52nd Street. Public comments received by the city indicate the owners of the land underlying the easement do not believe the site has legal access to Freeman Road right of way from the private road. Since this will affect site layout and access to the site, city will need to verify proof of agreed upon easement access at that location.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN: The prelim landscape plan sheets (L-1 and L-2) do not match the site plan sheet. Given the proposed street vacation application most closely resembles the site plan (sheets A1.1 OPT 2), Planning staff is reviewing A1.1 plans for consistency with code. Please see redline mark ups on plan set for further information
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN: Landscape perimeter buffering of 35’ feet is required from the property line interior to the site development along the private 52nd Street roadway. The roadway abutment is a zoning adjoining line with a residential zone district, requiring a 35’ buffer (PMC 20.35.035 (2)).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN: The proposed alley along the western property edge of 0420201032 (Almont) must provide a 30’ buffer between the proposed alley and the property line, which will move the alley alignment over to the west. The alley must be a public way to meet city standards and fire code. Fire Division may require a Fire turn around.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN - STREET VACATION AND NEW ROW: The proposed new 50th Street / 21st Ave NW cannot be a partial ROW. Additionally, a new ROW must provide a 30’ buffer interior to the ROW along the north edge of TPN 0420201036. See feedback Director Jeff Wilson provided on April 14, 2021 (email). None of the previous feedback was incorporated. See Traffic notes for more information. Planning does not support the street vacation and ROW relocation plan as presented.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN: Building B is located too close to the new street right of way proposed; the site plan shows a 12’ setback only. See PMC 20.35.023: “The maximum building height shall be equal to the proposed building setback within the first 35 feet of setback from an adjoining public street or residential zone. The maximum building height may be increased by one and one-half feet for each additional one foot of setback in excess of 35 feet up to the maximum permitted building height set forth in Table 20.35.020”. The setback area shall be landscaped with a type I treatment.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: 15’ of landscape border along the north and south facing elevations (foundation line) of building A area required per 20.26.400.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
LIGHTING: All lighting shall conform to PMC 20.26.500. Please provide manufacturer data sheets for outdoor light fixtures with cut off shielding. Need photo metric plan set and technical sheets specifying cut off shielding facing residential zones. 20’ height maximum for fixture poles. Photo metric plans shall show 0 foot candle light spill on adjacent residential properties. The heat diagram provided does not show foot candles. Please also demonstrate that glare will not be visible from any residential property (no LED diode shall be visible from adjacent properties and need to be sufficiently inset within the fixture and shielded as to cast lighting interior to the site).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
LANDSCAPING: 30’ & 35’ buffer areas along south and west side need to conform to PMC 20.26.500.
• 30' buffer area shall include shrubs (3 gal min.) at 5' on center. Choose shrubs that will grow to 6' height at maturity. See PMC 20.26.500 (1)(b).
• Conifer trees shall be used only, 8’ tall at the time of planting, 15’ on center.
• An 8’ opaque fence shall be provided interior to the buffer area and a sloped berm of 4’ tall shall be provided, with a 4’ retaining wall interior facing the site at the 30’ buffer line shall be provided.
• Provide an arborist report and tree protection plan with the civil plans.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
LANDSCAPING: Project must meet 10% interior paved area standard and comply with the Type IV parking lot landscaping standards. No more than eight (8) parking spaces shall be placed consecutively without a landscaping island, including truck trailer parking.
• All perimeter landscape islands (defined as islands which project into parking lots from an area connected to a perimeter landscape yard) shall be a minimum of 12’ wide with a minimum area of 200 sq ft of area.
• All internal landscape islands (landscape islands entirely surrounded by paving) shall be a minimum of 15’ in width with a minimum area of 500 sq ft.
• ‘Head-to-head’ parking stalls and internal landscape islands shall be separated by a ‘connector landscaping strip’ a minimum of 6' in width
• All internal landscape islands and connector strips shall include a single row of structural soil cells (EX. Silva cells, or equivalent) along the perimeter of all internal parking lot landscape islands where parking spaces are proposed (under the pavement directly abutting the outer edge of the landscape island, except in drive lanes)
• All ‘head-to-head’ parking stalls internal to a parking lot shall have internal island ‘end caps’ to separate the parking stalls from abutting drive aisles. These ‘end cap’ islands shall follow the requirements for internal islands (size, dimensions, required landscaping, etc.).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
LANDSCAPING: A 30’ buffer must be provided along the truck parking fronting onto Freeman Road west of Building B, per the Freeman Road overlay. Please revise.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
LANDSCAPING: A truck turn around appears to encroach in the 30’ buffer on the west side of building B (west side).
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Revisions Required
|
01/06/2022
|
01/13/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Based on City of Puyallup Municipal Codes fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be required.
The fire sprinkler system shall be designed and install per NFPA 13, 2016 Edition.
The City of Puyallup Municipal Code requires the fire alarm system to be designed and installed to “Total Coverage” per NFPA 72, 2016 Edition.
A UL Certificate shall be required on the fire alarm system.
A Water Availability/ Fire flow Letter shall be required.
Structures requiring more than 2500 GPM require the fire mains to be looped.
Show Riser Rooms, FDC’s, P.I.V’s, and all Fire Hydrants on site plan.
Fire hydrants to reach all points of the structure within 400’.
Fire Hydrants shall be at least 50’ from the structure and the FDC supporting the fire sprinkler system shall be no closer than 10’ and no greater than 15’ from the hydrant.
26’ wide required in front of fire hydrants.
Do not block FDC’s, P.I.V’s, and all Fire Hydrants with a parking stall. All must be placed in parking islands away from building.
Frontage on Freeman Rd will require Fire Hydrants.
The fire access road (lane) shall be a minimum of 26’.
Provide all site plan dimensions.
At this time the 2018 IFC and referenced standards shall be utilized.
The entrances shall meet ladder truck fire apparatus truck turning radiuses and approval of the angle of inclination.
Auto-turn or equivalent program required to demonstrate fire apparatus turning radiuses.
Maximum road grade shell be 10%.
The Length of building A westside, has no path for Exiting the building at all required Exits.
Southwest Trailer parking lot (32) will be required to meet 2018 IFC Appendix D turn-around dimensions. Show on site plan.
Provide more detail on 20’ private alley with dimensions around it.
Fire lane / Street between Bld A and Bld B, provide more clarification for access. Dimensions, sidewalks, lanes, and intersection to enter the complex.
This is not a full review. More information is required to complete.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Revisions Required
|
01/06/2022
|
01/12/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN – These corrections required to approve Preliminary Site Plan
STORM
• GENERAL - A stand-alone stormwater site plan is required for Preliminary Site Plan approval. The sheets submitted were buried within the Stormwater Report and were inadequate for this stage of design.
• GENERAL – Overall the proposed stormwater design does not meet the level of intensity or complexity that reviewers would expect to see for a development of this size.
• PAGE 38 of the SSP - A proposed development cannot create its own infeasibility. The SSP states that “Due to non-infiltrating soils, high groundwater, and a lack of flow space, no LID BMPs are deemed feasible.” The same report states, “the impervious cover after development will be approximately 84%.” If during civil design it is determined there is insufficient room for adequate stormwater facilities in the area, the area of the facilities shall be increased as necessary so that the final design will conform to City and State requirements.
• Volume 1, Section 2.5.5 of the 2014 SWMMWW refers to Table 2.5.1 for projects over 5 acres outside of the UGA. This table indicates that the LID performance standard and BMPT5.13 must be achieved.
• The SWMMWW requires pre-developed and developed basin maps to estimate the quantity of water on site and determine where it goes. In addition, any discharge to private property requires documented easement rights, adequate conveyance capacity to the proposed offsite discharge locations and a complete downstream analysis to ensure there is no detrimental impact to existing property and/or drainage facilities. The current level of off-site analysis is inadequate even for the Preliminary Site Plan phase.
• The proposal seeks to pump stormwater after the control structure. This is a highly complex operation and no one to date has been able to provide a design that shows that this type of scenario is feasible. The design would be required to match the flow curve of the outfall with pumps and provide pumping for overflow and emergency flows. Given the large amount of impervious area and the fluctuation that can create this would be an enormous task.
• Geotechnical Report required. Infiltration feasibility/infeasibility and seasonal high groundwater are determined through in-situ testing of site soils and specific tests performed on site (see bullet #1 under Items Required for Civil Submittal - STORM).
• PAGE 172 and 178 SSP/SWPPP: Both the north and south temporary ESC ponds show the mitigated higher than pre-developed. Clarify.
• Per pre-application notes dated March 22, 2021: “Public right-of way runoff shall be detained and treated independently from proposed private stormwater facilities. This shall be accomplished by enlarging the private facilities to account for bypass runoff; providing separate publicly maintained storm facilities within a tract or dedicated right-of-way; or other methods as approved by the (Puyallup) City Engineer and the City of Fife.”
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CIVIL SUBMITTAL – These items required to be included in Civil Submittal
STORM
• Preliminary feasibility/infeasibility testing for infiltration facilities shall be in accordance with the site analysis requirements of the Ecology Manual, Volume I, Chapter 3, specifically:
- Groundwater evaluation, either instantaneous (MR1-5) or continuous monitoring well (MR1-9) during the wet weather months (December 21 through April 1).
- Hydraulic conductivity testing:
o If the development triggers Minimum Requirement #7 (flow control), if the site soils are consolidated, or is encumbered by a critical area a Small-Scale Pilot Infiltration Tests (PIT) during the wet weather months (December 21 through April 1) is required.
o If the development does not trigger Minimum Requirement #7, is not encumbered by a critical area, and is located on soils unconsolidated by glacial advance, grain size analyses may be substituted for the Small Scale PIT test at the discretion of the review engineer.
- Testing to determine the hydraulic restriction layer.
- Mounding analysis may be required in accordance with Ecology Volume III Section 3.3.8.
• SSP – Vault dimensions used in modeling do not match dims on plans. Also, it appears that both vaults are being modeled as one. Unless all parameters are exact (orifice height, riser size, etc.) then vaults should be modeled independently.
• Provide calculations and details to illustrate compliance with enhanced water quality standards. Consult SWMMWW Volume 1, Minimum Requirement #6, and Volume 5 – Runoff Treatment.
• If a project proposes to discharge to an adjacent wetland, the applicant shall provide a hydrologic analysis which ensures the wetland’s hydrologic condition, hydrophytic vegetation and substrate characteristics are maintained. See the SWMMWW minimum requirement #8.
• The City has historical evidence of flooding at the project site, and as a result, any structures built on-site shall be flood protected to ensure the facilities are reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with PMC 21.07 – Flood Plain Regulations. The regulatory flood elevation governing protection shall be the Base Flood Elevation designated on the floodplain maps adopted by Pierce County.
• Prior to final building inspection and approval, that applicant shall provide a FEMA Floodproofing Certificate as appropriate, verifying that any structure built has been constructed and protected in accordance with the City’s floodplain regulations.
WATER
• The client has provided draft easements for water main installation from the O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC property and across the Carr Thomas J Trust. In order to complete the water main design and installation an additional easement between the Asbjornsen property and the City of Puyallup must also be drafted and recorded. Even though an easement exists between private property owners for access and utilities, the water main installed will be owned by the City of Puyallup and as such a 40-foot easement must be granted to the City for that portion of the proposed water main alignment for maintenance and repair.
• Hydraulic modeling analysis is required to size the necessary flows for fire suppression systems. The cost of this analysis is $600 and is to be paid by applicant.
SEWER
• This property is currently over 300 feet from the City’s sanitary sewer system. The City’s Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan indicates the need for new sewer infrastructure, including a publicly owned sewer pump station, to serve the project site and surrounding basin. Prior to granting sewer availability for the project the City must conduct an analysis of the basin to refine the sewer needs and improvements necessary to support the project and surrounding area. The basin analysis shall be conducted by a consultant selected by the City and any costs incurred shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
o It is anticipated that the rough estimate of the study could cost approximately $25,000 to $35,000 and take up to 6 months to complete.
• At the conclusion of the sewer basin analysis, if the applicant elects to use the City’s wastewater collection system, the applicant shall be responsible for the infrastructure upgrades to support the project including any oversizing necessary to support the tributary basin area. This may include the need for a public pump station. If a new pump station is required, the applicant shall be responsible to design and construct the facility to the requirements of the new basin analysis and City Standards.
o The applicant may request a Latecomer’s Agreement to seek reimbursement of infrastructure costs in accordance with PMC 14.20 and RCW 35.91.20.
STREETS
• Road and frontage improvements, including required right of way dedication shall be in accordance with the City of Fife’s regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
VOID
|
01/06/2022
|
12/20/2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fire-FCO (PLAN REVIEW) - Not completed at time of data conversion.
|
