| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
Engineering Review
|
Comments
|
10/13/2023
|
11/08/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
WATER:
1. Water to Parcel D and Parcel E is to be provided by Fruitland Mutual Water Company. The applicant shall provide a water availability letter prior to site plan approval for the individual sites. (NOTE: Applicant Response Letter dated December 27, 2022 states the Water Availability Letter was submitted with the second review materials, but it was not in the documentation provided. Please email directly.)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
STORMWATER:
Parcel D and Parcel E Preliminary Drainage Report Shared Comments:
1. Per the conditions of the Short Plat APN 201912305003, Short Plat APN 201912305004, as well as State vesting criteria, the proposed projects are not vested to prior stormwater regulations. As a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. Revise accordingly.
2. The submitted MR8 Wetland Protection analysis for both Lot D and Lot E did not comply with the Ecology Manual criteria contained in Appendix I-C. In addition, it appears that Method 1 would be applicable to both lots since each has legal access to the wetland. Prior to Landuse approval, revise the project constraints as necessary to show compliance with MR8.
3. The Ecology Manual also requires that any post-developed flows released above and beyond those necessary for MR8 compliance shall be mitigated per MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the Engineer-of-Record (EoR) shall document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 as a result of MR8 compliance (is deep layer infiltration not possible?).
4. Confirm that the composite long-term infiltration rate is a corrected rate as outlined by Ecology, Section V-5.4.
5. See additional review comments contained in each Drainage Report (both dated December 2022), make appropriate corrections, and resubmit for further review.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per the conditions of the Short Plat, APN 201912305003, and State vesting criteria, the Project is not vested to prior stormwater regulations. As a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. At time of civil application, revise accordingly.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 1 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise report to comply with Minimum Requirement 8 (MR8)-see comments on Page 8.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 1 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Project is not vested, as a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 5 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Use current manual flow chart, Figure 1-3.1.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 6 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comments regarding MR8 compliance (Pg 8 of 71). Any post-developed flows released above and beyond those necessary for MR8 compliance shall be mitigated per MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the EoR must document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 (as a result of MR8 compliance). Is infiltration of the MR8 overflows possible?
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 7 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
conveyance ditch...which eventually discharges to the Black Swamp Pothole located in Pierce County.
{Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confusing...if using permeable pavement, then the underlying soils must meet treatment criteria (SSC-6); and roof runoff is non-pollution generating.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please add a comment that states any project discharges tributary to the Black Swamp Pothole shall comply with Pierce County regulations.
{Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This is acceptable for the Black Swamp basin, but additional clarification will be necessary for the Willows Pond basin (roof, plaza, landscape, etc). After showing MR8 compliance, the project must mitigate for MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the EoR shall document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 (as a result of MR8 compliance).
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Refer to the 2019 Ecology Manual criteria, App. 1-C.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It does not appear that Method 2 is the correct approach. The provided EnCo wetland assessment (Appendix E) categorized the wetland as a Category II, Depressional wetland. Per Ecology Appendix I-C.4, Method 1 must be used to verify the hydroperiod protections.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per MR8, the applicant must comply with the wetland protection criteria.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Unless otherwise agreed upon between the City and applicant, revise the preliminary storm report to adhere to current stormwater regulations (2019 Ecology Manual) including MR8 compliance.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per MR8, the applicant must comply with the wetland protection criteria.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 9 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...value should be multiplied by appropriate correction factors per Ecology Section V-5.4.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 10 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
conveyance ditch...which eventually discharges to the Black Swamp Pothole located in Pierce County.
{Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 11 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
confirm...parcel 0419106026?
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 12 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
No longer applicable.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 12 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...surface area should be Forest for predev condition for MR7 or existing conditions for MR8.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 13 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify sheet reference..."C1" was not provided with submittal documents.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 13 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please provide an exhibit that delineates the Pre and Post developed basins and associated surface areas identified.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 13 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
"Forest" used for Predeveloped MGS model (as per Ecology reqts).
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 13 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, provide supporting documentation that the underlying soil meets the Soil Suitability Criteria for Treatment (SSC-6) per the Ecology Manual.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 14 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment associated with MR4, Pg 7 of 71.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 14 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See commentst associated with MR4 ( Pg 7 of 71) and MR8 compliance (Pg 8 of 71).
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 14 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, provide supporting documentation that the underlying soil meets the Soil Suitability Criteria for Treatment (SSC-6) of the Ecology Manual.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 15 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...value should be multiplied by appropriate correction factors per Ecology Section V-5.4.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 59 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Should read 0419033037
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Roof Discharge to the regulated wetland must comply with MR8 criteria per Ecology.
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify what document revised these distances from those shown on Short Plat APN 201912305003.
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Should read 8501150183
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Unless conveying PUBLIC stormwater, the proposed easement should be private and for the benefit of the upstream private property. If an existing easement does not exist, one shall be negotiated and recorded prior to Occupancy.
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Unless conveying PUBLIC stormwater, the proposed easement should be private and for the benefit of the upstream private property. If an existing easement does not exist, one shall be negotiated and recorded prior to Occupancy.
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Roof Discharge to the regulated wetland must comply with MR8 criteria per Ecology.
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per the conditions of the Short Plat, APN 201912305004, and State vesting criteria, the Project is not vested to prior stormwater regulations. As a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. At time of civil application, revise accordingly.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 1 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise report to comply with Minimum Requirement 8 (MR8)-see comments on Page 8.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 1 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Project is not vested, as a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 5 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Use current manual flow chart, Figure 1-3.1.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 6 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comments regarding MR8 compliance (Pg 8 of 60). Any post-developed flows released above and beyond those necessary for MR8 compliance shall be mitigated per MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the EoR shall document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 as a result of MR8 compliance.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 7 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Ecology, any post-developed flows released above and beyond those necessary for MR8 compliance shall be mitigated per MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the EoR must document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 (as a result of MR8 compliance). Is infiltration of the MR8 overflows possible?
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 8 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per MR8, the applicant must comply with the wetland protection criteria.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 8 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Refer to the 2019 Ecology Manual criteria, App. 1-C.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 8 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It does not appear that Method 2 is the correct approach. The provided EnCo wetland assessment (Appendix E) categorized the wetland as a Category II, Depressional wetland. Per Ecology Appendix I-C.4, Method 1 must be used to verify the hydroperiod protections.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 8 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Unless otherwise agreed upon between the City and applicant, revise the preliminary storm report to adhere to current stormwater regulations (2019 Ecology Manual) including MR8 compliance.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 8 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per MR8, the applicant must comply with the wetland protection criteria.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 9 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...value should be multiplied by appropriate correction factors per Ecology Section V-5.4.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 9 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...surface area should be Forest for predev condition for MR7 or existing conditions for MR8.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 12 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please provide an exhibit that delineates the Pre and Post developed basins and associated surface areas identified.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 13 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment associated with MR4, Pg 7 of 60.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 13 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, provide supporting documentation that the underlying soil meets the Soil Suitability Criteria for Treatment (SSC-6) per the Ecology Manual.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 13 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See commentst associated with MR4 ( Pg 7 of 60) and MR8 compliance (Pg 8 of 60).
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 13 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, provide supporting documentation that the underlying soil meets the Soil Suitability Criteria for Treatment (SSC-6) of the Ecology Manual.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 14 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...value should be multiplied by appropriate correction factors per Ecology Section V-5.4.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 48 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Roof Discharge to the regulated wetland must comply with MR8 criteria per Ecology.
[Plans-Lot E; Sht C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
CLARIFY-pipes under driving surfaces require 3ft min cover (1ft for ductile). Does not appear that there is adequate space in the pavement section to meet both the cover and stormwater separation reqts using perforated pipe.
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
To ensure viability of the proposed storm design and prior to Landuse Approval, provide elevation of the restrictive layer (wet-season high groundwater or soil layer) and include the investigation in the geotech section.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 98]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-pipes under driving surfaces require 3ft min cover (1ft for ductile). Does not appear that there is adequate space in the pavement section to meet separation and cover reqts using perforated pipes.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 98]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
As mentioned on the prior page, it does not appear that there is adequate space in the pavement section to comply with cover and separation requirements. Additional clarification is needed to ensure the proposed design can meet regulations and effectively infiltrate the project runoff to avoid the MR7 threshold.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 9 of 98]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment previous page regarding cover and separation requirements.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 10 of 98]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per prior comment...it does not appear that Method 2 is the correct approach. The provided EnCo wetland assessment (Appendix E) categorized the wetland as a Category II, Depressional wetland. Per Ecology Appendix I-C.4, Method 1 must be used to verify the hydroperiod protections.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 10 of 98]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per meeting on April 11, 2023, the City suggested analyzing the wetland using the overall tributary basin rather than solely the runoff from the project site. To the City's recollection, it was never agreed to forego the Method 1 analysis which is mandated by the Ecology Manual.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 10 of 98]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comments under MR5 and MR7.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 16 of 98]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comments under MR5 and MR7.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 30 of 98]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comments under MR8.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 45 of 98]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
To ensure viability of the proposed storm design and prior to Landuse Approval, provide elevation of the restrictive layer (wet-season high groundwater or soil layer) and include the investigation in the geotech section.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 8 of 84]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-pipes under driving surfaces require 3ft min cover (1ft for ductile). Does not appear that there is adequate space in the pavement section to meet separation and cover reqts using perforated pipes.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 8 of 84]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
As mentioned on the prior page, it does not appear that there is adequate space in the pavement section to comply with cover and separation requirements. Additional clarification is needed to ensure the proposed design can meet regulations and effectively infiltrate the project runoff to avoid the MR7 threshold.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 9 of 84]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per prior comment...it does not appear that Method 2 is the correct approach. The provided EnCo wetland assessment (Appendix E) categorized the wetland as a Category II, Depressional wetland. Per Ecology Appendix I-C.4, Method 1 must be used to verify the hydroperiod protections.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 9 of 84]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per meeting on April 11, 2023, the City suggested analyzing the wetland using the overall tributary basin rather than solely the runoff from the project site. To the City's recollection, it was never agreed to forego the Method 1 analysis which is mandated by the Ecology Manual.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 9 of 84]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comments under MR5 and MR7.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 15 of 84]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comments under MR5 and MR7.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 19 of 84]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comments under MR8.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 32 of 84]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-pipes under driving surfaces require 3ft min cover (1ft for ductile). Does not appear that there is adequate space in the pavement section to meet both the cover and stormwater separation and reqts using perforated pipe.
[Plans-Lot E; Sht C4.2]
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Comments
|
10/13/2023
|
10/19/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The updated trash enclosure location still causing sight distance obstructions. Must relocated to a different location on-site. [Site Plan D, C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Drive isle width has not been updated to 24ft wide per comment responses
[Site Plan D, C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Coordinate with trash service provider on preferred location
[Site Plan D, C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Existing Traffic Signal Pole [Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This note is pointing to a vault lid. Are you intending to relocate the existing traffic signal pole?
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Possible fence/vegetation removal to mitigate sight distance obstruction at driveway
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Relocate base to maintain 12ft mast arm. During Civil review, designer will need to verify the existing streetlight pole will provide minimum 3ft overhang into the road from face of curb.
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per AMR, tree cutouts shall be at back of curb. A separate AMR application/review is necessary if cutouts are placed as shown.
Prior to resubmittal, I would recommend a quick meeting with Engineering/Planning to discuss tree species or alternative shrubs in this area.
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Proposed frontage design not consistent with approved AMR. Street trees are shown at back of sidewalk
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
-Narrowed 26ft EV only driveway with drop approach instead of radius.
-Gate would need to be electronic/opticom to meet Fire standards.
-Gate to be setback 45ft from edge road to provide adequate queuing for Fire Apparatus (green line)
-During Civil review, gate will be required to have adequate signage/reflectivity
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Proposed trash enclosure location will cause sight distance obstructions for vehicle navigating parking lot. Must relocated to a different location on-site.
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Traffic Scoping:
For LUC 221 (Midrise) Multifamily, please verify the number of livable floors associated with parcel D & E. Has there been any other changes to the 2021 site plan?
Trip generation rates have been approved for both plan “E” & “D”, the overall analysis needs to be consolidated into one TIA to be consistent with SEPA. Update routing & driveway access assumptions accordingly.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
What is this small extruded area here? [A0_1-rev Site Plan - PARCEL D]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Why is this driveway labeled as right-in/right-out? This location can be full access
[A0_1-rev Site Plan - PARCEL D]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
For 26ft wide EV access, use drop approach standard detail 01.02.18
Per previous comments, EV gate would need to be electronic/opticom to meet Fire standards. Gate to be setback 45ft from edge road to provide adequate queuing for Fire Apparatus. During Civil review, gate will be required to have adequate signage/reflectivity. Bollards are not allowed, see additional comments from FIRE.
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
During civil submittal, streetlight design will assume 12ft arms for streetlights. Position foundations accordingly
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per previous comments, proposed trash enclosure location will cause sight distance obstructions for vehicle navigating parking lot. Must relocated to a different location on-site.
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Comments
|
10/13/2023
|
10/16/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Parcel D –
• Based on the auto-turn it looks like 3rd Street SE will be closed off? What is the intent for the Northside of the drive aisle?
Remove Right in Right out, no traffic calming devices will be allowed at the South entry/exit. Islands, pork chops, or right in right out will not be allowed.
• The fire lane “3rd Street” will be required to have a 26’ width. The fire hydrant will need to be moved closer to fire lane and requires a 26’ minimum clearance in front per IFC Appendix D.
• Show the location for F.D.C. A fire hydrant is required to be within 10-15’ of F.D.C. Do not block either item with a parking stall. Show dimensions on site plan.
• Auto-turn does not show what fire apparatus was used. Provide Auto-turn using our current fire truck. Email ddrake@puyallupwa.gov for specs.
Parcel E –
• Required second exit/entrance issues.
• Because of traffic line of site issues, they are requiring an Electronic Gate. The electronic gate will require Opticom with manual override. With this requirement the gate will need to be able to que a fire truck outside of the property. Queuing of 45’ required on other side of gate. A manual gate will not be allowed. This is a nonnegotiable and a requirement.
• In the notes the gate was removed because of this requirement and bollards were added in the traffic notes. This will not be allowed. Bollards will not be approved.
• If traffic does not require a gate Fire will approve with the following conditions.
No gate required.
No traffic calming devices will be allowed at the East entry/exit. Islands, pork chops, or right in right out will not be allowed.
Entrance/exit shall have no fire apparatus impediments blocking access.
• Move west fire hydrant to the other side of fire lane. Move North into parking island facing fire lane. The F.D.C will need to be within 10-15’ of this fire hydrant.
• Fire Lane required to be 26’ width to meet IFC Appendix D fire hydrant lane requirements. Show dimensions on site plan.
• 10% maximum grade along fire lane.
• Auto-turn does not show what fire apparatus was used. Provide Auto-turn using our current fire truck. Email ddrake@puyallupwa.gov for specs.
|
|
|
|
|
Building Review
|
Comments
|
10/13/2023
|
10/13/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLTR - EV - R-2
Accessible parking and access to the public way would be required as well as the accessibility requirements to the building.
The R-2 apartments and Occupancy B are required to have the infrastructure in place for charging stations per IBC section 429 Washington State amendments and will need to be shown on the plans.
Provide minimum accessible parking including required accessible EV parking at the building. Based on historical timeline of preliminary site plan to a complete building application appears this building permit may be applied for after June 30, 2023. Please be aware July 1, 2023 forward Washington State will adopt the 2021 I-codes with Washington State Amendments and 2021 WSEC. See Section 429 of the 2021 IBC for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure to determine the number of EV parking stalls that will be required under 2021 Code cycle as there are significant changes, reference Table 429.2.
***PER CORRECTION LETTER RESPONSE ACCESSIBLE HANDICAP PARKING PROVIDED EV WILL BE INCORPORATED TO MEET CODE AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT.
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Comments
|
10/13/2023
|
10/06/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Architectural Design Review
NOVEMBER, 2023 COMMENT: Architectural design review will occur with the Board. These items will remain outstanding until Board issues approval.
1. Provide revised building elevations to address the below design review requirements. Please itemize the applicable code requirements in a narrative letter, providing callouts on the elevations and a narrative report from the architect demonstrating compliance with the architectural standards described in the narrative. (PMC 20.52)
2. The design narrative did not address PMC 20.52.015(1) design principles. Please revise the design review narrative to address this code section.
3. Per PMC 20.52.015(2), the use of high-quality building materials shall be incorporated in the building design. The Design Review Board does not consider Hardi plank siding as a high-quality material. Code is specific about material types. Be prepared to offer a different material type, review code and apply the % of materials allowed and use materials specified.
4. Per 20.52.025(1), the upper floor stepback of a building three stories or taller shall be a minimum of 10- feet. Alternatively, a total 10-foot step may be accommodated over multiple stories (e.g., seven feet on third floor, three feet on upper floor). In your design response, you stated that you are meeting this through eliminating decks on the upper floors. PMC 20.31.026(15) requires a 10-foot by 8-foot private deck is require for all upper story units. A variance may be required to deviate from PMC 20.31.026(15). Additionally, it has been staff experience that the Design Review Board would not support deviating from the upper floor setbacks.
5. Per PMC 20.52.025(2)(b), the ground floor of street facing façade shall consist of at least 60 percent visual transparency between 2 feet and 8 feet. It appears that the southeast facade may be compliant but there are no calculations to confirm compliance. It isn’t clear if the northeast and southwest elevations are also compliant. Revise the drawings as necessary and provide transparency calculation for the northeast, southeast, and southwest building facades. Please note, that as you are addressing the transparency requirements, ensure that the windows are also compliant with PMC 20.52.025(2)(d).
6. PMC 20.52.025(5) applies to blank walls. The provided building elevations do not appear to have areas over 30 feet in length or 400 sq. ft. in area without building articulation or openings. No revision is required at this time, but please review this section as you further develop the building elevations.
7. Per PMC 20.52.025(6), the proposed buildings shall have a minimum of 30 percent of the building façades with a minimum of two exterior materials. PMC requires the use of metal paneling, brick, decorative faux stone, masonry, and masonry veneer for a minimum of 60% of the exterior face, excluding gables, windows, doors, and related trim. Revise drawings as necessary, provide the needed callouts and calculations, and update the design review narrative.
8. Per PMC 20.52.025(6), If the continuous roofline exceeds 50 feet in length on a roofline with slopes of less than three feet vertical to 12 feet horizontal, the following methods shall be used:
a. The height of the visible roofline must change at least four feet if the adjacent roof segments are less than 50 feet in length.
b. The height of the visible roofline must change at least eight feet if the adjacent roof segments are 50 feet or more in length.
c. The length of a sloped or gabled roofline must be at least 20 feet, with a minimum slope of three feet vertical to 12 feet horizontal.
The building elevations are missing roof slope callouts to ensure compliance with these standards. Provide revised building elevations to ensure roof modulation compliance.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. First Review Comment: Per PMC 20.31.026(15), each upper floor dwelling unit requires a minimum of 10-foot by 8-foot private open space. Clearly indicate the private open space for each dwelling unit on site plans and provide a narrative describing how the private open space requirements are being met.
Second Review Comment: Please submit a floor plan for each level that shows how this standard is being met.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
2. First Review Comment: Per PMC 20.31.027(4), at least one building entrance for an individual building (or individual tenant space) shall face each public street frontage or be located within 50 linear feet from public street frontage.
a. The Lot D building entrance is located more than 50 linear feet from public street frontage.
b. The Lot E building entrance is located more than 50-feet from 39th Avenue SE.
c. Revise site plans to ensure compliance with these requirements.
Second Review: Please show on plans that the building entrance is located within 50 linear feet from public street frontage.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
3. Per PMC 20.31.027(2) All site developments shall have a pedestrian-oriented plaza space in front of the building at least eight feet deep running the full width of the building. This area shall be covered by awnings covering at least six feet of the plaza space. Please show on plans the awnings covering at least six feet of the plaza space.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
4. First Review Comment: The City GIS shows existing trees located within the development footprint which are not denoted on the site plans, preliminary landscape plans, or other documents. To ensure compliance with Vegetation Management Standards regarding significant tree protection, the planting plan shall denote all existing trees with Diameter-at-Breast Height (DBH) and indicate if the tree is to be removed or retained. If your site includes any significant trees, then you must include a tree risk assessment completed by a certified arborist and provide the critical root protection zone for any retained significant trees on the grading plan.
Second Review Comment: Updated landscape plan shows significant trees that will be retained and significant trees that will be removed with development. Please submit a tree risk assessment completed by a certified arborist and provide critical protection zone for any retained significant trees on the grading plan.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
5. First Review Comment: Per PMC 25.58.005(2), the perimeter of all sites shall be landscaped the full depth of the required setback or 12 feet, which ever less; however, not less than 6 feet. The following landscape buffers are currently being encroached by off-street parking/paving:
Revise all site plans to ensure compliance with minimum landscape buffer requirements.
Second Review Comment: Per PMC 20.58.005(2) the perimeter of all sites shall be landscaped the full depth of the required setbacks for the subject site, or 12 feet, whichever is less; however, in no event shall a perimeter landscaping buffer be smaller than six feet. For Lot D please show how the interior side yard (west) meets this standard (6 feet) and how the rear yard meets this standard (10 feet).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
6. First Review Comment: Per PMC 25.58.005(2)(a)(ii), all retaining walls shall be setback from any rear or side yard a minimum of 6-feet, and the maximum retaining wall height within 30 feet of side and rear lot lines is 6 feet and shall include a Type I visual barrier landscape buffer. The site plans do not denote the retaining wall height. Revise plans to ensure compliance with this standard.
Second Review Comment: Note a Type 1 visual barrier landscape buffer is required for the retaining walls from rear and side yards.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Revisions Required
|
02/22/2023
|
04/26/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
See DRT comment letter and Redline markups for more information
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Proposed trash enclosure location will cause significant sight distance obstructions. Must relocated to a different location on-site. [Site Plan D, C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Needs to be 24ft wide to meet Fire requirements.
[Site Plan D, C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Coordinate with trash service provider on preferred location
[Site Plan D, C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Existing Traffic Signal Pole [Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This note is pointing to a vault lid. Are you intending to relocate the existing traffic signal pole?
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Possible fence/vegetation removal to mitigate sight distance obstruction at driveway
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
During Civil review, designer will need to verify the existing streetlight pole will provide minimum 3ft overhang into the road from face of curb.
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Coordinate with Chris Beale on species of trees that will not obstruct sight distance for right on red movement. Per AMR, tree cutouts shall be at back of curb.
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Proposed frontage design not consistent with approved AMR. Street trees are shown at back of sidewalk
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
-Narrowed 26ft EV only driveway with drop approach instead of radius.
-Gate would need to be electronic/opticom to meet Fire standards.
-Gate to be setback 45ft from edge road to provide adequate queuing for Fire Apparatus (green line)
-During Civil review, gate will be required to have adequate signage/reflectivity
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Proposed trash enclosure location will cause sight distance obstructions for vehicle navigating parking lot. Must relocated to a different location on-site.
[Site Plan E, C4.2]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Traffic Scoping:
For LUC 221 (Midrise) Multifamily, please verify the number of livable floors associated with parcel D & E. Has there been any other changes to the 2021 site plan?
Trip generation rates have been approved for both plan “E” & “D”, the overall analysis needs to be consolidated into one TIA to be consistent with SEPA. Update routing & driveway access assumptions accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Revisions Required
|
02/22/2023
|
03/27/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
WATER:
1. Water to Parcel D and Parcel E is to be provided by Fruitland Mutual Water Company. The applicant shall provide a water availability letter prior to site plan approval for the individual sites. (NOTE: Applicant Response Letter dated December 27, 2022 states the Water Availability Letter was submitted with the second review materials, but it was not in the documentation provided. Please email directly.)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
STORMWATER:
Parcel D and Parcel E Preliminary Drainage Report Shared Comments:
1. Per the conditions of the Short Plat APN 201912305003, Short Plat APN 201912305004, as well as State vesting criteria, the proposed projects are not vested to prior stormwater regulations. As a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. Revise accordingly.
2. The submitted MR8 Wetland Protection analysis for both Lot D and Lot E did not comply with the Ecology Manual criteria contained in Appendix I-C. In addition, it appears that Method 1 would be applicable to both lots since each has legal access to the wetland. Prior to Landuse approval, revise the project constraints as necessary to show compliance with MR8.
3. The Ecology Manual also requires that any post-developed flows released above and beyond those necessary for MR8 compliance shall be mitigated per MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the Engineer-of-Record (EoR) shall document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 as a result of MR8 compliance (is deep layer infiltration not possible?).
4. Confirm that the composite long-term infiltration rate is a corrected rate as outlined by Ecology, Section V-5.4.
5. See additional review comments contained in each Drainage Report (both dated December 2022), make appropriate corrections, and resubmit for further review.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per the conditions of the Short Plat, APN 201912305003, and State vesting criteria, the Project is not vested to prior stormwater regulations. As a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. At time of civil application, revise accordingly.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 1 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise report to comply with Minimum Requirement 8 (MR8)-see comments on Page 8.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 1 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Project is not vested, as a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 5 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Use current manual flow chart, Figure 1-3.1.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 6 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comments regarding MR8 compliance (Pg 8 of 71). Any post-developed flows released above and beyond those necessary for MR8 compliance shall be mitigated per MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the EoR must document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 (as a result of MR8 compliance). Is infiltration of the MR8 overflows possible?
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 7 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
conveyance ditch...which eventually discharges to the Black Swamp Pothole located in Pierce County.
{Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confusing...if using permeable pavement, then the underlying soils must meet treatment criteria (SSC-6); and roof runoff is non-pollution generating.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please add a comment that states any project discharges tributary to the Black Swamp Pothole shall comply with Pierce County regulations.
{Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This is acceptable for the Black Swamp basin, but additional clarification will be necessary for the Willows Pond basin (roof, plaza, landscape, etc). After showing MR8 compliance, the project must mitigate for MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the EoR shall document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 (as a result of MR8 compliance).
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Refer to the 2019 Ecology Manual criteria, App. 1-C.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It does not appear that Method 2 is the correct approach. The provided EnCo wetland assessment (Appendix E) categorized the wetland as a Category II, Depressional wetland. Per Ecology Appendix I-C.4, Method 1 must be used to verify the hydroperiod protections.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per MR8, the applicant must comply with the wetland protection criteria.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Unless otherwise agreed upon between the City and applicant, revise the preliminary storm report to adhere to current stormwater regulations (2019 Ecology Manual) including MR8 compliance.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 8 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per MR8, the applicant must comply with the wetland protection criteria.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 9 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...value should be multiplied by appropriate correction factors per Ecology Section V-5.4.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 10 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
conveyance ditch...which eventually discharges to the Black Swamp Pothole located in Pierce County.
{Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 11 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
confirm...parcel 0419106026?
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 12 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
No longer applicable.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 12 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...surface area should be Forest for predev condition for MR7 or existing conditions for MR8.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 13 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify sheet reference..."C1" was not provided with submittal documents.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 13 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please provide an exhibit that delineates the Pre and Post developed basins and associated surface areas identified.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 13 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
"Forest" used for Predeveloped MGS model (as per Ecology reqts).
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 13 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, provide supporting documentation that the underlying soil meets the Soil Suitability Criteria for Treatment (SSC-6) per the Ecology Manual.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 14 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment associated with MR4, Pg 7 of 71.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 14 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See commentst associated with MR4 ( Pg 7 of 71) and MR8 compliance (Pg 8 of 71).
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 14 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, provide supporting documentation that the underlying soil meets the Soil Suitability Criteria for Treatment (SSC-6) of the Ecology Manual.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 15 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...value should be multiplied by appropriate correction factors per Ecology Section V-5.4.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 59 of 71]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Should read 0419033037
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Roof Discharge to the regulated wetland must comply with MR8 criteria per Ecology.
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.0]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify what document revised these distances from those shown on Short Plat APN 201912305003.
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Should read 8501150183
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Unless conveying PUBLIC stormwater, the proposed easement should be private and for the benefit of the upstream private property. If an existing easement does not exist, one shall be negotiated and recorded prior to Occupancy.
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Unless conveying PUBLIC stormwater, the proposed easement should be private and for the benefit of the upstream private property. If an existing easement does not exist, one shall be negotiated and recorded prior to Occupancy.
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Roof Discharge to the regulated wetland must comply with MR8 criteria per Ecology.
[Plans-Lot D; Sht C3.2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per the conditions of the Short Plat, APN 201912305004, and State vesting criteria, the Project is not vested to prior stormwater regulations. As a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. At time of civil application, revise accordingly.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 1 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Revise report to comply with Minimum Requirement 8 (MR8)-see comments on Page 8.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 1 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Project is not vested, as a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 5 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Use current manual flow chart, Figure 1-3.1.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 6 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comments regarding MR8 compliance (Pg 8 of 60). Any post-developed flows released above and beyond those necessary for MR8 compliance shall be mitigated per MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the EoR shall document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 as a result of MR8 compliance.
[Storm Report-Lot D; Pg 7 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per Ecology, any post-developed flows released above and beyond those necessary for MR8 compliance shall be mitigated per MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the EoR must document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 (as a result of MR8 compliance). Is infiltration of the MR8 overflows possible?
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 8 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per MR8, the applicant must comply with the wetland protection criteria.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 8 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Refer to the 2019 Ecology Manual criteria, App. 1-C.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 8 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
It does not appear that Method 2 is the correct approach. The provided EnCo wetland assessment (Appendix E) categorized the wetland as a Category II, Depressional wetland. Per Ecology Appendix I-C.4, Method 1 must be used to verify the hydroperiod protections.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 8 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Unless otherwise agreed upon between the City and applicant, revise the preliminary storm report to adhere to current stormwater regulations (2019 Ecology Manual) including MR8 compliance.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 8 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per MR8, the applicant must comply with the wetland protection criteria.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 9 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...value should be multiplied by appropriate correction factors per Ecology Section V-5.4.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 9 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...surface area should be Forest for predev condition for MR7 or existing conditions for MR8.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 12 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please provide an exhibit that delineates the Pre and Post developed basins and associated surface areas identified.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 13 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comment associated with MR4, Pg 7 of 60.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 13 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, provide supporting documentation that the underlying soil meets the Soil Suitability Criteria for Treatment (SSC-6) per the Ecology Manual.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 13 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See commentst associated with MR4 ( Pg 7 of 60) and MR8 compliance (Pg 8 of 60).
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 13 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, provide supporting documentation that the underlying soil meets the Soil Suitability Criteria for Treatment (SSC-6) of the Ecology Manual.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 14 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify...value should be multiplied by appropriate correction factors per Ecology Section V-5.4.
[Storm Report-Lot E; Pg 48 of 60]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Roof Discharge to the regulated wetland must comply with MR8 criteria per Ecology.
[Plans-Lot E; Sht C4.2]
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Revisions Required
|
02/22/2023
|
02/23/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Lot E
1. Proposed Gates will not work. There is no room for Fire Apparatus queuing. Minimum queuing for Fire is 45'. Traffic may require more.
2. Fire hydrant location does not work. Move fire hydrant and F.D.C. northeast across the drive aisle to parking island. Roughly 30-35' away.
3. 26' fire lane required. Show dimensions on plan.
Lot D
1. 26' fire lane required. Show dimensions on plan.
2. Move F.D.C. and fire hydrant closer to fire lane. F.D.C. should be facing the fire lane.
|
|
|
|
|
Building Review
|
Revisions Required
|
02/22/2023
|
02/16/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLTR - EV - R-2
Accessible parking and access to the public way would be required as well as the accessibility requirements to the building.
The R-2 apartments and Occupancy B are required to have the infrastructure in place for charging stations per IBC section 429 Washington State amendments and will need to be shown on the plans.
Provide minimum accessible parking including required accessible EV parking at the building. Based on historical timeline of preliminary site plan to a complete building application appears this building permit may be applied for after June 30, 2023. Please be aware July 1, 2023 forward Washington State will adopt the 2021 I-codes with Washington State Amendments and 2021 WSEC. See Section 429 of the 2021 IBC for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure to determine the number of EV parking stalls that will be required under 2021 Code cycle as there are significant changes, reference Table 429.2.
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Revisions Required
|
02/22/2023
|
02/07/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Architectural Design Review
Comments from first review have not been addressed. Revised building elevations have not been received.
1. Provide revised building elevations to address the below design review requirements. Please itemize the applicable code requirements in a narrative letter, providing callouts on the elevations and a narrative report from the architect demonstrating compliance with the architectural standards described in the narrative. (PMC 20.52)
2. The design narrative did not address PMC 20.52.015(1) design principles. Please revise the design review narrative to address this code section.
3. Per PMC 20.52.015(2), the use of high-quality building materials shall be incorporated in the building design. The Design Review Board does not consider Hardi plank siding as a high-quality material. Code is specific about material types. Be prepared to offer a different material type, review code and apply the % of materials allowed and use materials specified.
4. Per 20.52.025(1), the upper floor stepback of a building three stories or taller shall be a minimum of 10- feet. Alternatively, a total 10-foot step may be accommodated over multiple stories (e.g., seven feet on third floor, three feet on upper floor). In your design response, you stated that you are meeting this through eliminating decks on the upper floors. PMC 20.31.026(15) requires a 10-foot by 8-foot private deck is require for all upper story units. A variance may be required to deviate from PMC 20.31.026(15). Additionally, it has been staff experience that the Design Review Board would not support deviating from the upper floor setbacks.
5. Per PMC 20.52.025(2)(b), the ground floor of street facing façade shall consist of at least 60 percent visual transparency between 2 feet and 8 feet. It appears that the southeast facade may be compliant but there are no calculations to confirm compliance. It isn’t clear if the northeast and southwest elevations are also compliant. Revise the drawings as necessary and provide transparency calculation for the northeast, southeast, and southwest building facades. Please note, that as you are addressing the transparency requirements, ensure that the windows are also compliant with PMC 20.52.025(2)(d).
6. PMC 20.52.025(5) applies to blank walls. The provided building elevations do not appear to have areas over 30 feet in length or 400 sq. ft. in area without building articulation or openings. No revision is required at this time, but please review this section as you further develop the building elevations.
7. Per PMC 20.52.025(6), the proposed buildings shall have a minimum of 30 percent of the building façades with a minimum of two exterior materials. PMC requires the use of metal paneling, brick, decorative faux stone, masonry, and masonry veneer for a minimum of 60% of the exterior face, excluding gables, windows, doors, and related trim. Revise drawings as necessary, provide the needed callouts and calculations, and update the design review narrative.
8. Per PMC 20.52.025(6), If the continuous roofline exceeds 50 feet in length on a roofline with slopes of less than three feet vertical to 12 feet horizontal, the following methods shall be used:
a. The height of the visible roofline must change at least four feet if the adjacent roof segments are less than 50 feet in length.
b. The height of the visible roofline must change at least eight feet if the adjacent roof segments are 50 feet or more in length.
c. The length of a sloped or gabled roofline must be at least 20 feet, with a minimum slope of three feet vertical to 12 feet horizontal.
The building elevations are missing roof slope callouts to ensure compliance with these standards. Provide revised building elevations to ensure roof modulation compliance.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. First Review Comment: Per PMC 20.31.026(15), each upper floor dwelling unit requires a minimum of 10-foot by 8-foot private open space. Clearly indicate the private open space for each dwelling unit on site plans and provide a narrative describing how the private open space requirements are being met.
Second Review Comment: Please submit a floor plan for each level that shows how this standard is being met.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
2. First Review Comment: Per PMC 20.31.027(4), at least one building entrance for an individual building (or individual tenant space) shall face each public street frontage or be located within 50 linear feet from public street frontage.
a. The Lot D building entrance is located more than 50 linear feet from public street frontage.
b. The Lot E building entrance is located more than 50-feet from 39th Avenue SE.
c. Revise site plans to ensure compliance with these requirements.
Second Review: Please show on plans that the building entrance is located within 50 linear feet from public street frontage.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
3. Per PMC 20.31.027(2) All site developments shall have a pedestrian-oriented plaza space in front of the building at least eight feet deep running the full width of the building. This area shall be covered by awnings covering at least six feet of the plaza space. Please show on plans the awnings covering at least six feet of the plaza space.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
4. First Review Comment: The City GIS shows existing trees located within the development footprint which are not denoted on the site plans, preliminary landscape plans, or other documents. To ensure compliance with Vegetation Management Standards regarding significant tree protection, the planting plan shall denote all existing trees with Diameter-at-Breast Height (DBH) and indicate if the tree is to be removed or retained. If your site includes any significant trees, then you must include a tree risk assessment completed by a certified arborist and provide the critical root protection zone for any retained significant trees on the grading plan.
Second Review Comment: Updated landscape plan shows significant trees that will be retained and significant trees that will be removed with development. Please submit a tree risk assessment completed by a certified arborist and provide critical protection zone for any retained significant trees on the grading plan.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
5. First Review Comment: Per PMC 25.58.005(2), the perimeter of all sites shall be landscaped the full depth of the required setback or 12 feet, which ever less; however, not less than 6 feet. The following landscape buffers are currently being encroached by off-street parking/paving:
Revise all site plans to ensure compliance with minimum landscape buffer requirements.
Second Review Comment: Per PMC 20.58.005(2) the perimeter of all sites shall be landscaped the full depth of the required setbacks for the subject site, or 12 feet, whichever is less; however, in no event shall a perimeter landscaping buffer be smaller than six feet. For Lot D please show how the interior side yard (west) meets this standard (6 feet) and how the rear yard meets this standard (10 feet).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
6. First Review Comment: Per PMC 25.58.005(2)(a)(ii), all retaining walls shall be setback from any rear or side yard a minimum of 6-feet, and the maximum retaining wall height within 30 feet of side and rear lot lines is 6 feet and shall include a Type I visual barrier landscape buffer. The site plans do not denote the retaining wall height. Revise plans to ensure compliance with this standard.
Second Review Comment: Note a Type 1 visual barrier landscape buffer is required for the retaining walls from rear and side yards.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Revisions Required
|
12/17/2021
|
02/08/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
See DRT comment letter and Redline markups for more information
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
Revisions Required
|
12/17/2021
|
01/03/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Revisions Required
|
12/17/2021
|
12/17/2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
VOID
|
|
12/14/2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fire-FCO (PLAN REVIEW) - Planning review completed prior to data conversion
|
|
Engineering Review
|
VOID
|
|
12/14/2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
ENG PLAN REVIEW CIVIL - 11.12.21 RESUB 1: ELEVATIONS -JF - Eden action prior to data conversion
|
|
Fire Review
|
Approved
|
|
11/17/2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fire-FCO (PLAN REVIEW) - No additional comments with latest submittal
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Approved
|
|
11/05/2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
ENG PLAN REVIEW CIVIL - 11.12.21 RESUB 1: ELEVATIONS-JF
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Approved
|
|
10/22/2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
ENG PLAN REVIEW CIVIL - SEE DRT LETTER
11.12.21 RESUB 1: ELEVATIONS -JF
|
