| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Revisions Required
|
08/08/2022
|
09/27/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
General Comments
Per previous comments, sight distance analysis not provided for the Crystal Ridge Driveway. 30mph (40mph design) collector requires 350ft of ESD, 325ft of SSD
-Setback 14.5ft from face of curb to evaluate ESD sight lines.
-Identify street tree placement, monument signage, fences, berms, etc. that could obstruct sight distance.
-Identify sight obstructions for off-site private property. Development may be required to pursue private easement to ensure clear sight lines on private property are maintained
Tract B exceeds 200ft maximum length per Engineering standards
Road “A” does not meet minimum CL tangent length (250ft)
Site plan needs to show driveway locations
-Lot 1 & Lot 20 must have their driveways at least 35ft from Crystal Ridge intersection (measured from radius PT & closest edge of driveway)
-Lot 11 must be at least 35ft away from future 20th Ave SE intersection
Driveway depth/length must allow at least 22ft from the garage to the internal access. This will ensure vehicles parking in driveways will not interfere walking path & driveway access
Show preliminary streetlight placement locations per City standards. During civil review a separate street lighting plan and channelization plan is required for the City’s review. Internal roadway and Crystal Ridge Dr will require streetlights.
Provide preliminary channelization on site plan
-Main access off Crystal Ridge Dr must be positioned to allow for a WBL turn pocket (at signal) + TWLTL across proposed access
City will require 25ft ROW dedication on the north side of lot 11 to accommodate possible future connection aligned with 20th Ave.
-The length of this ROW dedication will be approximately 170ft.
-On the north side of lot 11, remove retaining wall from ROW.
-For Arterials, intersections and driveways are required to be aligned across the street for safety reasons. When the northern parcel develops, the 25ft dedication will allow this parcel to construct a City standard roadway (50ft ROW) that will align with 20th Ave. This would also allow the north parcel to meet the City’s minimum driveway spacing requirement (300ft). This spacing requirement also applies to driveways across the street.
-For the 20th Ave SE connection, dedication needs to account for future 25ft radii + curb/gutter/sidewalk/planter strip at Road A and Shaw Rd.
Shaw Rd wall design will need to provide guardrail. Show on site plan
Show all locations where handrail is necessary
Type III barricade for future extended roadways (01.01.21) will be required
Ensure the existing signal cabinet has at least 3ft of paved pad round the base to provide adequate room for maintenance staff.
Final horizonal alignment and elevations are not known at this time. North of 23rd, the future roadway section will have spiral transitions and will likely be superelevated. The continuous 10ft ROW dedication along Shaw Rd frontage likely won’t capture the correct ROW alignment
Along the Shaw Rd frontage (adjacent to lot 13) there is an angle point between curve C23 & C24. This shift in ROW/wall alignment is not acceptable.
Conditions:
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 fees shall be charged per new dwelling unit based on its size. Fees are assessed in accordance with fees adopted by ordinance, per PMC 21.10
School impact fees shall be paid directly to the school district in accordance with adopted fee at the time of collection by the district.
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.
-All internal streets shall consist of a 28’ street face of curb to face of curb with curb, gutter, 5ft sidewalks, 5.5ft planter strip and streetlights. The maximum grade for City streets is 10%. On-street parking shall be restricted to one side of the street.
-Crystal Ridge Dr SE is classified as a minor collector and shall consist of a 34’ street face of curb to face of curb with curb, gutter, 5ft sidewalk, 7.5ft planter strip and streetlights. City will require streetlights along Crystal Ridge frontage.
Shaw Road –Required improvements & ROW dedication per Hans Hunger’s 12/15/21 email:
“The city is in agreement that obligations for Normandy’s frontage improvements along Shaw Road will be met with ROW dedication, rough grading of shoulder area from existing pavement to the proposed retaining walls, and the construction of the retaining walls based on a wall design agreeable to the city. It will be Normandy’s responsibility to design, permit, and construct the walls as well as implementing any mitigation if any is identified during the permitting process (I’m thinking if the wall design encroached on a wetland). With the fulfillment of these obligations, no further payment of fee in lieu will be necessary.”
|
|
Fire Review
|
Revisions Required
|
08/08/2022
|
08/09/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Codes
• http://www.cityofpuyallup.org/325/Permit-Support-Services
• IFC 2018 Edition and the referenced standards shall be utilized.
Access
• Per IFC 2018 Edition Appendix “D” a fire access road turnaround shall be required
• Per IFC 2018 Edition Appendix “D” a fire access road greater than 26’ but less than 32’ requires Fire lane-No Parking signs on one side. Less than 26’ requires signage on both sides of the street
• The fire access road shall be asphalt or concrete
• Maximum road grade shell be 10%
Fire Flow/Hydrant
• Install Storz fitting on hydrant
• Verify fire flow a City of Puyallup Water Availability/ Fire Flow report shall be required. This can be achieved by applying for a Hydraulic Modeling/ Water Availability/ Fire Flow letter, at a fee of $400.00. Application can be made at the City Hall 2nd floor permit counter. Fire Flow letter shall be required at the time of building permit application.
• City of Puyallup Municipal Code requires a minimum 1,000 GPM of fire flow. If this amount is less than the requirement, a fire sprinkler system shall be required in the new structures built in the short plat.
• If the new structure has a fire area greater than 3600 sq. ft. than a fire flow of 1750 GPM shall be required.
• Per City of Puyallup Municipal Code 16.08.070 (14), Installation of fire hydrants. Any portion of new single-family dwellings shall be within 600’ from a public hydrant that is located on a fire apparatus access road.
• Hydrant spacing of 450-500 within the right-away.
• Maximum road grade shell be 10%
• Driveways or Tracts greater than 150’ will require a Fire Truck turn-around.
|
|
Planning Review
|
Revisions Required
|
08/08/2022
|
08/03/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Deer Creek 100 foot buffer line apprx location - additional buffer area may apply to wetlands [plat markup, sheet 2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Retaining walls facing the exterior of plats must meet setback and landscaping the standards of PMC 20.58.005 (2)(A) [plat markup, sheet 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide public ROW dedication to align with existing public ROW (apprx. 30 ft dedication). Improvements may be required as per Traffic Engineering. Pedestrian improvements required regardless of ROW improvements required. [plat markup sheet 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Retaining wall must be moved interior to property line, setback and maximum heights stipulated by PMC 20.58.005 (2) - 8 ft setback from P/L, 3.5 ft max height [plat markup sheet 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Install city standard barricade and signs stating street to be extended in the future [plat markup sheet 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Tract B exceeds maximum length for private road (200 ft) [plat markup, sheet 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
15 ft landscape requirement on Crystal Ridge frontage. Show call out [plat markup, sheet 3]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Has the applicant considered applying for a planned development (PMC 20.40)? The project could receive flexibility on lot sizes and dimensions. The project appears to contain steep slope areas that contain desirable native vegetation that should be retained under LID standards and larger wetland and stream buffers that will impact the total quantity of lots.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The section on critical area review in the May 3, 2022 geotechnical report is incomplete. Please provide revisions and analysis of slopes and critical areas. Please note that areas of sites that exceed 40% slope are critical areas that cannot be modified if those areas are consistent with PMC 21.06.1210 (3). Also see PMC 21.06.1230 (1) regarding prohibition of 40% slope modifications. GIS and topo lines appear to show 40% slopes on site.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Please review Confluence (the city’s third party critical area consultant) peer review report. Deer Creek is classified by code as a 100’ buffer stream. Additional modifications to the wetland report may also require revisions to the wetland buffer area. These changes will impact the plat layout and may impact the feasibility of lots 7 and 8.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Tract B exceeds length allowed for private tract roadway. This will need to be a public street. Pedestrian access shall be stubbed to P/L. See Traffic Engineering notes for further detail [plat markup, sheet 2]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Large areas of steeply graded and wooded portions of the siteare proposed to be fully cleared and graded. PMC 19.12.020requires principles of Low Impact Development be incorporatedinto the development: Low Impact Development Principles.General principles of low impact development to be reflected inany subdivision layout include:(a) Emphasizing natural resource conservation;(b) Minimizing impervious surfaces, loss of existing vegetation,and storm water runoff;(c) Incorporating any natural drainage features.Mass grading of the large, native wooded topographical featureof the site may not be consistent with this standard. Pleaseconsider a design that incorporates the retention of more of thenatural grade and native trees on site; areas meeting the 40%slope critical area definition may need to be set aside by virtue ofcritical area designation. [plat markup, sheet 3]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
• In response to the Barghausen 20th Ave Ct SE access analysis request letter, Planning staff offers the following:
o Code (PMC 19.12.060 (1)(b) states blocks on arterials should be no less than 1,000 ft ‘whenever practical’. Due to the topography and grades and critical areas to the north, the next possible location for a future block length would exceed 1,000 ft. It appears more practical to provide a block length in this location, where a street intersection exists to the west
o The water easement area to be provided must be 40 ft wide, per engineering standards, and is proposed to be graded flat, thus facilitating a potential road and street intersection at this location
o Lot 11 far exceeds the minimum lot area (over 14,000 square feet proposed) and would be eliminated or rendered encumbered or less developable if a new ROW was provided to the north. Adjustments to grading and locations of walls and application of street side yard setbacks still appears to provide a comparable building area as other lots.
o Not all street and ROW improvements are meant to mitigate negative vehicular traffic impacts. The city’s block standards are put in place to create a desired urban form and development pattern, as well as interconnected street grid, when possible.
|
|
Building Review
|
No Comments
|
08/08/2022
|
08/01/2022
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Revisions Required
|
08/08/2022
|
07/14/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
• The proposed project discharges to an adjacent wetland; the applicant shall provide a hydrologic analysis prior to landuse approval which ensures the wetland’s hydrologic conditions, hydrophytic vegetation, and substrate characteristics are maintained. See Ecology Manual Volume I, Minimum Requirement 8.
- Clarify how the wetland hydrology is being maintained. Provide hydroperiod analysis for the adjacent wetland in accordance with the DOE Manual, MR8 and Appendix I-D.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
If an easement is allowed by the City in lieu of ROW dedication, City Standards require a minimum 40-ft wide public easement. An Alternative Methods Request must be submitted and approved to allow any easement reduction. If an AMR is submitted, engineering staff cannot support the reduction request since the existing property is undeveloped and the proposed lot layout can be adjusted to accommodate the standard. [Plans; Sht 2 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Callout existing Shaw Rd ROW widths. [Plans; Sht 2 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil application, provide signage and Type III barricade per CS 101.6 and 101.12. Plans; Sht 2 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
1-ft No Access Easement along Lot 1, 18, and 20 [Plans; Sht 2 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide Distance and Bearing. [Plans; Sht 2 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
35-ft curb radius per Table 2 (residential to collector). [Plans; Sht 2 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Per comments in the Preliminary Storm Report, additional clarification/justification is needed regarding the feasibility of permeable pavements. [Plans; Sht 2 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Extension line should be back of curb. [Plans; Sht 2 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Section 36? [Plans; Sht 2 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide public easement for wall maintenance. [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
There needs to be some accomodation to collect runoff from the regraded portion of Shaw Road to prevent erosion and undermining the existing roadway. [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, wall height must be coordinated with City CIP project with top of wall a minimum of 1-ft above proposed Shaw Road finished grade. Pedestrian handrail/guardrail required. [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, maintenance road shall be mitigated for flow control and water quality. [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, a turning exhibit shall be provided using the City's vactor truck dimensions. [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, provide turnaround for City's maintenance vehicle(s). [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, control structure and water quality structure must be accessible to the City's vactor truck (8-ft front reach; 20-ft side reach). [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, maintenance access road shall comply with CS 205.2. As shown, it appears that the maximum slope is exceeded.[Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Watermain shall be setback a minimum of 10-ft from wall foundation. Maintain 10-ft (min) separation to sewer main.[Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Please be aware that Ecology, Vol. V, Section 4.5.3 restricts the use of flow dispersal trenches to less than 0.5cfs 100yr peak flow rates . [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Lots shall drain towards the ROW where feasible. The applicant shall provide drainage conveyance(s) to capture surface water for any lot that drains onto an adjacent lot. Captured surface water shall be discharged at a location and in such a manner as to prevent erosion. [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Walls to be HOA responsibility [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Walls over 4ft require separate building permit. [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil, concentrated runoff collected at the bottom of the wall (as well as wall footing drains) shall be properly dispersed. (typ) [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Any necessary grading on parcels outside of the subdivision limits will require a Temporary Construction Easement from the underlying property owner. A copy of the TCE shall be provided to the City upon request. [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
WQ facilities located downstream of detention shall be sized based on the full 2-yr release rate per Ecology. [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Watermain to be located on the south side of centerline per CS.[Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Sewer main to be located on the north side of centerline per CS.[Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Based on the contours, it appears that surface water is being concentrated along the back of sidewalk. Provide drainage swale (or other conveyance) to capture runoff prior to crossing subdivision line and discharge at an approved location; or redesign to maintain sheet flow in the post-developed condition. [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Section 36? [Plans; Sht 3 of 3]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-8.2 acres per GIS and the project limits must include the converted areas of Shaw Road. [Storm Report; Pg 5 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-Min. Reqts 1-9? [Storm Report; Pg 12 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
This section should include similar commentary to that contained in Section 5.1 regarding the site containing two subbasins and a single TDA. [Storm Report; Pg 13 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Further clarification is needed here. It appears that the geotechnical engineer only investigated the existing native soils. The existing site is being substantially regraded and filled, up to 32ft deep. Is it not possible to construct permeable pavement(s) on the imported fill considering the Ecology Manual allows a minimum feasiblility infiltration rate of 0.3 in/hr? However, there may be other BMP infeasibility criteria outlined in the Ecology Manual that would prevent the use of permeable pavement. For example, downstream impacts associated with lateral flow, or potential erosion hazards, and/ or slope stability concerns due to infiltrated stormwater, but the current application materials do not appear sufficient to support a definitive project-wide infeasibility determination for the use of permeable pavement on the imported fill. [Storm Report; Pg 14 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The discharge location is the upper reach of Deer Creek, a stream known to have aquatic life, so Enhanced Treatment required. [Storm Report; Pg 15 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide preliminary MR8 analysis to ensure the project will not negatively affect the existing wetland. [Storm Report; Pg 15 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-8.2 acres per GIS and the project limits must include the converted areas of Shaw Road. [Storm Report; Pg 17 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil application, clarify this section. The first sentence states that the project essentially does not receive offsite surface runoff, but the second sentence states that Shaw Road drains onto the property. Also, in the post-devloped condition, Shaw Road will no longer discharge to the property, raising concerns about maintaining the wetland hydroperiod (MR8). [Storm Report; Pg 19 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The road widening of Shaw Road (converted surface) must be included in the thresholds and accounted for in the sizing of the stormwater facilities. [Storm Report; Pg 24 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Should be identified on the predeveloped and post-developed basin maps. Note: the road widening should be modeled as Forest (converted surface area) in the predeveloped condition. In the post-developed condition, only a portion of the public ROW is tributary to the project site due to installation of the retaining wall.[Storm Report; Pg 24 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Based on the Basin Map, it does not appear that this area includes the Shaw Road tributary area.[Storm Report; Pg 24 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarification needed. [Storm Report; Pg 25 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil application, it is likely that the Shaw Road converted surfaces will be bypassed. Also, large areas of Lots 7, 8, and 10 as well as Tract C are not captured by the onsite conveyance system and bypass the detention facility. [Storm Report; Pg 26 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil application, clarify how the planter strips associated with the road sections is being accounted for. [Storm Report; Pg 26 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comments, Section 4.1. [Storm Report; Pg 26 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The discharge location is the upper reach of Deer Creek, a stream known to have aquatic life, so Enhanced Treatment required. [Storm Report; Pg 27 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Section 5.2 references a "combined detention" facility and the Treatment Facility Selection Flow Chart (pg. 68) indicates a wetvault, but the preliminary grading plan calls out a downstream stormfilter structure. Revise accordingly.[Storm Report; Pg 27 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The road widening of Shaw Road (converted surface) must be included in the project thresholds and accounted for in the sizing of the stormwater facilities. [Storm Report; Pg 30 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
The road widening of Shaw Road (converted surface) must be included in the project thresholds and accounted for in the sizing of the stormwater facilities (bypass?). [Storm Report; Pg 32 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Based on the preliminary grading plan, there are large areas of Lots 7, 8, and 10 as well as Tract C which are not captured by the onsite conveyance system and bypass the detention facility. At time of civil application, these areas shall be appropriately modeled in WWHM.[Storm Report; Pg 32 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide preliminary MR8 analysis to ensure the project will not negatively affect the existing wetland. [Storm Report; Pg 34 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Based on the Basin Map, it does not appear that this area includes the Shaw Road tributary area.[Storm Report; Pg 36 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-there are a number of areas on the preliminary grading plan that exceed the "flat" slope criteria (0-5%). These areas should be accounted for in the preliminary modeling. See Road A planter strips, perimeter slopes, as well as the slope areas associated with Lots 7, 8, and 10 as well as Tract C. At time of civil application, these areas shall be appropriately modeled in WWHM.[Storm Report; Pg 37 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See commens on the Post-developed basin exhibit.[Storm Report; Pg 37 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-this makes no sense.[Storm Report; Pg 51 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
See comments on the Post-developed basin exhibit.[Storm Report; Pg 54 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Clarify-Section 5.2 references a "combined detention" facility, but the preliminary grading plan calls out a downstream stormfilter structure.[Storm Report; Pg 68 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Further clarification is needed here. It appears that ESNW was simply informed that detention will be used rather than a geotechnical recommendation addressing the feasibility of Onsite BMPs per the Ecology Manual, Minimum Requirement 5. This sentence seems to only address the existing native soils. The existing site is being substantially regraded and filled, up to 32ft deep. Is it not possible to construct permeable pavement(s) on the imported fill considering the Ecology Manual allows a minimum feasiblility infiltration rate of 0.3 in/hr? However, there may be other BMP infeasibility criteria outlined in the Ecology Manual that would prevent the use of permeable pavement. For example, downstream impacts associated with lateral flow, or potential erosion hazards, and/ or slope stability concerns due to infiltrated stormwater, but the current application materials do not appear sufficient to support a definitive project-wide infeasibility determination for the use of permeable pavement on the imported fill. [Storm Report; Pg 78 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
No reference to Ecology Manual? [Storm Report; Pg 81 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
There are proposed fills up to 32ft deep. Provide geotechnical confirmation that the proposed fills meet the intent of this report. [Storm Report; Pg 82 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-northeast? [Storm Report; Pg 82 of 211]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil application, provide geotech confirmation of slope stability at the location of the proposed stormwater facility. [Storm Report; Pg 90 of 211]
|