| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
06/20/2024
|
06/17/2024
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
06/20/2024
|
06/14/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Upon review of the original stormwater calculations that were approved during Phase 1 of the project and contained in the preliminary storm report submitted with the Phase 2 under the Preliminary Site Plan landuse application, there appears to be an error that may affect the sizing of the stormwater pond. Prior to landuse approval, the applicant shall provide supporting documentation that ensures the proposed stormwater design is compliant with with current regulations.
|
|
Building Review
|
No Comments
|
06/20/2024
|
06/12/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The number of EV parking spaces in the current site plan fall under the requirements of the previous code. The requirements for EV charging stations, EV ready parking spaces, and EV capable parking spaces has changed as of March 15, 2024.
Electric Vehicle parking infrastructure is required. Per the WAC 51-50-0429; 10% of total parking spaces shall have EV charging stations, 25% of total parking spaces shall be EV ready, and 10% of total parking spaces shall be EV capable. [https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=51-50-0429]
|
|
Planning Review
|
No Comments
|
06/20/2024
|
05/22/2024
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
No Comments
|
06/20/2024
|
05/09/2024
|
|
|
|
|
Fire Review
|
No Comments
|
04/05/2024
|
04/04/2024
|
|
|
|
|
Building Review
|
Comments
|
04/05/2024
|
04/01/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The number of EV parking spaces in the current site plan fall under the requirements of the previous code. The requirements for EV charging stations, EV ready parking spaces, and EV capable parking spaces has changed as of March 15, 2024.
Electric Vehicle parking infrastructure is required. Per the WAC 51-50-0429; 10% of total parking spaces shall have EV charging stations, 25 of total parking spaces shall be EV ready, and 10% of total parking spaces shall be EV capable. [https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=51-50-0429]
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Comments
|
04/05/2024
|
03/28/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The storm report submitted with the Early Waiver civil application differs substantially from the preliminary storm report provided under the Preliminary Site Plan landuse application. Specifically, the landuse application states that the Phase 2 buildout will utilize the existing stormwater facilities constructed during Phase 1. These existing facilities were originally sized to account for the overall buildout of the site.
However, upon review of the stormwater report submitted under the Early Waiver civil application, a large portion of the Phase 2 Care Center roof area is bypassing the existing storm facilities and direct discharging to Wetland C. If indeed this is the desired design intent, revise the landuse application preliminary storm report to include an analysis justifying that Wetland C’s hydroperiod would not be negatively affected…essentially an MR8 analysis. Also, as noted in the initial civil application review comments, the applicant shall ensure that discharging additional undetained roof runoff to Wetland C is compliant with Minimum Requirement 7, Flow Control. Both of these conditions are necessary prior to landuse approval to ensure that the proposed Phase 2 stormwater design is feasible.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Upon review of the original stormwater calculations that were approved during Phase 1 of the project and contained in the preliminary storm report submitted with the Phase 2 under the Preliminary Site Plan landuse application, there appears to be an error that may affect the sizing of the stormwater pond. Prior to landuse approval, the applicant shall provide supporting documentation that ensures the proposed stormwater design is compliant with with current regulations.
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
04/05/2024
|
03/20/2024
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
No Comments
|
04/05/2024
|
03/13/2024
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: Please analyze in the updated critical area report the proposed paving the pathway behind the lodge (is this trail in a wetland buffer area?).
APRIL, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Comment outstanding pending submittal of updated critical areas (wetland) report.
AUGUST, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Comment still remains outstanding pending submittal of updated critical areas (wetland) report.
DECEMBER, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: The November 02, 2023 Grette wetland report indicates the wetland area has increased as a result of storm water discharge. Per the Ecology storm water manual and PMC 21.06.940 (1)(C), wetland area and hydroperiod cannot be impacted by new storm water discharge. The report does not address qualitatively or quantitatively the issue of the new storm water discharge from the new care center roof area. Will the wetland be further impacted or inadvertently expanded again? New modeling and a qualitative assessment of possible impacts to wetland C need to be provided by the civil engineer and Grette. Also, if the wetland has extended 10 feet further to the south, the adjusted buffer will therefore be modified to match the new wetland edge. Does this impact the building footprint of the care center? The expansion of wetland area was not an intentionally created wetland, its an unintentional expansion of the wetland area due to storm water impacts (which shouldn't have occurred per the ECY storm manual). Please show the expanded wetland buffer area and provide analysis of impacts from the proposed care center building footprint, placement of new and replaced storm discharge trenches and other improvements. Additional mitigation sequencing analysis would need to be provided as well. Also, the 2014 ECY rating forms were not located (the Corps forms were attached); please provide.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: Update the geotechnical report and analysis, focusing on critical areas analysis for the steeply sloped area below the 36 bed care center building (to the west, steep embankment stream channel on the Lowes site). Areas adjacent exceed 40 percent slope as shown in GIS and may have a buffer which the CC building is proposed to be located within, see PMC 21.06.1210. Please submit a geotech report addressing PMC 21.06.530 and PMC 21.06.1210, .1220, .1230, .1240, and .1250 (seismic).
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Please supplement the geotech report to specifically address PMC 21.06.1230 (2)(A - F), addressing each item in detail. Also address .1230 (11), monitoring plan for during and post construction. Address pier design foundations in more detail and presence of seeps on the site.
AUGUST, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Comment outstanding. The submitted geotech addendum did not address the cited code sections in detail as required by our past comments. The July 11, 2023 Terra Associates letter only addresses boring locations, results of the boring testing and a plot map. Please provide the additional analysis required as noted above.
DECEMBER, 2023 UPDATE COMMENT: See review letter from City geotech peer review consultant (Landau, December 5, 2023 review letter). Please also review Planning's notes on civil permit relative to planned walls along the western property line as they relate back to the land use submittal. The early submittal waiver was not approved to allow the Care Center building design to proceed to civil permitting because the geotechnical issues here are not resolved.
|
|
Fire Review
|
No Comments
|
12/20/2023
|
12/18/2023
|
|
|
|
|
Building Review
|
No Comments
|
12/20/2023
|
12/15/2023
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Comments
|
12/20/2023
|
12/06/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
The storm report submitted with the Early Waiver civil application differs substantially from the preliminary storm report provided under the Preliminary Site Plan landuse application. Specifically, the landuse application states that the Phase 2 buildout will utilize the existing stormwater facilities constructed during Phase 1. These existing facilities were originally sized to account for the overall buildout of the site.
However, upon review of the stormwater report submitted under the Early Waiver civil application, a large portion of the Phase 2 Care Center roof area is bypassing the existing storm facilities and direct discharging to Wetland C. If indeed this is the desired design intent, revise the landuse application preliminary storm report to include an analysis justifying that Wetland C’s hydroperiod would not be negatively affected…essentially an MR8 analysis. Also, as noted in the initial civil application review comments, the applicant shall ensure that discharging additional undetained roof runoff to Wetland C is compliant with Minimum Requirement 7, Flow Control. Both of these conditions are necessary prior to landuse approval to ensure that the proposed Phase 2 stormwater design is feasible.
|
|
Planning Review
|
Comments
|
12/20/2023
|
12/06/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add Submittal Item: Wetland Report Req.
Additional Submittal Item Required (Critical Area Report): Wetland and/or wetland buffer areas: The proposal is located within 300 ft of a known or suspected regulated wetland. A report from a qualified wetland biologist, meeting the requirements of PMC 21.06.950 and 21.06.530 is required for any lands suspected (mapped or unmapped) or known on a site or a site within 300’ of suspected or known wetlands. The report must have been produced in the last 5 years to be valid. The previous report is expired.
APRIL, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Report not yet received, applicant response indicates report is to be provided. Comment resolution outstanding.
AUGUST, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Report still not yet received, applicant response indicates report is to be provided. Comment resolution outstanding.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: Please analyze in the updated critical area report the proposed paving the pathway behind the lodge (is this trail in a wetland buffer area?).
APRIL, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Comment outstanding pending submittal of updated critical areas (wetland) report.
AUGUST, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Comment still remains outstanding pending submittal of updated critical areas (wetland) report.
DECEMBER, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: The November 02, 2023 Grette wetland report indicates the wetland area has increased as a result of storm water discharge. Per the Ecology storm water manual and PMC 21.06.940 (1)(C), wetland area and hydroperiod cannot be impacted by new storm water discharge. The report does not address qualitatively or quantitatively the issue of the new storm water discharge from the new care center roof area. Will the wetland be further impacted or inadvertently expanded again? New modeling and a qualitative assessment of possible impacts to wetland C need to be provided by the civil engineer and Grette. Also, if the wetland has extended 10 feet further to the south, the adjusted buffer will therefore be modified to match the new wetland edge. Does this impact the building footprint of the care center? The expansion of wetland area was not an intentionally created wetland, its an unintentional expansion of the wetland area due to storm water impacts (which shouldn't have occurred per the ECY storm manual). Please show the expanded wetland buffer area and provide analysis of impacts from the proposed care center building footprint, placement of new and replaced storm discharge trenches and other improvements. Additional mitigation sequencing analysis would need to be provided as well. Also, the 2014 ECY rating forms were not located (the Corps forms were attached); please provide.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: Update the geotechnical report and analysis, focusing on critical areas analysis for the steeply sloped area below the 36 bed care center building (to the west, steep embankment stream channel on the Lowes site). Areas adjacent exceed 40 percent slope as shown in GIS and may have a buffer which the CC building is proposed to be located within, see PMC 21.06.1210. Please submit a geotech report addressing PMC 21.06.530 and PMC 21.06.1210, .1220, .1230, .1240, and .1250 (seismic).
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Please supplement the geotech report to specifically address PMC 21.06.1230 (2)(A - F), addressing each item in detail. Also address .1230 (11), monitoring plan for during and post construction. Address pier design foundations in more detail and presence of seeps on the site.
AUGUST, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Comment outstanding. The submitted geotech addendum did not address the cited code sections in detail as required by our past comments. The July 11, 2023 Terra Associates letter only addresses boring locations, results of the boring testing and a plot map. Please provide the additional analysis required as noted above.
DECEMBER, 2023 UPDATE COMMENT: See review letter from City geotech peer review consultant (Landau, December 5, 2023 review letter). Please also review Planning's notes on civil permit relative to planned walls along the western property line as they relate back to the land use submittal. The early submittal waiver was not approved to allow the Care Center building design to proceed to civil permitting because the geotechnical issues here are not resolved.
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
12/20/2023
|
11/15/2023
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
09/12/2023
|
09/14/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Wesley Bradley Park residents have expressed concern regarding large trucks using the Lowes private access through the property. It's my understanding that Lowes has an easement right to use this private road. I would recommend the design team review the private easement about possible GVW restrictions. The City does not have authority to restrict access for this private easement.
Correspondence from concerned resident:
I thought I would get your perspective on what has become a hazard with the many trucks from Lowe’s using the short road through WBP to exit through our property. There have been an increasing number of (good size) trucks, some with flat beds carrying an assortment of large items. Recently one of the large trucks took a number of maneuvers to get around our Round-about. The sign on Lowe’s side of the short driveway says “Private Property”. That doesn’t stop them. Our speed limit is 10 mph, and some of the traffic exceeds that. The police said they didn’t have the manpower or time to deal with our problem. In the past, the individual who is responsible for Lowe’s did not think it was a problem. Do you have anyone you could recommend to come out, view our situation and make recommendations?
|
|
Building Review
|
No Comments
|
09/12/2023
|
09/11/2023
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
09/12/2023
|
08/30/2023
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Review
|
Comments
|
09/12/2023
|
08/22/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add Submittal Item: Wetland Report Req.
Additional Submittal Item Required (Critical Area Report): Wetland and/or wetland buffer areas: The proposal is located within 300 ft of a known or suspected regulated wetland. A report from a qualified wetland biologist, meeting the requirements of PMC 21.06.950 and 21.06.530 is required for any lands suspected (mapped or unmapped) or known on a site or a site within 300’ of suspected or known wetlands. The report must have been produced in the last 5 years to be valid. The previous report is expired.
APRIL, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Report not yet received, applicant response indicates report is to be provided. Comment resolution outstanding.
AUGUST, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Report still not yet received, applicant response indicates report is to be provided. Comment resolution outstanding.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN: In order to deviate from the front yard build to area setback, a formal variance will be required, and must be approved by the Hearing Examiner. See 01/25/22 email to project architect (Jill Krance) from Planning and Engineering staff.
APRIL, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: the proposed 25 foot setback exceeds the maximum 20.31.027 (2)(C) of 20 feet. There are conflicting responses in the letter back to us stating in some locations the conflict requires setback further than the max due to sight distance and other statements of compliance with the max setback. If the setback is further than 20 feet max, a variance is still required. Supporting evidence of conflicts with sight distance will need to be included in a setback variance application and supported by the traffic engineer.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: Please analyze in the updated critical area report the proposed paving the pathway behind the lodge (is this trail in a wetland buffer area?).
APRIL, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Comment outstanding pending submittal of updated critical areas (wetland) report.
AUGUST, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Comment still remains outstanding pending submittal of updated critical areas (wetland) report.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: Update the geotechnical report and analysis, focusing on critical areas analysis for the steeply sloped area below the 36 bed care center building (to the west, steep embankment stream channel on the Lowes site). Areas adjacent exceed 40 percent slope as shown in GIS and may have a buffer which the CC building is proposed to be located within, see PMC 21.06.1210. Please submit a geotech report addressing PMC 21.06.530 and PMC 21.06.1210, .1220, .1230, .1240, and .1250 (seismic).
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Please supplement the geotech report to specifically address PMC 21.06.1230 (2)(A - F), addressing each item in detail. Also address .1230 (11), monitoring plan for during and post construction. Address pier design foundations in more detail and presence of seeps on the site.
AUGUST, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Comment outstanding. The submitted geotech addendum did not address the cited code sections in detail as required by our past comments. The July 11, 2023 Terra Associates letter only addresses boring locations, results of the boring testing and a plot map. Please provide the additional analysis required as noted above.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN: The project is not compliant with PMC 20.31.027 because the site does not meet the underlying BTA setback.
APRIL, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: The proposed 25 foot setback exceeds the maximum 20.31.027 (2)(C) of 20 feet. A variance is still required. Supporting evidence of conflicts with sight distance will need to be included in a setback variance application.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.015 (2) (b). Fiber cement is only a high quality material if proposed as a through color fiber cement product. For example, the Board has not approved painted fiber cement board (such as Hardie Board). Here are some examples of fiber cement products which would be approved.
EQUITONE https://www.equitone.com/en-us/materials-en-us/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn9axvu7D9wIVFBXUAR2adwwBEAAYASAAEgLZN_D_BwE
SWISS PEARL https://www.swisspearl.com/products/#facade
AMERICAN FIBER CEMENT CORP (CEMBRIT) https://www.americanfibercement.com/products/patina-design-line/patina/
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.015 (3) (a)(i). The project is not meeting the required transparency required, or has not demonstrated compliance. The Board has approved 30 percent transparency for street facing facades for residential only projects (in lieu of the 60 percent listed in code).
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (2) (a). The Board will need to consider the applicant’s argument against 12 first floor ceiling heights. Staff cannot give guidance at this time; the Board may provide flexibility.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (2) (b). The Board has approved 30 percent transparency for street facing facades for residential only projects. Please provide a calculation exhibit for the street facing (39th Ave) façade wall.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (2) (c). The Board will need to consider the applicant’s argument against the front door facing the street. The door does appear to orient at an angle to the street and may meet the standard, but the building is not meeting the underlying setbacks.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (2) (c). The Board will need to review the strategy for trim throughout. Please note the dimensional requirements for 2 inch trim.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (3). The application is not clear on if the proposal meets the minimum building modulation standards (“required at least every 30 feet along all exterior wall planes and shall be offset at least four feet.”). Please specifically address at the time of resubmittal.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (4). How is the street facing façade receiving the greatest amount of attention as outlined in code? The narrative is not specific how the proposal plans to meet this portion of code text.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (5). Blank wall areas will require landscape screening
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (6). Please provide the siding coverage percentage break downs as required by code for the structure type based on stories. Address the standard regarding stone cap and or brick sill throughout on each building. Address vertical change in materials standard. Please specify the fiber cement product; the Board has not approved painted fiber cement board (such as Hardie Board). Here are some examples of fiber cement products which would be approved.
EQUITONE https://www.equitone.com/en-us/materials-en-us/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn9axvu7D9wIVFBXUAR2adwwBEAAYASAAEgLZN_D_BwE
SWISS PEARL https://www.swisspearl.com/products/#facade
AMERICAN FIBER CEMENT CORP (CEMBRIT) https://www.americanfibercement.com/products/patina-design-line/patina/
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (8). The visibility from the street is not the standard for application of this code section; the roofline modulation is required throughout. Please address change in visible roofline standard and how each new building meets the standard.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
Fire Review
|
No Comments
|
09/12/2023
|
08/01/2023
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Revisions Required
|
04/14/2023
|
05/04/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Per previous comment, sight distance analysis is required at 39th Ave SE driveway (horizontal + vertical). The existing berm located on the eastern frontage interfere with entering sight distance and must be regraded to meet City ESD standards.
-Identify all trees to be removed that obstruct sight distance.
-Bus shelter along 39th Ave SE not possible due to sight distance conflict.
Improvements to existing curb/gutter/sidewalk are not anticipated along 39th Ave SE frontage. City inspectors will evaluate roadway condition to determine if half-street paving is necessary.
Traffic Scoping document is approved.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Wesley Bradley Park residents have expressed concern regarding large trucks using the Lowes private access through the property. It's my understanding that Lowes has an easement right to use this private road. I would recommend the design team review the private easement about possible GVW restrictions. The City does not have authority to restrict access for this private easement.
Correspondence from concerned resident:
I thought I would get your perspective on what has become a hazard with the many trucks from Lowe’s using the short road through WBP to exit through our property. There have been an increasing number of (good size) trucks, some with flat beds carrying an assortment of large items. Recently one of the large trucks took a number of maneuvers to get around our Round-about. The sign on Lowe’s side of the short driveway says “Private Property”. That doesn’t stop them. Our speed limit is 10 mph, and some of the traffic exceeds that. The police said they didn’t have the manpower or time to deal with our problem. In the past, the individual who is responsible for Lowe’s did not think it was a problem. Do you have anyone you could recommend to come out, view our situation and make recommendations?
|
|
Building Review
|
No Comments
|
04/14/2023
|
04/14/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLTR - Access A and B
Apartments are required to have Type A & B units for accessibility, and this will need to be clearly depicted on the plans.
|
|
|
BLTR - Add Submittal Item: Geotech - Soil
Additional Submittal Item: Provide a Geo-Tech report for soils with the building permit applications.
|
|
|
BLTR - Access parking
Accessible parking and access to the public way would be required as well as the accessibility requirements for inside the parking garage. For all accessible requirements we use the 2018/2021 IBC / WAC 51-50 and the ICC A117.1-2009 standard not the ADA.
|
|
|
BLTR - DOH
Phase 2 proposed Care Center, I-2 occupancy requires approval from Health Department. The City recommends to request preliminary plan review from the Department of Health provides prior to submitting building plans to assure meets all Health department requirements to avoid delays. The City of Puyallup will not release building permit without Health departments approval.
|
|
|
BLTR - Truss
The truss specs will be required with the truss engineers’ stamps and a layout that matches the submitted plans at the time of submittal.
|
|
|
BLTR - Electrical
All electrical is permitted by the Washington State Department of L & I.
|
|
|
BLTR - EV - R-2
The R-2 apartments at Brownstone 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. Did not locate EV parking on site plan.
|
|
|
BLTR - Codes
Provide all exit discharge points and opening protection.
|
|
|
BLTR - Codes
Plans will need to be per the applicable adopted codes 2018/2021 for all permits.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Building plans will need to be complete with all building, mechanical, plumbing, energy code items and accessibility requirements that may apply on the plans with all Washington State Amendments.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Provide updated allowable area calculations per 2018/2021 Codes, verify current adopted code depending on application timeline.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Please reach out to me if I can answer any other questions in relationship to Building code items for this project. No other Building items at this time.
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Revisions Required
|
04/14/2023
|
04/13/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a minimum 10-ft separation between any structures and the watermain. Typicall at all points.
[Plans; Sht C7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-based on the City's independent comparison btwn Ph1 and Ph2 it does not appear that the existing Lodge Building was accounted for in calculations provided on the Developed Basin Map. See additional comments on the Developed Basin Map.
[Storm Rpt; Pg 5 of 532]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-based on the City's independent comparison btwn Ph1 and Ph2 it does not appear that the existing Lodge Building was accounted for in calculations provided on the Developed Basin Map. See additional comments on the Developed Basin Map.
[Storm Rpt; Pg 21 of 532]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a basin map specific to the Phase 2 scope of work.
[Storm Rpt; Pg 23 of 532]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify- this does not appear to account for the existing Lodge footage (50,891sf).
[Storm Rpt; Pg 23 of 532]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-The Phase 1 storm analysis indicates that the storm pond was sized for 5.99ac hard surface area which equates to 260,924sf. Adding in the existing Lodge Building to the Legend above results in Total Impervious Area of 282,206sf resulting in a potentially undersized storm pond.
[Storm Rpt; Pg 23 of 532]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
• The applicant has anticipated using the existing stormwater detention facility constructed during Phase 1 to serve the proposed Phase 2 project. However, based on the City's independent comparison between Phase 1 stormwater design and the proposed Phase 2 project, it does not appear that the existing Lodge Building was accounted for in the hard surface area comparisons provided on the ‘Developed Basin Map’. For example, the Developed Basin Map indicates total building area to be 97,798sf and total hard surface area to be 231,315sf, but the City’s takeoff calculates 149,896sf of building area and total hard surface area of 282,206sf. If this is indeed the case, the existing storm facility may be undersized and require rework which must be documented in the preliminary storm plan.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
• In addition to the submitted Developed Basin Map indicating full buildout of the site, provide a developed basin map specific to the Phase 2 project which clearly identifies the quantity of disturbed surface areas (landscape/lawn; hardscape; roof; etc).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
• At time of civil application, the geotechnical engineer shall evaluate the infiltration capability of the soils (existing or import) below proposed hardscape areas considering the Ecology Manual permeable pavement feasibility criteria of 0.3 in/hr infiltration rate.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
• The proposed Brownstone site plan indicates a conflict with the existing 12-in watermain. City regulations require a minimum separation of 10-ft between the watermain and any structure. Revise the site plan accordingly.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
• Provide existing easement recording numbers where noted on the preliminary civil plans.
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil application, ensure 10-ft min clearance between any woody landscaping and wet utilities.
[Landscape Plans; Sht L-1]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
At time of civil application, ensure 10-ft min clearance between any woody landscaping and wet utilities.
[Landscape Plans; Sht L-2]
|
|
Planning Review
|
Revisions Required
|
04/14/2023
|
04/11/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add Submittal Item: Wetland Report Req.
Additional Submittal Item Required (Critical Area Report): Wetland and/or wetland buffer areas: The proposal is located within 300 ft of a known or suspected regulated wetland. A report from a qualified wetland biologist, meeting the requirements of PMC 21.06.950 and 21.06.530 is required for any lands suspected (mapped or unmapped) or known on a site or a site within 300’ of suspected or known wetlands. The report must have been produced in the last 5 years to be valid. The previous report is expired.
APRIL, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Report not yet received, applicant response indicates report is to be provided. Comment resolution outstanding.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN: In order to deviate from the front yard build to area setback, a formal variance will be required, and must be approved by the Hearing Examiner. See 01/25/22 email to project architect (Jill Krance) from Planning and Engineering staff.
APRIL, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: the proposed 25 foot setback exceeds the maximum 20.31.027 (2)(C) of 20 feet. There are conflicting responses in the letter back to us stating in some locations the conflict requires setback further than the max due to sight distance and other statements of compliance with the max setback. If the setback is further than 20 feet max, a variance is still required. Supporting evidence of conflicts with sight distance will need to be included in a setback variance application and supported by the traffic engineer.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
PARKING: Please establish how the parking ratios proposed relate to the required ratios in PMC 20.55.010. The application uses terms that do not relate back to the parking ratios in a way that can be verified. What type of residential or care type are brownstone and assisted living, are they both residential unit types? What is the difference between skilled nursing and assisted living and which parking ratios is the applicant saying applies to each? Is independent living just age restricted retirement homes?
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: resolved.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: Please analyze in the updated critical area report the proposed paving the pathway behind the lodge (is this trail in a wetland buffer area?).
APRIL, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Comment outstanding pending submittal of updated critical areas (wetland) report.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: PMC 21.06.840 requires a 10 foot setback from edges of critical area buffers. The feature marked as a ditch behind Lowes is a regulated stream body. Please rate the stream as a type based on code and apply the stream buffer, plus the 10 foot setback.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: The 2002 letter is still valid for the purposes of determining the drainage swale as an artificial feature, not a stream. Resolved.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: Update the geotechnical report and analysis, focusing on critical areas analysis for the steeply sloped area below the 36 bed care center building (to the west, steep embankment stream channel on the Lowes site). Areas adjacent exceed 40 percent slope as shown in GIS and may have a buffer which the CC building is proposed to be located within, see PMC 21.06.1210. Please submit a geotech report addressing PMC 21.06.530 and PMC 21.06.1210, .1220, .1230, .1240, and .1250 (seismic).
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Please supplement the geotech report to specifically address PMC 21.06.1230 (2)(A - F), addressing each item in detail. Also address .1230 (11), monitoring plan for during and post construction. Address pier design foundations in more detail and presence of seeps on the site.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
LANDSCAPING: Is the applicant proposing to eliminate all landscaping requirements for the street frontage area on 39th Ave SE? Or retain and integrate the existing trees and vegetation? Sheet L-2 does not show any cross hatched area on that site frontage. An arborist will need to assess and propose tree protection measures for existing vegetation, which should be retained. Preliminary internal review indicates Traffic Engineering may require the bermed and vegetated area of site frontage to be graded due to sight distance concerns, which is allowed, and if that is the case, no arborist report will be required.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Resolved comment. Area must be re-landscaped per code.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN: The project is not compliant with PMC 20.31.027 because the site does not meet the underlying BTA setback.
APRIL, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: The proposed 25 foot setback exceeds the maximum 20.31.027 (2)(C) of 20 feet. A variance is still required. Supporting evidence of conflicts with sight distance will need to be included in a setback variance application.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN: Staff does not understand the reference “city please advise on phase 1 bus shelter” shown on the architectural site plan. The bus shelter pad call out on your site plan appears to be on private property. There was a finding and condition of the previous approval that the developer purchase a shelter for the ROW pad on 39th Ave SE. The site plan shows a pad interior to the site with the call out asking us to advise. Please clarify.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Resolved.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
OPEN SPACE: PMC 20.31.026 requires 10’ X 8’ upper floor patio spaces for dwelling units. This would apply to the independent retirement brownstones. What are the dimensions of the patios provided?
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: Resolved
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.015 (2) (b). Fiber cement is only a high quality material if proposed as a through color fiber cement product. For example, the Board has not approved painted fiber cement board (such as Hardie Board). Here are some examples of fiber cement products which would be approved.
EQUITONE https://www.equitone.com/en-us/materials-en-us/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn9axvu7D9wIVFBXUAR2adwwBEAAYASAAEgLZN_D_BwE
SWISS PEARL https://www.swisspearl.com/products/#facade
AMERICAN FIBER CEMENT CORP (CEMBRIT) https://www.americanfibercement.com/products/patina-design-line/patina/
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.015 (3) (a)(i). The project is not meeting the required transparency required, or has not demonstrated compliance. The Board has approved 30 percent transparency for street facing facades for residential only projects (in lieu of the 60 percent listed in code).
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (2) (a). The Board will need to consider the applicant’s argument against 12 first floor ceiling heights. Staff cannot give guidance at this time; the Board may provide flexibility.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (2) (b). The Board has approved 30 percent transparency for street facing facades for residential only projects. Please provide a calculation exhibit for the street facing (39th Ave) façade wall.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (2) (c). The Board will need to consider the applicant’s argument against the front door facing the street. The door does appear to orient at an angle to the street and may meet the standard, but the building is not meeting the underlying setbacks.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (2) (c). The Board will need to review the strategy for trim throughout. Please note the dimensional requirements for 2 inch trim.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (3). The application is not clear on if the proposal meets the minimum building modulation standards (“required at least every 30 feet along all exterior wall planes and shall be offset at least four feet.”). Please specifically address at the time of resubmittal.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (4). How is the street facing façade receiving the greatest amount of attention as outlined in code? The narrative is not specific how the proposal plans to meet this portion of code text.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (5). Blank wall areas will require landscape screening
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (6). Please provide the siding coverage percentage break downs as required by code for the structure type based on stories. Address the standard regarding stone cap and or brick sill throughout on each building. Address vertical change in materials standard. Please specify the fiber cement product; the Board has not approved painted fiber cement board (such as Hardie Board). Here are some examples of fiber cement products which would be approved.
EQUITONE https://www.equitone.com/en-us/materials-en-us/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn9axvu7D9wIVFBXUAR2adwwBEAAYASAAEgLZN_D_BwE
SWISS PEARL https://www.swisspearl.com/products/#facade
AMERICAN FIBER CEMENT CORP (CEMBRIT) https://www.americanfibercement.com/products/patina-design-line/patina/
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (8). The visibility from the street is not the standard for application of this code section; the roofline modulation is required throughout. Please address change in visible roofline standard and how each new building meets the standard.
April, 2023 UPDATED COMMENT: All design review/architectural review pending resolution under final design review permit, which will be approved by the Design Review Board. We are carrying this comment forward as we are awaiting a submittal by the project architect for scheduling with the Board (comment dated 04/11/23)
|
|
Fire Review
|
No Comments
|
04/14/2023
|
04/11/2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. The current gravel path around the existing Lodge building "called out as asphalt on the plan" will be required to extend around the proposed addition to the Lodge. This will require the current path to be paved and extend to the entrance behind Lowes. This will be nonnegotiable as it will be utilized as a fire fighter access around the building.
2. A fire hydrant will be required on the SW corner entrance by Lowes by the proposed "option for low access".
3. Conditions may changed based on Planning and Engineering review comments.
|
|
Engineering Traffic Review
|
Revisions Required
|
09/29/2022
|
11/22/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Per previous comment, sight distance analysis is required at 39th Ave SE driveway (horizontal + vertical). The existing berm located on the eastern frontage interfere with entering sight distance and must be regraded to meet City ESD standards.
-Identify all trees to be removed that obstruct sight distance.
-Bus shelter along 39th Ave SE not possible due to sight distance conflict.
Improvements to existing curb/gutter/sidewalk are not anticipated along 39th Ave SE frontage. City inspectors will evaluate roadway condition to determine if half-street paving is necessary.
Traffic Scoping document is approved.
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Revisions Required
|
09/29/2022
|
10/10/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a minimum 10-ft separation between any structures and the watermain. Typicall at all points.
[Plans; Sht C7]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-based on the City's independent comparison btwn Ph1 and Ph2 it does not appear that the existing Lodge Building was accounted for in calculations provided on the Developed Basin Map. See additional comments on the Developed Basin Map.
[Storm Rpt; Pg 5 of 532]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify-based on the City's independent comparison btwn Ph1 and Ph2 it does not appear that the existing Lodge Building was accounted for in calculations provided on the Developed Basin Map. See additional comments on the Developed Basin Map.
[Storm Rpt; Pg 21 of 532]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Provide a basin map specific to the Phase 2 scope of work.
[Storm Rpt; Pg 23 of 532]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Verify- this does not appear to account for the existing Lodge footage (50,891sf).
[Storm Rpt; Pg 23 of 532]
|
|
|
See Document Markup
Confirm-The Phase 1 storm analysis indicates that the storm pond was sized for 5.99ac hard surface area which equates to 260,924sf. Adding in the existing Lodge Building to the Legend above results in Total Impervious Area of 282,206sf resulting in a potentially undersized storm pond.
[Storm Rpt; Pg 23 of 532]
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
• The applicant has anticipated using the existing stormwater detention facility constructed during Phase 1 to serve the proposed Phase 2 project. However, based on the City's independent comparison between Phase 1 stormwater design and the proposed Phase 2 project, it does not appear that the existing Lodge Building was accounted for in the hard surface area comparisons provided on the ‘Developed Basin Map’. For example, the Developed Basin Map indicates total building area to be 97,798sf and total hard surface area to be 231,315sf, but the City’s takeoff calculates 149,896sf of building area and total hard surface area of 282,206sf. If this is indeed the case, the existing storm facility may be undersized and require rework which must be documented in the preliminary storm plan.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
• In addition to the submitted Developed Basin Map indicating full buildout of the site, provide a developed basin map specific to the Phase 2 project which clearly identifies the quantity of disturbed surface areas (landscape/lawn; hardscape; roof; etc).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
• At time of civil application, the geotechnical engineer shall evaluate the infiltration capability of the soils (existing or import) below proposed hardscape areas considering the Ecology Manual permeable pavement feasibility criteria of 0.3 in/hr infiltration rate.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
• The proposed Brownstone site plan indicates a conflict with the existing 12-in watermain. City regulations require a minimum separation of 10-ft between the watermain and any structure. Revise the site plan accordingly.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
• Provide existing easement recording numbers where noted on the preliminary civil plans.
|
|
Fire Review
|
Revisions Required
|
09/29/2022
|
09/29/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
1. The current gravel path around the existing Lodge building "called out as asphalt on the plan" will be required to extend around the proposed addition to the Lodge. This will require the current path to be paved and extend to the entrance behind Lowes. This will be nonnegotiable as it will be utilized as a fire fighter access around the building.
2. A fire hydrant will be required on the SW corner entrance by Lowes by the proposed "option for low access".
3. Conditions may changed based on Planning and Engineering review comments.
|
|
Planning Review
|
Revisions Required
|
09/29/2022
|
09/29/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add Submittal Item: Wetland Report Req.
Additional Submittal Item Required (Critical Area Report): Wetland and/or wetland buffer areas: The proposal is located within 300 ft of a known or suspected regulated wetland. A report from a qualified wetland biologist, meeting the requirements of PMC 21.06.950 and 21.06.530 is required for any lands suspected (mapped or unmapped) or known on a site or a site within 300’ of suspected or known wetlands. The report must have been produced in the last 5 years to be valid. The previous report is expired.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN: In order to deviate from the front yard build to area setback, a formal variance will be required, and must be approved by the Hearing Examiner. See 01/25/22 email to project architect (Jill Krance) from Planning and Engineering staff.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
PARKING: Please establish how the parking ratios proposed relate to the required ratios in PMC 20.55.010. The application uses terms that do not relate back to the parking ratios in a way that can be verified. What type of residential or care type are brownstone and assisted living, are they both residential unit types? What is the difference between skilled nursing and assisted living and which parking ratios is the applicant saying applies to each? Is independent living just age restricted retirement homes?
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: Please analyze in the updated critical area report the proposed paving the pathway behind the lodge (is this trail in a buffer area?).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: PMC 21.06.840 requires a 10 foot setback from edges of critical area buffers. The feature marked as a ditch behind Lowes is a regulated stream body. Please rate the stream as a type based on code and apply the stream buffer, plus the 10 foot setback.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
CRITICAL AREAS: Update the geotechnical report and analysis, focusing on critical areas analysis for the steeply sloped area below the 36 bed care center building (to the west, steep embankment stream channel on the Lowes site). Areas adjacent exceed 40 percent slope as shown in GIS and may have a buffer which the CC building is proposed to be located within, see PMC 21.06.1210. Please submit a geotech report addressing PMC 21.06.530 and PMC 21.06.1210, .1220, .1230, .1240, and .1250 (seismic).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
LANDSCAPING: Is the applicant proposing to eliminate all landscaping requirements for the street frontage area on 39th Ave SE? Or retain and integrate the existing trees and vegetation? Sheet L-2 does not show any cross hatched area on that site frontage. An arborist will need to assess and propose tree protection measures for existing vegetation, which should be retained. Preliminary internal review indicates Traffic Engineering may require the bermed and vegetated area of site frontage to be graded due to sight distance concerns, which is allowed, and if that is the case, no arborist report will be required.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN: The project is not compliant with PMC 20.31.027 because the site does not meet the underlying BTA setback.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
SITE PLAN: Staff does not understand the reference “city please advise on phase 1 bus shelter” shown on the architectural site plan. The bus shelter pad call out on your site plan appears to be on private property. There was a finding and condition of the previous approval that the developer purchase a shelter for the ROW pad on 39th Ave SE. The site plan shows a pad interior to the site with the call out asking us to advise. Please clarify.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
OPEN SPACE: PMC 20.31.026 requires 10’ X 8’ upper floor patio spaces for dwelling units. This would apply to the independent retirement brownstones. What are the dimensions of the patios provided?
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.015 (2) (b). Fiber cement is only a high quality material if proposed as a through color fiber cement product. For example, the Board has not approved painted fiber cement board (such as Hardie Board). Here are some examples of fiber cement products which would be approved.
EQUITONE https://www.equitone.com/en-us/materials-en-us/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn9axvu7D9wIVFBXUAR2adwwBEAAYASAAEgLZN_D_BwE
SWISS PEARL https://www.swisspearl.com/products/#facade
AMERICAN FIBER CEMENT CORP (CEMBRIT) https://www.americanfibercement.com/products/patina-design-line/patina/
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.015 (3) (a)(i). The project is not meeting the required transparency required, or has not demonstrated compliance. The Board has approved 30 percent transparency for street facing facades for residential only projects (in lieu of the 60 percent listed in code).
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (2) (a). The Board will need to consider the applicant’s argument against 12 first floor ceiling heights. Staff cannot give guidance at this time; the Board may provide flexibility.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (2) (b). The Board has approved 30 percent transparency for street facing facades for residential only projects. Please provide a calculation exhibit for the street facing (39th Ave) façade wall.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (2) (c). The Board will need to consider the applicant’s argument against the front door facing the street. The door does appear to orient at an angle to the street and may meet the standard, but the building is not meeting the underlying setbacks.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (2) (c). The Board will need to review the strategy for trim throughout. Please note the dimensional requirements for 2 inch trim.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (3). The application is not clear on if the proposal meets the minimum building modulation standards (“required at least every 30 feet along all exterior wall planes and shall be offset at least four feet.”). Please specifically address at the time of resubmittal.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (4). How is the street facing façade receiving the greatest amount of attention as outlined in code? The narrative is not specific how the proposal plans to meet this portion of code text.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (5). Blank wall areas will require landscape screening
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (6). Please provide the siding coverage percentage break downs as required by code for the structure type based on stories. Address the standard regarding stone cap and or brick sill throughout on each building. Address vertical change in materials standard. Please specify the fiber cement product; the Board has not approved painted fiber cement board (such as Hardie Board). Here are some examples of fiber cement products which would be approved.
EQUITONE https://www.equitone.com/en-us/materials-en-us/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn9axvu7D9wIVFBXUAR2adwwBEAAYASAAEgLZN_D_BwE
SWISS PEARL https://www.swisspearl.com/products/#facade
AMERICAN FIBER CEMENT CORP (CEMBRIT) https://www.americanfibercement.com/products/patina-design-line/patina/
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
DESIGN REVIEW: PMC 20.52.025 (8). The visibility from the street is not the standard for application of this code section; the roofline modulation is required throughout. Please address change in visible roofline standard and how each new building meets the standard.
|
|
Building Review
|
Revisions Required
|
09/29/2022
|
09/29/2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLTR - Access A and B
Apartments are required to have Type A & B units for accessibility, and this will need to be clearly depicted on the plans.
|
|
|
BLTR - Add Submittal Item: Geotech - Soil
Additional Submittal Item: Provide a Geo-Tech report for soils with the building permit applications.
|
|
|
BLTR - Access parking
Accessible parking and access to the public way would be required as well as the accessibility requirements for inside the parking garage. For all accessible requirements we use the 2018/2021 IBC / WAC 51-50 and the ICC A117.1-2009 standard not the ADA.
|
|
|
BLTR - DOH
Phase 2 proposed Care Center, I-2 occupancy requires approval from Health Department. The City recommends to request preliminary plan review from the Department of Health provides prior to submitting building plans to assure meets all Health department requirements to avoid delays. The City of Puyallup will not release building permit without Health departments approval.
|
|
|
BLTR - Truss
The truss specs will be required with the truss engineers’ stamps and a layout that matches the submitted plans at the time of submittal.
|
|
|
BLTR - Electrical
All electrical is permitted by the Washington State Department of L & I.
|
|
|
BLTR - EV - R-2
The R-2 apartments at Brownstone 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. Did not locate EV parking on site plan.
|
|
|
BLTR - Codes
Provide all exit discharge points and opening protection.
|
|
|
BLTR - Codes
Plans will need to be per the applicable adopted codes 2018/2021 for all permits.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Building plans will need to be complete with all building, mechanical, plumbing, energy code items and accessibility requirements that may apply on the plans with all Washington State Amendments.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Provide updated allowable area calculations per 2018/2021 Codes, verify current adopted code depending on application timeline.
|
|
|
Other/Miscellaneous
Please reach out to me if I can answer any other questions in relationship to Building code items for this project. No other Building items at this time.
|