Review Type
Outcome
Est. Completion Date
Completed
Design Review
Approved
01/10/2023
01/09/2023
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A0.2: Provide egress plan for roof deck with travel distance.
Correction 2:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The standard height measurement requirements are in zoning and need to be verified. Staff has concerns the structure exceeds the maximum. See PMC 20.15 - Height, Building or Structure. “Building or structure height”
Correction 3:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Is there a code requirement that prohibits the windows in the north elevation stairwell that can be cited for building division review? The loss of windows is a significant change on this elevation and may warrant further Board review.
Correction 4:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The DRB condition regarding fiber cement board installation method required Chair and Vice Chair review. Staff sent the first design out to Chair and Vice-Chair, which resulted in the comment about the panel joint installation guidance. Staff believes the application may need to be sent back to the Board for additional review on this issue if no resolution can occur at this time. (08/04/22 UPDATED NOTES): Staff met with applicant and architect on 07/26/22 and is awaiting architect response on this item, along with revised photos of proposed installation method.
Correction 5:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Staff cannot verify that unpainted hardie board as proposed will meet the guidelines. Additionally, the architect response regarding the grey and burgundy panels proposed with an applied finish color is not accepted at this time. This likely will require additional Board review.
Correction 6:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Staff provided these notes to the architect on 07/26/22 and is awaiting a response. Our notes are entered into Cityview to clear our review queue/activity assignment. Please review and resubmit the revised letter and exhibits under this permit ID through Cityview and email to me as well (cbeale@puyallupwa.gov).
Reviewer Comments:
Planning Review
Approved
01/10/2023
01/09/2023
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
39'-1"
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
34'-3"
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
35'-11"
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
34'-4"
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Design review set showed floor to ceiling window here. Revise to match design review approval. [sheet A2.1]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Window arrangement and size changed from design review set. Please revise or provide narrative or explanation [sheet A2.1]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Design review set had four sets of windows on east elevation [sheet A2.1]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Dimensions of window panels/design in design review plan set were different [sheet A2.1]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Wood paneling narrowed to width smaller than red arched element below in the design review plan set [sheet A2,1]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
All street facing windows within vertical elements were sliding glass doors on design review plan set. Are exterior decks being eliminated from the final design? [sheet A2.1]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Materials to the north of the entry way are changed from design review plan set [sheet A2.1]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Horizontal white siding trim band was not on the approved design review plan set [sheet A2.1]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Canopy must be 5' projected from wall over entry. Revise. Design plan set did not show cable supports; are these needed for structural or design reasons? [Sheet A2.2]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Windows from design review are missing from north elevation. [sheet A2.2]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Wood siding wider than design review set [sheet A2.2]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
All these windows on the north elevation were sliding glass doors on the design review set [sheet A2.2]
Correction 17:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The Board condition requires that the panel joints provide enough of a reveal to be visible from the street. This was especially relevant for the horizontal joint to emphasize the building’s horizontal lines to bring down the scale. The horizontal joint as drawn shows an insufficient reveal, which should be about ¾”wide, minimum. This will require custom flashing (the drawing calls for “trim by the manufacturer”) to provide at least 2” of lap of the panel over the backside of the flashing. The detail shall be revised to provide a more prominent reveal. Further review is required.
Correction 18:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide a height determination from the project architect, consistent with height and average adjoining grade definitions in PMC 20.15. The structure appears to be revised from the design review set and may be over the allowed 35’ maximum height.
Correction 19:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide manufacturer info sheet for natural fiber cement board materials demonstrating compliance with thru color requirements. Standard fiber cement board that is unpainted and sealed may not meet the requirements of the guidelines - its not clear what “natural thru color” means based on the plan sheet (sheet A6.1). Is this just unpainted standard fiber cement board proposed?
Correction 20:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The burgundy and grey color fiber cement board must also include manufacturer info sheets for verification of thru color status.
Correction 21:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Please itemize the type of wood materials are used for the lap siding (specific material type of wood, such as cedar, OSB, pine, etc.). Lap siding is a style not a material type. The intent of the high quality materials is to allow durable wood (such as cedar), not a composite wood product.
Correction 22:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide an architects narrative describing all changes to the exterior design since the January, 2021 design review board decision. See mark ups for further questions and observations regarding the differences in elevation design observed by staff.
Correction 23:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide details for benches, bike racks, etc. The landscape and civil sheets refer to the architectural set for details. Street benches shall be the following model, (the full back model with arms): https://www.landscapeforms.com/en-us/product/Pages/Parc-Vue-Bench.aspx . The plaza area bench shall be provided in the back of walk corner plaza area, as shown in the architectural renderings and landscape plan. These benches are on private property but encouraged to match the ROW bench seating type model.
Correction 24:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Please show on sheet A0.4 the model and provide detail of lighting fixture(s) in the plaza area.
Correction 25:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Design review plan set for the first floor lobby area (wall angled toward the plaza area) had a floor to ceiling height glass window. Current plan set shows small windows. Please revise to match design review set. See mark ups.
Correction 26:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Bike rack for 5 bikes shall be provided in an area near the lobby entry facing 2nd Street, under the canopy cover. This can be achieved by providing 2 of the following Key Bike loop racks under the canopy and a single bike loop rack provided in the ROW next to the bus shelter (the following model): https://www.landscapeforms.com/en-US/product/Pages/Key-Bike-Rack.aspx
Reviewer Comments:
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
01/10/2023
01/06/2023
Reviewer:
Reviewer Comments:
Fire Review
Approved
01/10/2023
01/05/2023
Reviewer:
Reviewer Comments:
Building Review
Approved
01/10/2023
12/22/2022
Reviewer:
Reviewer Comments:
Engineering Review
Approved
01/10/2023
12/21/2022
Reviewer:
Reviewer Comments:
Planning Review
Failed
07/27/2022
08/04/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
39'-1"
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
34'-3"
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
35'-11"
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
34'-4"
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Design review set showed floor to ceiling window here. Revise to match design review approval. [sheet A2.1]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Window arrangement and size changed from design review set. Please revise or provide narrative or explanation [sheet A2.1]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Design review set had four sets of windows on east elevation [sheet A2.1]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Dimensions of window panels/design in design review plan set were different [sheet A2.1]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Wood paneling narrowed to width smaller than red arched element below in the design review plan set [sheet A2,1]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
All street facing windows within vertical elements were sliding glass doors on design review plan set. Are exterior decks being eliminated from the final design? [sheet A2.1]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Materials to the north of the entry way are changed from design review plan set [sheet A2.1]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Horizontal white siding trim band was not on the approved design review plan set [sheet A2.1]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Canopy must be 5' projected from wall over entry. Revise. Design plan set did not show cable supports; are these needed for structural or design reasons? [Sheet A2.2]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Windows from design review are missing from north elevation. [sheet A2.2]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Wood siding wider than design review set [sheet A2.2]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
All these windows on the north elevation were sliding glass doors on the design review set [sheet A2.2]
Correction 17:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The Board condition requires that the panel joints provide enough of a reveal to be visible from the street. This was especially relevant for the horizontal joint to emphasize the building’s horizontal lines to bring down the scale. The horizontal joint as drawn shows an insufficient reveal, which should be about ¾”wide, minimum. This will require custom flashing (the drawing calls for “trim by the manufacturer”) to provide at least 2” of lap of the panel over the backside of the flashing. The detail shall be revised to provide a more prominent reveal. Further review is required.
Correction 18:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide a height determination from the project architect, consistent with height and average adjoining grade definitions in PMC 20.15. The structure appears to be revised from the design review set and may be over the allowed 35’ maximum height.
Correction 19:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide manufacturer info sheet for natural fiber cement board materials demonstrating compliance with thru color requirements. Standard fiber cement board that is unpainted and sealed may not meet the requirements of the guidelines - its not clear what “natural thru color” means based on the plan sheet (sheet A6.1). Is this just unpainted standard fiber cement board proposed?
Correction 20:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The burgundy and grey color fiber cement board must also include manufacturer info sheets for verification of thru color status.
Correction 21:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Please itemize the type of wood materials are used for the lap siding (specific material type of wood, such as cedar, OSB, pine, etc.). Lap siding is a style not a material type. The intent of the high quality materials is to allow durable wood (such as cedar), not a composite wood product.
Correction 22:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide an architects narrative describing all changes to the exterior design since the January, 2021 design review board decision. See mark ups for further questions and observations regarding the differences in elevation design observed by staff.
Correction 23:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide details for benches, bike racks, etc. The landscape and civil sheets refer to the architectural set for details. Street benches shall be the following model, (the full back model with arms): https://www.landscapeforms.com/en-us/product/Pages/Parc-Vue-Bench.aspx . The plaza area bench shall be provided in the back of walk corner plaza area, as shown in the architectural renderings and landscape plan. These benches are on private property but encouraged to match the ROW bench seating type model.
Correction 24:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Please show on sheet A0.4 the model and provide detail of lighting fixture(s) in the plaza area.
Correction 25:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Design review plan set for the first floor lobby area (wall angled toward the plaza area) had a floor to ceiling height glass window. Current plan set shows small windows. Please revise to match design review set. See mark ups.
Correction 26:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Bike rack for 5 bikes shall be provided in an area near the lobby entry facing 2nd Street, under the canopy cover. This can be achieved by providing 2 of the following Key Bike loop racks under the canopy and a single bike loop rack provided in the ROW next to the bus shelter (the following model): https://www.landscapeforms.com/en-US/product/Pages/Key-Bike-Rack.aspx
Reviewer Comments:
Design Review
Failed
07/27/2022
08/04/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A0.2: Provide egress plan for roof deck with travel distance.
Correction 2:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The standard height measurement requirements are in zoning and need to be verified. Staff has concerns the structure exceeds the maximum. See PMC 20.15 - Height, Building or Structure. “Building or structure height”
Correction 3:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Is there a code requirement that prohibits the windows in the north elevation stairwell that can be cited for building division review? The loss of windows is a significant change on this elevation and may warrant further Board review.
Correction 4:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The DRB condition regarding fiber cement board installation method required Chair and Vice Chair review. Staff sent the first design out to Chair and Vice-Chair, which resulted in the comment about the panel joint installation guidance. Staff believes the application may need to be sent back to the Board for additional review on this issue if no resolution can occur at this time. (08/04/22 UPDATED NOTES): Staff met with applicant and architect on 07/26/22 and is awaiting architect response on this item, along with revised photos of proposed installation method.
Correction 5:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Staff cannot verify that unpainted hardie board as proposed will meet the guidelines. Additionally, the architect response regarding the grey and burgundy panels proposed with an applied finish color is not accepted at this time. This likely will require additional Board review.
Correction 6:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Staff provided these notes to the architect on 07/26/22 and is awaiting a response. Our notes are entered into Cityview to clear our review queue/activity assignment. Please review and resubmit the revised letter and exhibits under this permit ID through Cityview and email to me as well (cbeale@puyallupwa.gov).
Reviewer Comments:
Building Review
Approved
07/27/2022
08/02/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A0.2: Upgrade sprinkler system to SM - NFPA 13 - 903.3.1.1 on plan for proposed calculations to meet Table 506.2 R-2 with Construction Type VB IN 2018 IBC.
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A0.2: Provide calculations for allowable area for enclosed garage to meetTable 506.2 of the 2018 IBC.
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A0.2: Provide travel distance on all egress plans, include dimensions of structure.
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A0.4: Clarify construction type. Revise to match what is called out on A0.2.
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A1.2: Provide rating of door or exception why not required to be 90 min door.
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A3.1: Please provide code path and/or exception why roof deck does not require handicap accessibility to roof deck.
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide location of chain link fencing installation detail or how associated with wall type. {A3.1 in Storage room.}
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
PROVIDE COMPLETE PLUMBING PLAN, INCLUDE SHOWER SIZE, TEMP GLAZING WHEN REQUIRED {P1.0)
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide date plans were sealed. {S-sheets}
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify all locations of references required on Building Envelope Requirements List Report.
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide compliance reports with credits selected. {Bldg Envelope Requirements.}
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Did not locate insulation on details. {Bldg Envelope Requirements.}
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A1.4 - Did not locate insulation on details. {Bldg Envelope Requirements.}
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Did not locate page A0.5 on plan set. {Lighting, Motor WSEC report}
Correction 15:
Comment
Comments:
Provide resubmittal form with response letter how comments were addressed.
Markup on the plans are available to reference in the Documents Portal associated comment letter.
Additional comments may be forthcoming once responses are provided to these comments.
Reviewer Comments:
Fire Review
Approved
07/27/2022
07/26/2022
Reviewer:
Reviewer Comments:
Previous review approved 5/16/2022 DD
Engineering Review
Approved
07/27/2022
07/18/2022
Reviewer:
Reviewer Comments:
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
07/27/2022
07/11/2022
Reviewer:
Reviewer Comments:
Design Review
VOID
07/22/2022
06/09/2022
Reviewer:
Reviewer Comments:
Engineering Traffic Review
Approved
05/15/2022
06/07/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Based on current edition of ITE manual, this project is now considered LUC 220 (Low Rise Multifamily) because it there are only 3 floors of living space [Traffic Scoping]
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
LUC 220 (Low Rise Multifamily) has a trip generation rate of 0.51 trips per dwelling unit. This works out to 14.8 PM peak trips[Traffic Scoping]
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
TIF to be updated to $66,600[Traffic Scoping]
Reviewer Comments:
Building Review
Failed
05/15/2022
05/27/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A0.2: Upgrade sprinkler system to SM - NFPA 13 - 903.3.1.1 on plan for proposed calculations to meet Table 506.2 R-2 with Construction Type VB IN 2018 IBC.
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A0.2: Provide calculations for allowable area for enclosed garage to meetTable 506.2 of the 2018 IBC.
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A0.2: Provide travel distance on all egress plans, include dimensions of structure.
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A0.4: Clarify construction type. Revise to match what is called out on A0.2.
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A1.2: Provide rating of door or exception why not required to be 90 min door.
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A3.1: Please provide code path and/or exception why roof deck does not require handicap accessibility to roof deck.
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide location of chain link fencing installation detail or how associated with wall type. {A3.1 in Storage room.}
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
PROVIDE COMPLETE PLUMBING PLAN, INCLUDE SHOWER SIZE, TEMP GLAZING WHEN REQUIRED {P1.0)
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide date plans were sealed. {S-sheets}
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Verify all locations of references required on Building Envelope Requirements List Report.
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Provide compliance reports with credits selected. {Bldg Envelope Requirements.}
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Did not locate insulation on details. {Bldg Envelope Requirements.}
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A1.4 - Did not locate insulation on details. {Bldg Envelope Requirements.}
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Did not locate page A0.5 on plan set. {Lighting, Motor WSEC report}
Correction 15:
Comment
Comments:
Provide resubmittal form with response letter how comments were addressed.
Markup on the plans are available to reference in the Documents Portal associated comment letter.
Additional comments may be forthcoming once responses are provided to these comments.
Reviewer Comments:
Engineering Review
Approved
05/15/2022
05/19/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Occupancy will not be granted until all work associated with Civil Permit PRCCP20220417 has been completed and a final approval has been received.
Reviewer Comments:
Fire Review
Approved
05/15/2022
05/16/2022
Reviewer:
Reviewer Comments:
Planning Review
Failed
05/15/2022
04/22/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
39'-1"
Correction 2:
See Document Markup
Comments:
34'-3"
Correction 3:
See Document Markup
Comments:
35'-11"
Correction 4:
See Document Markup
Comments:
34'-4"
Correction 5:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Design review set showed floor to ceiling window here. Revise to match design review approval. [sheet A2.1]
Correction 6:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Window arrangement and size changed from design review set. Please revise or provide narrative or explanation [sheet A2.1]
Correction 7:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Design review set had four sets of windows on east elevation [sheet A2.1]
Correction 8:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Dimensions of window panels/design in design review plan set were different [sheet A2.1]
Correction 9:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Wood paneling narrowed to width smaller than red arched element below in the design review plan set [sheet A2,1]
Correction 10:
See Document Markup
Comments:
All street facing windows within vertical elements were sliding glass doors on design review plan set. Are exterior decks being eliminated from the final design? [sheet A2.1]
Correction 11:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Materials to the north of the entry way are changed from design review plan set [sheet A2.1]
Correction 12:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Horizontal white siding trim band was not on the approved design review plan set [sheet A2.1]
Correction 13:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Canopy must be 5' projected from wall over entry. Revise. Design plan set did not show cable supports; are these needed for structural or design reasons? [Sheet A2.2]
Correction 14:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Windows from design review are missing from north elevation. [sheet A2.2]
Correction 15:
See Document Markup
Comments:
Wood siding wider than design review set [sheet A2.2]
Correction 16:
See Document Markup
Comments:
All these windows on the north elevation were sliding glass doors on the design review set [sheet A2.2]
Correction 17:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The Board condition requires that the panel joints provide enough of a reveal to be visible from the street. This was especially relevant for the horizontal joint to emphasize the building’s horizontal lines to bring down the scale. The horizontal joint as drawn shows an insufficient reveal, which should be about ¾”wide, minimum. This will require custom flashing (the drawing calls for “trim by the manufacturer”) to provide at least 2” of lap of the panel over the backside of the flashing. The detail shall be revised to provide a more prominent reveal. Further review is required.
Correction 18:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide a height determination from the project architect, consistent with height and average adjoining grade definitions in PMC 20.15. The structure appears to be revised from the design review set and may be over the allowed 35’ maximum height.
Correction 19:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide manufacturer info sheet for natural fiber cement board materials demonstrating compliance with thru color requirements. Standard fiber cement board that is unpainted and sealed may not meet the requirements of the guidelines - its not clear what “natural thru color” means based on the plan sheet (sheet A6.1). Is this just unpainted standard fiber cement board proposed?
Correction 20:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
The burgundy and grey color fiber cement board must also include manufacturer info sheets for verification of thru color status.
Correction 21:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Please itemize the type of wood materials are used for the lap siding (specific material type of wood, such as cedar, OSB, pine, etc.). Lap siding is a style not a material type. The intent of the high quality materials is to allow durable wood (such as cedar), not a composite wood product.
Correction 22:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide an architects narrative describing all changes to the exterior design since the January, 2021 design review board decision. See mark ups for further questions and observations regarding the differences in elevation design observed by staff.
Correction 23:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Provide details for benches, bike racks, etc. The landscape and civil sheets refer to the architectural set for details. Street benches shall be the following model, (the full back model with arms): https://www.landscapeforms.com/en-us/product/Pages/Parc-Vue-Bench.aspx . The plaza area bench shall be provided in the back of walk corner plaza area, as shown in the architectural renderings and landscape plan. These benches are on private property but encouraged to match the ROW bench seating type model.
Correction 24:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Please show on sheet A0.4 the model and provide detail of lighting fixture(s) in the plaza area.
Correction 25:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Design review plan set for the first floor lobby area (wall angled toward the plaza area) had a floor to ceiling height glass window. Current plan set shows small windows. Please revise to match design review set. See mark ups.
Correction 26:
Miscellaneous Planning Correction
Comments:
Bike rack for 5 bikes shall be provided in an area near the lobby entry facing 2nd Street, under the canopy cover. This can be achieved by providing 2 of the following Key Bike loop racks under the canopy and a single bike loop rack provided in the ROW next to the bus shelter (the following model): https://www.landscapeforms.com/en-US/product/Pages/Key-Bike-Rack.aspx
Reviewer Comments:
Design Review
VOID
05/15/2022
04/04/2022
Reviewer:
Corrections:
Correction 1:
See Document Markup
Comments:
A0.2: Provide egress plan for roof deck with travel distance.
Reviewer Comments: