City of Puyallup Web Portal

Other/Miscellaneous

Please provide responses to all Traffic comments/responses: Please note, the draft Development Agreement (P-19-0010) describes frontage improvements will not be constructed east of the E Pioneer driveway (item #5 of the BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY section). Without an approved development agreement authorizing the deviation from PCC 11.08.135, City municipal code will require frontage improvements along the entire length of E Pioneer frontage. Current site plan does not show City Standard frontage improvements east of the E Pioneer driveway. See comments from Mark Higginson for more detail. City will require a reduced speed school zone to be installed for Shaw Rd Elementary. The City has determined a reduced speed school zone on Shaw Rd is feasible. Design required during civil submittal. Coordinate with Engineering staff regarding equipment specs. Please acknowledge this requirement Provide AutoTurn analysis for this radius (NBR movement from at Shaw Rd/E Pioneer) to ensure design vehicles can safely maneuver without impacting WBL turn pocket. This analysis was not provided in latest submittal. The E Pioneer curb alignment does not match Pioneer crossing offset. I estimate the curb alignment needs to shift 2ft toward roadway centerline. This will place the curb at approximately 34ft from centerline. Update preliminary site plan accordingly or provide justification for why this design is not feasible Per previous comment, ROW dedication on E Pioneer needs clarification. City estimates that only 52.5ft (from centerline) is needed along frontage. However, 56ft (from centerline) is shown. Update preliminary site plan accordingly or provide justification for why this design is not feasible On the east side of the E Pioneer driveway, the creek alignment needs to shift approximately 2ft south of current location (match offset/alignment on the west side of the driveway). This will avoid conflicts with future frontage improvements. Update preliminary site plan accordingly Per previous comments, sight distance analysis required at the E Pioneer driveway per City Standards. ESD of 415ft is required at this driveway. Assume 14.5ft setback from the E Pioneer curb alignment (west side only) and 3.5ft driver eye height. It appears there’s a pedestrian barricade and a fence that will obstruct sight distance here. Please reference/respond to Engineering comments (Mark Higginson) regarding the radius design at the E Pioneer driveway. Per previous comments, the channelization plan for E Pioneer needs to provide the following information: 1. Applicant will need to verify there’s adequate ROW to accommodate paved offsite taper. 2. Applicant to verify paved transition will provide adequate utility pole clearance from the travel lane.

Other/Miscellaneous

TIA Comments: Unserved demand was not included in the analysis. This is critical for intersections along Shaw Road, specially at cross streets of Pioneer and 23rd Ave SE -This is why their analysis shows the southbound approach at Shaw/23rd Ave SE operating at LOS B Need to confirm that initial queue was included in the LOS and Delay calculations as per HCM 6 guidelines The appendix shows a total of 142 trips (84 entering and 58 exiting) during the PM peak hour, after accounting for internal capture. However, Table 1 shows slightly different numbers. For Simtraffic Queuing analysis, provide the details of “intervals and volume adjustments” used. Were the results based on multiple runs? If yes, how many? -Was simtraffic analysis performed on an isolated intersection by removing all other intersections or was the simulation performed for the entire study area network? -Consider performing simtraffic simulation for Shaw/Pioneer and two access intersections to determine if the queuing from Shaw/Pioneer spills back into project access intersections -How does the AM peak northbound queue at Shaw/Pioneer impact Shaw/Pioneer Crossing Access? Report worst movement delay for side street stop controlled intersections instead of worst approach Crosswalks should also be provided on the east and west legs at Shaw/Pioneer Crossing Access intersection Should analyze right-turn warrants during AM peak as well. The requirement for northbound right at Shaw/Pioneer Crossing Access should be checked against AM peak volumes and LOS, as northbound is predominant movement during AM peak. The northbound queue from Shaw/Pioneer will most likely spill back into Shaw/Pioneer Crossing Access. Provide the “Lanes, Volumes, Timings” sheets in Synchro results appendix PREVIOUS DIRECTION FROM CITY: Per previous comment the City did not receive an updated TIA to reflect the current site plan. The first/second TIA submittals (attached) assumed different land use assumptions and layouts compared to what is currently proposed. Here’s list of necessary updates: First, the City needs to meet with your traffic consultant to discuss the updated TIA scope. An updated traffic scoping worksheet will be required prior to any work (Internal capture must be recalculated and approved by the City) -All trip generation rates must be updated to the 11th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual The 2023 horizon year is no longer accurate and must be updated 2015-2019 turning movement counts are too old to be used for a 2022 baseline analysis -Post-COVID Traffic volumes have largely returned to normal in this area -All study intersections must be re-counted to represent current conditions. -To ensure unserved demand is captured in your delay analysis, existing queue lengths shall be captured as part of your updated data collection Background projects must be reassessed Signalized intersection outbound channelization must be analyzed. Growth rate assumptions must be reassessed Traffic analysis must evaluate impacts related to the following requirements described in our previous comment letter: 11. Based on comments received from the school district, this site will not receive bus service for students attending Shaw Rd Elementary. These students will be expected to walk. Based on the increase volume of elementary age students walking to Shaw Rd Elementary. The City will require the following modifications: a. At the new traffic signal, an electronic blank-out sign shall be mounted on the eastbound signal pole that restricts eastbound “right turn on red” vehicle movement when pedestrians are using the crossing b. Internal pedestrian paths will need to accommodate safe routing to the traffic signal. c. Reduced Speed School Zone along Shaw Rd has been requested by the School District. If the City determines a reduced speed school zone is feasible/warranted for Shaw Rd Elementary, this mitigation will be required (to be installed by the East Town Crossing development).

See Document Markup

Shouldn't portions of this area be included in the Bypass (excluding stream)? [Storm Plans; Pg 1 of 5]

See Document Markup

Use conventional paving thru the approach. [Storm Plans; Pg 1 of 5]

See Document Markup

To be revised per McInnis letter dated Nov 22, 2022. Facility shall be preliminarily designed, per prior review comments, to ensure the replacement facility is appropriately sized and will not negatively affect the proposed site plan features and structures. [Storm Plans; Pg 1 of 5]

See Document Markup

Min. Vault Height is 7' per Ecology Manual. The City is willing to allow a 5.5' deep vault provided an AMR is submitted to document the revision. [Storm Plans; Pg 1 of 5]

See Document Markup

Verify-Flow Control location? The FC structure location conflicts with the Vault 2/3 release (unless its a flow splitter). [Storm Plans; Pg 1 of 5]

See Document Markup

Min. Vault Height is 7' per Ecology Manual. Due to the size of this vault, the City is unwilling to support an AMR to reduce the height of the vault below 5.5 feet due to maintenance and safety concerns. Would a StormChamber or similar system be an option? Revise accordingly. [Storm Plans; Pg 1 of 5]

See Document Markup

Confirm with groundwater monitoring results (69.8' and 70.6' per Figure A8 in previous storm report). [Storm Plans; Pg 4 of 5]

See Document Markup

See comments in storm report regarding minimum vault height. [Storm Plans; Pg 4 of 5]

See Document Markup

Per Fire Code Official, vault lid must account for fire apparatus outrigger loading anywhere on the vault lid if located within a drive lane. [Storm Plans; Pg 4 of 5]

See Document Markup

Parcel ...054. [Storm Rpt; Pg 1 of 148]

See Document Markup

See review comments ("markups") on this storm report, some of which must be addressed prior to Landuse Approval and some that can be addressed at civil application. Please refer to the DRT Letter "Action Items" for markups that must be addressed for landuse approval. [Storm Rpt; Pg 1 of 148]

See Document Markup

Parcel ...054. [Storm Rpt; Pg 5 of 148]

See Document Markup

Per the WWHM LID Report on Pg 126 of 148, it does not appear that flow durations for Vault 2/3 were included in the LID analysis. See comment on Pg 126. [Storm Rpt; Pg 11 of 148]

See Document Markup

NOTE: At this phase (landuse application) of the project it is not necessary to show MR5 compliance if 100% detention is proposed and the preliminary design meets the stream duration standard. However, it will be necessary to show MR5 compliance at time of civil application. [Storm Rpt; Pg 11 of 148]

See Document Markup

Per prior reviews, the proposed replacement "vault" did not provide equal or better FC and WQ mitigation of the original stormwater pond. Please submit the proposed facility so the City can can confirm preliminary sizing in relation to site constaints. In addition, please review BMP T10.40 and BMP D.3, vault design criteria described in the Ecology Manual as applicable. [Storm Rpt; Pg 12 of 148]

See Document Markup

Min. Vault Height is 7' per Ecology Manual. Due to the size of this vault, the City is unwilling to support an AMR to reduce the height of the vault below 5.5 feet due to maintenance and safety concerns. Would a StormChamber or similar system be an option? [Storm Rpt; Pg 12 of 148]

See Document Markup

If the vaults are located within the designated fire lane, the vaults shall be designed to support the full weight of the fire truck apparatus, including outrigger point loading(s). A "designated outrigger area" is not acceptable. [Storm Rpt; Pg 13 of 148]

See Document Markup

Min. Vault Height is 7' per Ecology Manual. The City is willing to allow a 5.5' deep vault provided an AMR is submitted to document the revision. [Storm Rpt; Pg 13 of 148]

See Document Markup

Portions of the site remain in the regulated floodplain. Any proposed work within the regulated floodplain shall adhere to the criteria of PMC 21.07 (comp. storage; structure protection; habitat assessment; etc.). [Storm Rpt; Pg 14 of 148]

See Document Markup

Use conventional paving thru the approach. [Storm Rpt; Pg 25 of 148]

See Document Markup

Verify-Flow Control location? The FC structure location conflicts with the Vault 2/3 release (unless its a flow splitter). [Storm Rpt; Pg 25 of 148]

See Document Markup

Min. Vault Height is 7' per Ecology Manual. The City is willing to allow a 5.5' deep vault provided an AMR is submitted to document the revision. [Storm Rpt; Pg 25 of 148]

See Document Markup

Min. Vault Height is 7' per Ecology Manual. Due to the size of this vault, the City is unwilling to support an AMR to reduce the height of the vault below 5.5 feet due to maintenance and safety concerns. Would a StormChamber or similar system be an option? Revise accordingly. [Storm Rpt; Pg 25 of 148]

See Document Markup

Shouldn't portions of this area be included in the Bypass (excluding stream)? [Storm Rpt; Pg 25 of 148]

See Document Markup

To be revised per McInnis letter dated Nov 22, 2022. Facility shall be preliminarily designed, per prior review comments, to ensure the replacement facility is appropriately sized and will not negatively affect the proposed site plan features and structures. [Storm Report; Storm Plans Sht 1 of 5; Pg 25 of 148]

See Document Markup

ARG replacement facility to be sized correctly per prior review comments and prior to Landuse approval. [Storm Rpt; Pg 27 of 148]

See Document Markup

Min. Vault Height is 7' per Ecology Manual. Due to the size of this vault, the City is unwilling to support an AMR to reduce the height of the vault below 5.5 feet due to maintenance and safety concerns. Would a StormChamber or similar system be an option? [Storm Rpt; Pg 112 of 148]

See Document Markup

Min. Vault Height is 7' per Ecology Manual. The City is willing to allow a 5.5' deep vault provided an AMR is submitted to document the revision. [Storm Rpt; Pg 114 of 148]

See Document Markup

For some reason, Vault 2/3 is not included in the LID Performance Standard Analysis/Report, so the results ("Pass") may not be accurate. [Storm Rpt; Pg 126 of 148]

See Document Markup

NOTE: At this phase (landuse application) of the project it is not necessary to show MR5 compliance if 100% detention is proposed and the preliminary design meets the stream duration standard. However, it will be necessary to show MR5 compliance at time of civil application. [Storm Rpt; Pg 126 of 148]

See Document Markup

The submitted civil plans contain review comments ("markups") that must be addressed prior to landuse approval as well as informational comments that can be addressed at time of civil application. Please refer to the DRT Letter "Action Items" for markups that must be addressed for landuse approval. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1, Cover Sheet; Pg 1 of 15]

See Document Markup

Revise site plan and frontage per review comments on the following civil sheets. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Site Plan, Pg 5 of 15]

See Document Markup

In addition to Ecology criteria, the storm outlet design is subject to WDFW conditions and approval. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Plan, Pg 13 of 15]

See Document Markup

If this is intended to be a combined water quality and flow control facility, the design must adhere to Ecology criteria outlined in Ecology Manual Vol V for combined facilities, i.e., 2 cell design for WQ, etc. Similarly, the design must meet the WQ treatment and detention volumes of the original, approved, CES design. See prior comments in the Storm Report dated December 15, 2021 as well as review comments on the previously submitted "Storm Detention Plan". Show that the facility is appropriately sized and will fit on the site plan without negatively affecting the proposed development features and structures. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Plan, Pg 14 of 15]

See Document Markup

To be revised per McInnis letter dated Nov 22, 2022. Facility shall be preliminarily designed, per prior review comments, to ensure the replacement facility is appropriately sized and will not negatively affect the proposed site plan features and structures. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Plan, Pg 14 of 15]

See Document Markup

Min. Vault Height is 7' per Ecology Manual. The City is willing to allow a 5.5' deep vault provided an AMR is submitted to document the revision. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Plan, Pg 14 of 15]

See Document Markup

Min. Vault Height is 7' per Ecology Manual. Due to the size of this vault, the City is unwilling to support an AMR to reduce the height of the vault below 5.5 feet due to maintenance and safety concerns. Would a StormChamber or similar system be an option? Revise accordingly. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Plan, Pg 14 of 15]

See Document Markup

At time of civil application, a downstream analysis will be required to ensure there is adequate conveyance capacity between the project site and the Pioneer north ditch. This would include a backwater analysis from the OHWM and include runoff from onsite and offsite basins tributary to the discharge location. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Plan, Pg 14 of 15]

See Document Markup

In addition to Ecology criteria, the storm outlet design is subject to WDFW conditions and approval. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Plan, Pg 14 of 15]

See Document Markup

-Will WDFW allow easterly grass-lined ditch to tie directly to stream (exist'g cond'n) and avoid mixing "clean" ditch runoff and stream with the PGIS frontage? -If WDFW does not allow the ditch-to-stream connection, then construct the proposed conveyance pipe to align with the storm main along the frontage as required by City Standards. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 2; Pioneer Frontage Storm Plan; Pg 4 of 15]

See Document Markup

Stub and cap if WDFW allows ditch connection to stream. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 2; Pioneer Frontage Storm Plan; Pg 4 of 15]

See Document Markup

See prior review comments in the Preliminary Storm Report dated December 15, 2021, DRT letter dated May 6, 2022, DRT letter dated August 18, 2022, prior plan markups, and the 'Pioneer Frontage Plan' in Part 4 of this submittal for requested frontage revisions and alignment. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 2; Pioneer Frontage Storm Plan; Pg 5 of 15]

See Document Markup

Confirm-Based on the revised Preliminary Storm Design submitted by McInnis Engineering, it does not appear that this sheet is relevant. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 2; Pioneer Frontage Storm Notes and Details; Pg 6 of 15 ]

See Document Markup

Existing power pole appears to conflict with the stream culvert. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 4; Pioneer Frontage Plan; Pg 1 of 9]

See Document Markup

Per City Standards, curb radius must align with future curb extension. If non-standard design is desired, then City Engineer approval must be obtained using the AMR process prior to Preliminary Site Plan approval. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 4; Pioneer Frontage Plan; Pg 1 of 9]

See Document Markup

Future curb alignment. Revise accordingly. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 4; Pioneer Frontage Plan; Pg 1 of 9]

See Document Markup

Taper shall comply with City Stds 101.14. Revise accordingly. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 4; Pioneer Frontage Plan; Pg 1 of 9]

See Document Markup

Depending on the outcome of the City Engineer's decision, if the non-standard curb radius AMR is not approved, then the existing power pole must be relocated to the future planter strip area. If the AMR is approved, there must be a minimum of 4-ft separation between the travel lane and face of pole while meeting City Standard taper requirements. If 4-ft cannot be provided, the power pole must be relocated. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 4; Pioneer Frontage Plan; Pg 1 of 9]

See Document Markup

Curb alignment does not appear to align with the Pioneer Crossing curb west of Shaw Road. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 4; Pioneer Frontage Plan; Pg 1 of 9]

See Document Markup

If this is intended to be a combined water quality and flow control facility, the design must adhere to Ecology criteria outlined in Ecology Manual Vol V for combined facilities, i.e., 2 cell design for WQ, etc. Similarly, the design must meet the WQ treatment and detention volumes of the original, approved, CES design. See prior comments in the Storm Report dated December 15, 2021 as well as review comments on the previously submitted "Storm Detention Plan". Show that the facility is appropriately sized and will fit on the site plan without negatively affecting the proposed development features and structures. [Storm Plans; Pg 1 of 5]

See Document Markup

The applicant has proposed 100% stormwater detention to serve the project which is a conservative assumption in terms of the viability of the overall project for the Landuse Application. However, it will be necessary to show MR5 compliance (LID Performance Standard or List 2 Feasibility) at time of civil application. [Storm Rpt; Pg 1 of 148]

See Document Markup

If this is intended to be a combined water quality and flow control facility, the design must adhere to Ecology criteria outlined in Ecology Manual Vol V for combined facilities, i.e., 2 cell design for WQ, etc. Similarly, the design must meet the WQ treatment and detention volumes of the original, approved, CES design. See prior comments in the Storm Report dated December 15, 2021 as well as review comments on the previously submitted "Storm Detention Plan". Show that the facility is appropriately sized and will fit on the site plan without negatively affecting the proposed development features and structures. [Storm Report; Storm Plans Sht 1 of 5; Pg 25 of 148]

See Document Markup

Other/Miscellaneous

CRITICAL AREAS – STREAM BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN/WETLANDS: Critical areas: • The project cannot be determined to meet the code sections related to mitigation avoidance, avoidance and minimization sequencing and proper/adequate mitigation provided until such time that the preliminary determination on the off site wetland can be fully confirmed and correctly described in the critical area reports. The critical area report and mitigation plan cannot be approved until Habitat Tech can confirm, delineate and rate the wetland area, properly describe the impacts, and then addresses the questions below. The total area of buffer has to be accurately described for the wetland before the city can approve the loss and compensation of a buffer, which is unconfirmed at this point. • Avoidance sequencing on page 12 does not address the avoidance criteria directly. The applicant seems to be reducing the 80 ft preliminary wetland buffer to 25 ft for the majority of the western portion of the buffer area – a 60% wetland buffer reduction. How is the avoidance addressed in terms of not taking certain actions or parts of actions? E.g. has the applicant considered a reduction in the number of parking stalls/building envelope and the development in the wetland buffer? The project team has only now preliminarily determined a wetland exists directly on the property line but the project has not been modified as a result of this new finding so its difficult to make a finding that avoidance was undertaken, as required by code. o Some observations on the site plan. Some effort must be taken to acknowledge the wetland and buffer and some re-design of the site must be taken to respond to this issue to demonstrate avoidance and minimization sequencing has been addressed. The site is parked above the minimum by 31 stalls. 41 stalls are located in the potential wetland buffer. Some or all of these parking stalls will need to be eliminated from the buffer in order to address the avoidance sequencing. Further site plan modifications to the open space areas to pull the buildings interior to the site and allow for additional wetland buffer need to be integrated as well. The design of building A needs to be re-considered if the building is in the wetland buffer. • No method of construction for the channelization and establishment of a new meandered stream channel within the off-site preliminary wetland area is described in the impact analysis. If the stream channel is proposed to be lengthened and meandered its reasonable to assume substantial grading work will occur throughout the wetland unit to make the grades work for positive flow to Pioneer. Has the project engineer preliminarily determined grades for this area and has the biologist determined if portions of the wetland would be filled/graded and the compensation for that impact? How will hydroperiods and hydrology be maintained during construction and ensured to exist post construction? • Its not clear to city staff if the innovative mitigation section is appropriate to be used for the final approval. The project appears to be proposing unavoidable impacts and buffer mitigation for each impacted critical area, which is not an innovative approach. The applicant needs to meet the standard by qualitatively describing measures taken to avoid impacts or not taking certain actions as required by mitigation sequencing code. See above for guidance. • Add photos and figures to support description of stream on off site eastern property, where the stream comes from, the location of the pond berm breach, and the proposed re-channelization in the mitigation plan. Add these to page 7-8 of report. • Page 8 and page 11 of the report states there will be “no net loss of habitat area”, but does not describe: o Quantity of lost land area related to the preliminary wetland buffer and compensation for it. • No special management strategies for reed canary grass are addressed in the management plan. Is 10% or less coverage of RCG reasonable given the current conditions and post construction disturbance? • Staff would recommend taking the approach of installing a larger split of pioneering deciduous species of trees in the disturbed mitigation area over conifers. Sitka spruce and doug fir may work but western redcedar will likely not survive a fully disturbed site in full sun. Could the mitigation plan include sequenced installation of confers when the deciduous material becomes more mature later in the 10 year monitoring plan? • Critical area report states modifications to floodplain proposed; is a habitat assessment consistent with 21.07.050 completed, as conditioned from the sewer line project previously be revised? Where is that located?

Other/Miscellaneous

SEPA: The city’s Safe Routes to Schools Plan indicates a need to slow and calm traffic on this high speed 5 lane arterial corridor; this project is within the walk distance of Shaw Road elementary - school children are expected to walk to and from the site to attend. The project is anticipated to be required through SEPA to mitigate existing unsafe conditions to allow safe walking for children residing in the area as a result of the project impacts. This may include speed zone signage off site, or some other form of improvements, in coordination with the School District, Public Works and the city Traffic Engineer. Please be aware this is anticipated to be a SEPA mitigation measure.

See Document Markup

10' building setback from buffer. 10 foot building setback from all buffers required by PMC 21.06.840. [arch site plan sheet 1]

See Document Markup

10' building setback from buffer. 10 foot building setback from all buffers required by PMC 21.06.840. [arch site plan sheet 1.

See Document Markup

Swale cannot conflict with site plan design principles and landscape code. Remaining questions about plantings to meet landscaping code.

Other/Miscellaneous

RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN: Please remove the on site school bus stop improvements, per the direction from PSD staff and city Traffic Engineer, provided on June 27. Provide frontage stop improvements per the same guidance provided.

Other/Miscellaneous

RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN: PMC 21.06.840 requires a 10’ building setback from all critical area buffers.

Other/Miscellaneous

RM PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS – DENSITY BONUSES - UPDATED ANALYSIS AUGUST, 2022: The overall land area is now described as 8.67a, which allows a total of 139 total units (8.67 X 16 units/acre). However, land area on the open space calculation sheets still indicates 8.29a. Please provide correct calculations from a land surveyor. CRITICAL AREA BUFFER DENSITY TRANSFER - UPDATED ANALYSIS AUGUST, 2022: To transfer the density from the off-site stream buffer, a permanent protective easement shall be established pursuant to PMC 21.06. – a copy must be provided with the preliminary site plan application for TPN 0420351000. The land area involved and shown in the June 29, 2022 indicates: 1.35 acres off-site RS-10 land area (4 units per acre) and .96 acres on site RM-20 land area in critical area and buffer. - 1.35a X 4 units/a = 5 units X .25 bonus density transfer = 1.25 transfer density units - .96a X 16 units/a = 15 units X .25 bonus density transfer = 4 transfer density units - 5 units eligible for transfer from critical areas Other notes: - Please ensure the calculation does not include areas of buffer on CG zoned lands (the buffer calc. exhibit shows a small area (roughly 1,100 square feet) on CG which cannot be used to transfer residential density). - Is the area of the Williams pipe line on the far SE corner of the site plan a buffer area eligible for transfer? OPEN SPACE BONUS - UPDATED ANALYSIS AUGUST, 2022: This bonus is related to centralized active open space above and beyond the required active amenity area required by 20.25.040 (2)(A). T). The analysis shows the site qualifies for this bonus from a land area calculation. Please notes that active open space amenities will be checked at the final permit (civil) stage. – 8.67a X 16 units = 139 units (base allowed by RM-20). - 139 units X .15 bonus = 21 density units eligible for open space PUBLIC TRANSIT: Bus stops for School District only will not count toward this requirement per the code text requirements for bonuses. An off-site public transit stop improvement will be required at the time of civils. City staff will facilitate the site location identification, as we have with other developments. The density bonus calculation is: - 139 units X .05 = 7 units eligible for transit stop improvements. ADA units. Code requires: “Provision of handicapped accessible dwelling units and at least one parking stall per unit designated for handicapped use adjacent to the dwelling units such that 100% of said bonus units are in addition to the number required through the building code and Americans with Disabilities Act”. This is in addition to building code-required units – this needs to be verified with your architect . This also requires additional ADA parking stalls. The bonus is provided based on above and beyond the base building code requirements for ADA units. Your architect still needs to provide a memo documenting base IRC code requirements (X number of units), plus the 14 required based on the bonus (Y number of units) and show how the site meets the total (X + Y), as well as show that all ADA parking stalls are provided on the site plan. All bonus units must be Type A accessible. Per the city's building code official's calculation, 9.3 units are required for the site. The calculation is based on the overall total units that would be permitted maximum, with the bonus applied. The density bonus calculation is 139 units X .10 = 13.9 units. The density bonus calculation is always based on the base quantity of units allowed by zoning, without any bonuses applied. The total number of type A accessible ADA units would therefore be 23.2, or 23 total units. The site plan presently indicates only 10 are provided. The project architect will need to provide 23 accessible parking stalls, and the appropriate number of van accessible stalls based on the IBC ratios. Some accessible stalls will need to be provided under carport cover. Please provide this in the architects memo. Max density calculation potential = 5 units (critical areas) + 21 (open space) + 7 (transit) + 14 (ADA – not yet eligible - needs to be verified) = 47 bonus units potentially allowed, but not verified. 47 bonus units + 139 base (based on 8.67a land area - land area needs to be verified by a surveyor) = 186 units possible, but not verified as eligible without further analysis. The proposed 193 units exceeds the maximum cap with density bonuses, assuming the ADA units and parking stalls are provided to meet the density bonuses.

Other/Miscellaneous

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW– COMMERCIAL: Provide analysis for PMC 20.26.300 (1)-(5), PMC 20.46 (SPO Overlay) and 20.30.037 (site plan design principles) related to the two commercial structures.

Other/Miscellaneous

COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN: A required plaza space on the lot 1 commercial building shall be located on the Shaw Road and Pioneer side per PMC 20.30.037; additional landscape area (min. 8 feet) shall be located between the plaza and the Shaw Road shared use path, with a large perpendicular access walk way connecting to the shared use path. Additional comments will occur at the time of civil.

Other/Miscellaneous

OPEN SPACE AND SITE LAND AREA: Open space calculation sheets provided (dated 05/17/22) indicate the site is 8.29a. The density calculation now states the site is 8.67a; four different calculations have been provided since the last resubmittal. Please provide a sheet from your land surveyor with a certified letter from your surveyor, indicating the correct and true land area of the RM zoned land area.

Other/Miscellaneous

LANDSCAPE: Please anticipate full comments at the time of civil permit on the overall landscape planting plans. Staff does not conduct full review at a preliminary site plan stage. However, some issues are noted right now that need to be accounted for in the design: - The landscaping in the road side stream are not reconciled with the stream re-vegetation plan and critical areas ordinance; these areas must be entirely designed as a stream buffer (native plantings only), in accordance with the project biologist recommendations. - The swale / water quality features on the street frontage on Pioneer must meet the type II landscaping requirements (variety of shrubs and trees) and cannot be grasses/rushes/sedges only. - Additional silva cells will be required under parking stalls adjacent to each reduced landscape island to mitigate for lost planting area.

See Document Markup

Additional density of plants and street trees required. Large trees must be used 25 ft OC. PSD school bus stop required back of walk. Please address at the time of civil permit. [landscape sheets, L1.1]

See Document Markup

Landscape yard must be 12 ft along this portion of Shaw Road frontage. Please address at the time of civil permit. [landscape sheets, L1.1]

See Document Markup

Row of large shade trees required in this area along main drive aisle. Adjust walkway to place the 6 ft landscape buffer along curb with trees, shift walkway along fenceline and away from curb line. Please address at the time of civil permit. [landscape sheets, L1.1]

See Document Markup

Add four large shade trees into the courtyard between buildings B and F to meet architectural design review . Please address at the time of civil permit. [landscape sheets, L1.2]

See Document Markup

All landscape islands shall have 3 silva cells on each side (6 total for each island, under parking stalls only) to compensate for reduced parking lot island sizes. Please address at the time of civil permit. [landscape sheets, L1.2]

See Document Markup

Adjust walkway interior to landscape to buffer walk way from main driveway. Please address at the time of civil permit. [landscape sheets, L1.3]

See Document Markup

Stream buffer area shall be landscaped in accordance with buffer mitigation plan from wetland biologist (native plantings only) [landscape sheets, L1.3]

See Document Markup

Add three large shade trees into the landscape areas around bldg A to meet architectural design review. Please address at the time of civil permit. [landscape sheets, L1.2]

See Document Markup

6'-6"

Other/Miscellaneous

• Plans would need to be complete at the time of submittal with all building, plumbing, mechanical, truss specs stamped by the truss engineer and showing all current 2018 I-codes. • Include 2018 Washington State Energy code items and supporting reports for new construction. • This is not a complete plan review but informational only. No other Building items at this time. Contact me for any clarification of building requirements.

Other/Miscellaneous

• SHEET 4/74 ARCHITECTURAL_R2: Provide complete calculations per note “SEE FRONTAGE CALULATIONS FOR AREA INCREASE ON SHEET #AG1.2”. Sheets are not labeled and did not find any calculations to support proposed increases for each building. Identify areas claiming as yards as unable to confirm “modifications to the base allowable area” based on what is shown on page 4 of 74. STANDARD COMMENTS • Building plans will need to be complete with all building, mechanical, plumbing, energy code items and accessibility requirements that may apply on the plans for complete review during Building permit application. All building code related eliminates will be reviewed to codes during building plan review. • The truss specs will also be required with the truss engineers’ stamps and a layout that matches the submitted plans at the time of submittal. • The R-2 apartments 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. • Apartments are required to have Type A & B units for accessibility, and this will need to be clearly depicted on the plans. • Plans will need to be per the applicable codes 2018 adopted February 1, 2021, for all permits. • All electrical is permitted by the Washington State Department of L & I. • Accessible parking and access to the public way will be required. For all accessible requirements the City adopted the 2018 IBC / WAC 51-50 and the ICC A117.1-2009 standard. • Please reach out to me if I can answer any other questions in relationship to Building code items for this project. • Architectual plans must detail compliance for Electrical Vehicle charging:

Other/Miscellaneous

REPEAT STANDARD COMMENTS - 01/06/2023 • Building plans will need to be complete with all building, mechanical, plumbing, energy code items and accessibility requirements that may apply on the plans for complete review during Building permit application. All building code related eliminates will be reviewed to codes during building plan review. • The truss specs will also be required with the truss engineers’ stamps and a layout that matches the submitted plans at the time of submittal. • The R-2 apartments 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. • Apartments are required to have Type A & B units for accessibility, and this will need to be clearly depicted on the plans. • Plans will need to be per the applicable codes current adopted codes for all permits. • All electrical is permitted by the Washington State Department of L & I. • Accessible parking and access to the public way will be required. For all accessible requirements the City adopted the 2018 IBC / WAC 51-50 and the ICC A117.1-2009 standard or current adopted code. • Please reach out to me if I can answer any other questions in relationship to Building code items for this project. • Include 2018 Washington State Energy code items (or current adopted code) and supporting reports for new construction. • This is not a complete plan review but informational only. No other Building items at this time. Contact me for any clarification of building requirements. • Architectural plans must detail compliance for Electrical Vehicle charging.

Other/Miscellaneous

3. Frontage Fire Hydrants outside the fencing shall be separate from required internal Fire Hydrants. a. Response: Clarification needed. Does this say that we must tap these hydrants in right of way hydrants off the main line in each street? This would be very costly and a traffic nightmare? Or is the comment we need additional Hydrants in the Right of Way and we cannot count the Right of way in the requirements to meet spacing and distance requirements. b. City Note: the hydrants required by standard and code in the ROW need to be served from the public main. Please consult development engineering for details regarding codes and standards. This item will has been moved to a separate review line and remains outstanding.

Other/Miscellaneous

Document Cover Letter for Stormwater Design 11-22-22 addressed to Mark Higginson 1. Due to the complexity of this project, all lanes are fire lanes. 2. Vaults are required to be fire apparatus rated because they are in the fire lane. 3. The current proposed "No Outrigger" will not be approved.

Other/Miscellaneous

Please provide responses to all Traffic comments/responses: Please note, the draft Development Agreement (P-19-0010) describes frontage improvements will not be constructed east of the E Pioneer driveway (item #5 of the BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY section). Without an approved development agreement authorizing the deviation from PCC 11.08.135, City municipal code will require frontage improvements along the entire length of E Pioneer frontage. City will require a reduced speed school zone to be installed for Shaw Rd Elementary. The City has determined a reduced speed school zone on Shaw Rd is feasible. Design required during civil submittal. Coordinate with Engineering staff regarding equipment specs. Civil plan set shall provide a detailed channelization plan for all striping & pavement markings in within ROW. All proposed striping shall meet City and MUTCD requirements. Plan shall include signage located in ROW. All City standard details related to pavement markings, striping, sign placement must be provided. Provide AutoTurn analysis for this radius (NBR movement from at Shaw Rd/E Pioneer) to ensure design vehicles can safely maneuver without impacting WBL turn pocket Street lighting plan will be reviewed during civil review. Please reference “conditions” section for street lighting design requirements. Preliminary streetlight design does not meet City standards. The E Pioneer curb alignment does not match Pioneer crossing offset. I estimate the curb alignment needs to shift 2ft toward roadway centerline. This will place the curb at approximately 34ft from centerline. Please see “conditions” section for more details. Per previous comment, ROW dedication on E Pioneer needs clarification. City estimates that only 52.5ft (from centerline) is needed along frontage. However, 56ft (from centerline) is shown. On the east side of the E Pioneer driveway, the creek alignment needs to shift approximately 2ft south of current location (match offset/alignment on the west side of the driveway). This will avoid conflicts with future frontage improvements. Per previous comments, sight distance analysis required at the E Pioneer driveway per City Standards. ESD of 415ft is required at this driveway. Assume 14.5ft setback from the E Pioneer curb alignment (west side only) and 3.5ft driver eye height. It appears there’s a pedestrian barricade and a fence that will obstruct sight distance here. Please reference/respond to Engineering comments regarding the radius design at the E Pioneer driveway. Per previous comments, the channelization plan for E Pioneer needs to provide the following information: 1. Applicant will need to verify there’s adequate ROW to accommodate paved offsite taper. 2. Applicant to verify paved transition will provide adequate utility pole clearance from the travel lane. Bus Stop 2A & 2B are not feasible. These locations will cause significant sight distance hazard for vehicles entering E Pioneer from site driveway. Please clarify if on-site school bus access is necessary. Email from PSD (9/21/22) seemed to indicate they do not want internal bus access. 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 11.08.130, 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. Based on the materials submitted, the applicant would be expected to construct half-street improvements on the following streets: a. E Pioneer is designated as a major arterial roadway, consisting of curb, gutter, 10’ planter strips, 8’ sidewalks, and City standard streetlights every 150ft. b. The east leg of the Shaw/Pioneer intersection was designed to accommodate 5 lanes of traffic (56ft throat) to align with the existing channelization on west side of Shaw Rd. The curb line along the south side of E Pioneer frontage shall continue this alignment heading East (approximately 34ft from centerline). This will require roadway widening to accommodate this alignment. c. Sidewalks and planter strips will not be required east the E Pioneer driveway. However, ROW dedication will be required to facilitate future improvements. d. A TWLTL is required along the E Pioneer frontage (minimum 75ft on either side of driveway). e. Paved transitions off-site will be required for safety reasons. f. Shaw Rd is designated as a major arterial. Per our comprehensive plan, this section of Shaw Rd shall be constructed with a shared use path along the entire length of frontage. The dimensions and materials shall match the existing Shaw Rd shared use path constructed between 23rd Ave SE & Manorwood Dr. g. As part of these improvements, additional right-of-way (ROW) may need to be dedicated to the City. During civil review, City staff shall review street tree placement, monument signage, fences, etc. to ensure required sight distance requirements are met. Site access driveways shall meet our minimum commercial driveway requirements (35ft curb radius, 30ft width). This is could change based on design vehicles used for the AutoTurn. Site access restrictions: a. No SBL movement at traffic signal b. E Pioneer Driveway Driveway can remain full access as shown with the following conditions: 1. Driveway spacing from Shaw Rd remains as shown on the current site plan 2. TWLTL extending 75ft on either side of driveway (within E Pioneer) 3. Entering sight distance standards are met to allow outbound left turns. 4. At the City's full discretion, outbound left turns from the proposed E Pioneer driveway can be restricted in the future. The following statement will be placed on the face of the short plat: a. “At the discretion of the City, the City may restrict outbound left turns from the E Pioneer access in the future. At the request of the City, the Owners, Heirs, Successors and Assigns agree to renovate and/or improve the driveway access in accordance with the City of Puyallup Municipal Code and Engineering Standards.” At the time of civil permit review provide a separate street lighting plan and pavement striping plan (channelization) sheet for the City to review. a. Street lighting plan: i. City standard streetlights are required every 150ft along E Pioneer frontage. ii. E Pioneer (Arterial) will require GE EVOLVE ELR2 Fixtures ERL2-3-23-A3-40-D-Gray-A-V1 (City to provide latest part numbers) iii. The existing service cabinet at the E Pioneer/Shaw Rd traffic signal has capacity to power the E Pioneer streetlights. iv. City would allow new streetlights to be installed on the north side of E Pioneer to avoid overhead utility conflicts. v. If the applicant choses to install streetlights on the south side of E Pioneer, it is the sole responsibility of the design engineer to ensure streetlight design/placement is outside of the 10ft minimum “safe zone” area. The City will not allow streetlights to be within 10ft of the PSE primary for safety reasons. vi. Streetlights shall have shorting caps installed with remote photocell located on the service cabinet. vii. The existing PSE utility pole mounted streetlight does not meet current City standards and will be removed with installation of City standard streetlights. viii. Streetlight design shall provide the following: 1. Provide details on how streetlights will be powered 2. Location of conduit runs 3. Wiring Schedule a. Conduit size and type for each raceway b. Conductors details 4. Pole schedule a. STA & offset for each luminaire 5. Show location of junction boxes b. Channelization + signage plan: i. Shaw Rd/E Pioneer traffic signal may require striping and signage modifications based on the design of the E Pioneer frontage/driveway. ii. The new Shaw Rd traffic signal will also require striping and signage modifications. iii. Pavement markings approaching traffic signal shall be thermoplastic Traffic signal modifications a. The Shaw Rd access intersection (signal) will require modifications to accommodate the proposed driveway. The applicant will coordinate with the City’s Adaptive Signal Contractor to purchase/install/configure proprietary equipment. b. Signal designer will implement modifications to the westbound and eastbound approach: i. Signal heads + phases ii. Flashing yellow arrows iii. Left turn phases iv. Striping/channelization modifications - Channelization shall match the assumptions outlined in the TIA c. The applicant will install a new crosswalk at this signal to accommodate pedestrians crossing Shaw Rd. At this location, only one crosswalk will be allowed to cross Shaw Rd. d. Crosswalk will be installed on the south leg of the intersections (see additional requirements below). e. The required signal/intersection modifications must be fully configured and operational no less than 2 weeks prior to receiving occupancy for any building on-site. Adaptive signal contractor (Rhythm Engineering) will be required to configure the adaptive system on-site. f. At the SE corner of the new Shaw Rd access location, adequate ROW must be dedicated, or an easement granted for signal maintenance purposes. Based on comments received from the school district, this site will not receive bus service for students attending Shaw Rd Elementary. These students will be expected to walk. Based on the increase volume of elementary age students walking to Shaw Rd Elementary. The City will require the following modifications: a. At the new traffic signal, an electronic blank-out sign shall be mounted on the eastbound signal pole that restricts eastbound “right turn on red” vehicle movement when pedestrians are using the crossing b. Internal pedestrian paths will need to accommodate safe routing to the traffic signal. c. Reduced Speed School Zone along Shaw Rd has been requested by the School District. If the City determines a reduced speed school zone is feasible/warranted for Shaw Rd Elementary, this mitigation will be required (to be installed by the East Town Crossing development).

Other/Miscellaneous

TIA Comments: Unserved demand was not included in the analysis. This is critical for intersections along Shaw Road, specially at cross streets of Pioneer and 23rd Ave SE -This is why their analysis shows the southbound approach at Shaw/23rd Ave SE operating at LOS B Need to confirm that initial queue was included in the LOS and Delay calculations as per HCM 6 guidelines The appendix shows a total of 142 trips (84 entering and 58 exiting) during the PM peak hour, after accounting for internal capture. However, Table 1 shows slightly different numbers. For Simtraffic Queuing analysis, provide the details of “intervals and volume adjustments” used. Were the results based on multiple runs? If yes, how many? -Was simtraffic analysis performed on an isolated intersection by removing all other intersections or was the simulation performed for the entire study area network? -Consider performing simtraffic simulation for Shaw/Pioneer and two access intersections to determine if the queuing from Shaw/Pioneer spills back into project access intersections -How does the AM peak northbound queue at Shaw/Pioneer impact Shaw/Pioneer Crossing Access? Report worst movement delay for side street stop controlled intersections instead of worst approach Crosswalks should also be provided on the east and west legs at Shaw/Pioneer Crossing Access intersection Should analyze right-turn warrants during AM peak as well. The requirement for northbound right at Shaw/Pioneer Crossing Access should be checked against AM peak volumes and LOS, as northbound is predominant movement during AM peak. The northbound queue from Shaw/Pioneer will most likely spill back into Shaw/Pioneer Crossing Access. Provide the “Lanes, Volumes, Timings” sheets in Synchro results appendix PREVIOUS DIRECTION FROM CITY: Per previous comment the City did not receive an updated TIA to reflect the current site plan. The first/second TIA submittals (attached) assumed different land use assumptions and layouts compared to what is currently proposed. Here’s list of necessary updates: First, the City needs to meet with your traffic consultant to discuss the updated TIA scope. An updated traffic scoping worksheet will be required prior to any work (Internal capture must be recalculated and approved by the City) -All trip generation rates must be updated to the 11th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual The 2023 horizon year is no longer accurate and must be updated 2015-2019 turning movement counts are too old to be used for a 2022 baseline analysis -Post-COVID Traffic volumes have largely returned to normal in this area -All study intersections must be re-counted to represent current conditions. -To ensure unserved demand is captured in your delay analysis, existing queue lengths shall be captured as part of your updated data collection Background projects must be reassessed Signalized intersection outbound channelization must be analyzed. Growth rate assumptions must be reassessed Traffic analysis must evaluate impacts related to the following requirements described in our previous comment letter: 11. Based on comments received from the school district, this site will not receive bus service for students attending Shaw Rd Elementary. These students will be expected to walk. Based on the increase volume of elementary age students walking to Shaw Rd Elementary. The City will require the following modifications: a. At the new traffic signal, an electronic blank-out sign shall be mounted on the eastbound signal pole that restricts eastbound “right turn on red” vehicle movement when pedestrians are using the crossing b. Internal pedestrian paths will need to accommodate safe routing to the traffic signal. c. Reduced Speed School Zone along Shaw Rd has been requested by the School District. If the City determines a reduced speed school zone is feasible/warranted for Shaw Rd Elementary, this mitigation will be required (to be installed by the East Town Crossing development).

Other/Miscellaneous

Fire Review – David Drake; (253) 864-4171; DDrake@PuyallupWA.gov Updated by Ray Cockerham 1. Site Plan has drastically been changed. a. Response: Please see updated plans b. City Note: Reviewed. 2. Previous notes that were once satisfied are now no longer in compliance. a. Response: Acknowledged b. City Note: Reviewed. 3. Frontage Fire Hydrants outside the fencing shall be separate from required internal Fire Hydrants. a. Response: Clarification needed. Does this say that we must tap these hydrants in right of way hydrants off the main line in each street? This would be very costly and a traffic nightmare? Or is the comment we need additional Hydrants in the Right of Way and we cannot count the Right of way in the requirements to meet spacing and distance requirements. b. City Note: the hydrants required by standard and code in the ROW need to be served from the public main. Please consult development engineering for details regarding codes and standards. This item will be moved to a separate review line and remain outstanding. 4. Remove FDC’s outside fence line and place internal meeting the correct spacing. a. Response: This has been changed, see updated site plan b. City Note: reviewed, 5. Do not block Fire Hydrants or FDC with parking stalls. All will be required to be moved to parking islands. a. Response: This has been changed, see updated site plan b. City Note: reviewed. 6. Fire Hydrants and FDC’s are required to be a minimum of 50’ from the structure. If this can not be applied a variance can be accepted. a. Response: Understand and this will be added / modified to the final Civil b. City Note; Deferred to civil. Construction Drawings 7. If an FDC is utilizing A Fire Hydrant in front of the building, there will need to be a separate Fire Hydrant available that reaches all points for the same structure within 400’ Check spacing on all Fire Hydrants that this can be met. a. Response: Understand and this will be added / modified to the final Civil Construction Drawings b. City Note; Deferred to civil. 8. All Fire Hydrants call out an FDC? a. Response: Understand and this will be added / modified to the final Civil Construction Drawings b. City Note; Deferred to civil. 9. This project requires a 26’ wide fire lane. Show all dimensions throughout project including newly added drive through building where the gas station used to sit. a. Response: Understand and this will be added / modified to the final Civil Construction Drawings, but we have confirmed that all drive areas Infront of a building our 26 Ft wide. b. City Note; Deferred to civil. 10. No details provided for drive through and side building. Provide more details for approval. a. Response: Presently working with end user for this information b. City Note: Deferred to Civil. 11. Auto-turn or equivalent program required to demonstrate fire apparatus turning radiuses with new design. a. Response: Please see the Turning Analysis Civil Plan Set Sheet 43 to 47 b. City Note; Deferred to civil. 12. Carports may impact ladder truck operations. Provide details on heights, depths, and widths for approval. a. Response: Understand, please see attached Carport exhibit giving all of the required information. b. City Note; Deferred to building permits. 13. Club House with added pool. The riser room appears to be now in the fenced pool area? Relocate riser room or provide direct access outside of fenced area with a concrete path around building. a. Response: The riser room location has been moved out of the fence area (See updated site Plan) b. City Note; reviewed. 14. This is not a complete review. Review past Fire notes and apply to this site plan. a. Response: Acknowledged b. City Note: review deferred to Civil and Building permits.

Other/Miscellaneous

3. Frontage Fire Hydrants outside the fencing shall be separate from required internal Fire Hydrants. a. Response: Clarification needed. Does this say that we must tap these hydrants in right of way hydrants off the main line in each street? This would be very costly and a traffic nightmare? Or is the comment we need additional Hydrants in the Right of Way and we cannot count the Right of way in the requirements to meet spacing and distance requirements. b. City Note: the hydrants required by standard and code in the ROW need to be served from the public main. Please consult development engineering for details regarding codes and standards. This item will has been moved to a separate review line and remains outstanding.

See Document Markup

-The proposed engineered fill below the permeable pavement section must comply with the Soil Suitability Criteria for treatment...otherwise, permeable pavement is infeasible. Provide acknowlegement from a licensed geotechnical engineer that the proposed import fill can/will meet the treatment criteria as well as the assumed infiltration rate. [Storm Report; Cover]

See Document Markup

OK...pavement only and LID Performance Standard met. [Storm Report; Pg 4]

See Document Markup

The City's recommendation would be to connect the existing grass-lined ditch east of the project site with the proposed stream to avoid mixing "clean" ditch runoff and "clean" stream water with the polluted road runoff...see add'l review comments on Pioneer Basin Map, Appendix D. [Storm Report; Pg 5]

See Document Markup

-This design approach appears to be recirculating stormwater between the splitter and the biocell...see add'l comments Pioneer Basin Map, Appendix D. [Storm Report; Pg 6]

See Document Markup

Since flow control (MR7) is triggered, is the biocell large enough to treat (MR6) the entire frontage basin? This would eliminate the need for the "splitter" structure. Also, see add'l review comments on Pioneer Basin Map, Appendix D. [Storm Report; Pg 6]

See Document Markup

Clarify...is the intent to strip the site to these lower elevations? Considering the results of the PIT testing, its obvious that any existing soil above the "restrictive layer" elevation is also non-infiltrative. [Storm Report; Pg 6]

See Document Markup

Hard surfaces must be permeable to the extent feasible per MR5 List Option...essentially no run-on allowed. If the design intent is to meet the LID Performance Standard, then any concentrated infiltration facility (roof runoff) must meet Ecology's separation criteria. [Storm Report; Pg 7]

See Document Markup

NOTE: The engineered fill must also meet the WQ Soil Suitability Criteria per Ecology, Sect. 3.3.7, SSC-6. This will require geotechnical confirmation prior to PSP approval to ensure that permeable pavement is feasible. [Storm Report; Pg 7]

See Document Markup

Due to the minimal depth to the restrictive layer on this site, any infiltration facility other than permeable pavement will require a mounding analysis in accordance with Ecology 3.3.4. [Storm Report; Pg 8]

See Document Markup

Please be aware that discharging roof runoff to the permeable pavement reservoir course is only acceptable if there is adequate separation to the restrictive layer and an individual subbasin meets the LID Performance Standard, otherwise List 2 BMPs would apply. If List 2 applies, then roof runoff must be evaluated per MR5 BMPs. BMP T5.10A is not applicable (high density multi-family) then bioretention must be considered. If bioretention infeasible, then roof infiltration would require a minimum separation of 5ft to the restrictive layer...which is not possible based on the geotech analysis. (A separation down to 3ft would be allowed if supported by a mounding analysis). [Storm Report; Pg 8]

See Document Markup

If the proposed engineered fill is intended to be used for treatment, provide geotechnical acknowledgement prior to PSP approval that the proposed engineered fill can meet Ecology SSC-6. (Note: if engineered soil cannot meet the WQ suitability criteria outlined in Ecology SSC-6, then permeable pavement is not feasible) [Storm Report; Pg 9]

See Document Markup

pond conversion area? [Storm Report; Pg 9]

See Document Markup

Revise per comments in Section 1 and on the individual basin maps. [Storm Report; Pg 9]

See Document Markup

Per Fig. F5, the biocell will remain saturated and not provide treatment. Revise accordingly. [Storm Report; Pg 9]

See Document Markup

This may be due to the pond filling with sediment as a result of the sidewall failure and lack of maintenance over the decades. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]

See Document Markup

Please note that the converted pond must provide the same volumes and stages for both WQ an FC (not appropriate to match the existing pond condition for water quality). [Storm Report; Pond Conv]

See Document Markup

Also need to account for wetpool storage for WQ (23,454cf below live storage per CES Design Report) [Storm Report; Pond Conv]

See Document Markup

and 1/2-2yr event (ref. CES Para 3.4) [Storm Report; Pond Conv]

See Document Markup

This is ok for the control riser, but both FC and WQ facility volumes must be "equivalent" to those in the CES Design Report. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]

See Document Markup

In order to meet WQ, the dead storage must match the CES design, not the blown out pond condition. CES WQ Storage = 23,454cf. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]

See Document Markup

If this is the footprint, then only 8,192cf of WQ volume is provided. Need to match the CES Design WQ Volume of 23,454cf. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]

See Document Markup

Once WQ wetpool volume (23454cf) is accounted for, will the same flow frequency results be obtained? [Storm Report; Pond Conv]

See Document Markup

These WQ values have no meaning (hypothetical pond). Need to match the original CES design WQ volume to provide the same level of treatment at the time of the original pond approval. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]

See Document Markup

Gravel Bed Footprint = 20,480sf

See Document Markup

Revise per review comments. [Storm Report; Pond Conv]

See Document Markup

Please label as "Dead Storage" (wetpool for WQ) [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 3]

See Document Markup

Per CES design report, total dead storage below El 66.55 (70.05) for WQ should be 23,454cf. [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 3]

See Document Markup

Adjust elevations for 3.5ft conversion factor from NGVD29 to NAVD88. [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 3]

See Document Markup

Shouldn't this be zero (bottom of live storage)? [Storm Report; Fig 5}

See Document Markup

Shouldn't this be zero (bottom of live storage)? [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 5]

See Document Markup

These WQ values have no meaning. WQ volume should be based on CES's original wetpond design (23,454cf) [Storm Report, Pond Conv; Fig 6]

See Document Markup

This appears to be the pond volumes based on the as-surveyed condition. The conversion design must match the FC volumes (and release rates) as well as the original WQ volume of 23,454cf. [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 6]

See Document Markup

Match original WQ volume of 23, 454cf and account for the backfill void space. [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 6]

Other/Miscellaneous

Comments regarding design and construction of new utilities and road improvements are provided for the applicant’s information and use. Unless specifically noted, design and construction of these infrastructure improvements is not a condition of Preliminary Site Plan (PSP) approval. However, infrastructure improvements must be approved and permitted prior to issuance of the first building permit.

Other/Miscellaneous

The applicant’s stormwater response letter dated December 14, 2021 makes a number of accusations and incorrect statements regarding the City’s prior review comments. As clearly indicated in City codes, standards, as well as the Ecology Manual, a proposed project must provide sufficient technical information to allow a finding that the proposed stormwater design is viable. In the case of East Town Crossing, the applicant has proposed the use of permeable pavement constructed on engineered fill above subgrade soils with zero infiltrative capacity. At a minimum, two conditions must be met for permeable pavement to be feasibile; 1) adequate hydraulic conductivity, and 2) the ability of the underlying soils (engineered fill) to provide water quality treatment for pollution generating surfaces (drive aisles and parking areas). If either of these conditions is not met, then permeable pavement is not feasible. Although the applicant has made reasonable assumptions regarding hydraulic conductivity, the applicant has not provided any supporting information that clarifies how the pollution generating hard surfaces onsite will meet water quality standards. Until that information is received, the use of permeable pavement on engineered fill is not viable. As stated in previous DRT letters, prior to PSP approval, provide acknowledgment from a licensed geotechnical engineer that the proposed import fill can/will meet the treatment criteria as well as the assumed infiltration rate; or provide other documentation that clarifies how the proposed pollution generating hard surfaces will meet water quality regulations.

Other/Miscellaneous

The City does not agree with the applicant’s assertion that “the fact that the entire roof areas [sic] has been modeled to be dispersed to permeable pavement (concrete or asphalt) is the defining determination of feasibility”. The Ecology Manual clearly states that concentrated stormwater intended to be infiltrated shall have a minimum separation to any restrictive layer of 5-feet unless a mounding analysis would support a separation down to 3-feet. Based on the recent PIT testing, the restrictive layer is essentially the existing ground surface, and considering the applicant’s intention to import 1 to 3 feet of engineered fill, the minimum separation of 5-feet cannot be met…deeming the proposed Onsite stormwater plan not viable. The use of bioretention would allow a minimum separation of 1 to 3 feet depending on tributary area, but bioretention is no longer proposed for the Onsite stormwater design. In addition, due to the minimal depth to the restrictive layer on this site, the City will require a mounding analysis for any infiltration facility other than permeable pavement in accordance with Ecology Volume III, Section 3.3.4. Per previous review comment, prior to PSP approval, provide acknowledgement from a licensed geotechnical engineer that the proposed stormwater design is feasible considering the Ecology Manual separation requirements and the potential for mounding at locations where roof runoff is discharged into the permeable pavement reservoir course.

Other/Miscellaneous

The preliminary storm report indicates the use of run-on from conventional pavement drive aisles onto permeable pavement parking areas. The applicant is correct that BMP T5.15 Permeable Pavement “…does not state anywhere in the limitation and or design sections that Permeable Pavement MUST be used for pavement areas where feasible”. However, Ecology Manual, Vol. I, Minimum Requirement 5 (MR5) specifies “Where pavement is proposed, it must be permeable to the extent feasible unless full dispersion is employed”. Since the applicant is proposing permeable pavement on imported engineered fill as feasible on the parking areas of the project site, then it is obvious that permeable pavement would also be feasible on the drive aisles and walking paths which are also intended to be constructed on imported fill. The applicant’s misunderstanding of the context of BMP T5.15 warrants clarification. Run-on onto permeable pavement areas is allowed by the Ecology Manual…provided, the proposed project demonstrates compliance with the LID Performance Standard. Otherwise, MR5 List 2 governs and the project must provide permeable pavement where feasible. As of this writing, the preliminary storm reports submitted to date have not provided sufficient information that would support a conclusion of complying with the LID Performance Standard considering the minimum separation requirements necessary for infiltrating roof runoff. In accordance with prior review comments, and prior to PSP approval, revise the stormwater design to either comply with the LID Performance Standard, provide permeable pavement where feasible, or justify a finding of infeasibility.

Other/Miscellaneous

The proposed Pioneer Way bioswale detail (Storm Report, Figure F5) indicates the outlet to be approximately 1.2 feet above the bottom of the swale resulting in standing water within the bioswale. Per Ecology, the bioswale must drain within 48 hours to ensure water quality viability. Since this bioswale is also a flow control facility, please revise the bioswale design to ensure the proposed Pioneer Way stormwater design is viable.

Other/Miscellaneous

At the time of the Preliminary Site Plan application, the site is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area Unnumbered A-Zone as determined by the National Flood Insurance Program Community Panel Number 53053C0342E, dated March 7, 2017. However, the applicant has recently submitted a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to FEMA requesting approval of a revised floodplain delineation. Please be aware that landuse approval cannot be granted until the flood study is approved by FEMA, or a separate written agreement is executed between the applicant and the City outlining the conditions necessary for the project to either adhere to current floodplain regulations, including compensatory storage requirements, or restoration of the project site to its pre-development existing condition.

See Document Markup

-Provide preliminary geotechnical information, or an acknowledgement letter, which would support proposed infiltration rates. For BMPs placed on fill, provide geotechnical engineer's recommendation for preliminary infiltration rate and justification of correction factors used (See Vol. III, Table 3.4.1 and Table 3.4.2 ). [Storm Report; Cover]

See Document Markup

The preliminary storm report indicates the use of run-on onto permeable pavement areas. Please be aware that permeable pavement must be used for any pavement areas "where feasible" if choosing the MR5 List Option rather than the LID Performance Standard. If the design intent is to meet the LID Performance Standard, then any concentrated infiltration facility (roof runoff) must meet Ecology's separation criteria. [Storm Report; Cover]

See Document Markup

6.03ac per 2002 CES Design Report. [Storm Report; Pg3]

See Document Markup

Discuss existing floodplain and status of flood study. [Storm Report; Pg 3]

See Document Markup

Note: Any storm facility serving public infrastructure must be located in ROW or located in a tract dedicated to the City. [Storm Report; Pg 6]

See Document Markup

60-in shown on Fig A4 [Storm Report; Pg6]

See Document Markup

Provide FEMA floodplain map for the project site. [Storm Report; Appendix A]

See Document Markup

WQ Volume required = 23, 454cf No Good.[Storm Report; Pond Conv]

See Document Markup

Due to depth of groundwater (El 70.63) and the history of failures associated with clay liners in saturated conditions, a synthetic liner shall be used. [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 9]

See Document Markup

Min. wetpool storage for WQ is 23,454cf below live storage per CES design report) [Storm Report; Pond Conv, Fig 9]

See Document Markup

Liner must be impervious due to groundwater levels onsite. [Storm Report; Pond Conv.; Fig 9]

See Document Markup

At time of civil application, the lower arm of the control riser shall extend 2-ft below the Dead Storage elevation. [Storm Report; Pond Conv; Fig 9]

See Document Markup

6.03ac per 2002 CES Design Report. [Storm Report; Fig. B2]

See Document Markup

-Will WDFW allow easterly grass-lined ditch to tie directly to stream (exist'g cond'n) and avoid mixing "clean" ditch runoff and stream with the PGIS frontage? -If WDFW does not allow the ditch-to-stream connection, then construct the proposed conveyance pipe to align with the storm main along the frontage. [Storm Report; Pioneer Basin Map]

See Document Markup

-Not sure how this works...it appears that the stream culvert, frontage storm main, and biocell outlet pipe all enter the "splitter structure"? If so, then the biocell stormwater is simply being recirculated from/to the splitter. [Storm Report; Pioneer Basin Map]

See Document Markup

Exist'g stub...best place to discharge biocell into downstream system if doable. (May be worthwhile to rerun a new pipe to the Biocell. [Storm Report; Pioneer Basin Map]

See Document Markup

New structure req'd if connection to exist'g stub (if in sidewalk, address ADA at time of civil). [Storm Report; Pioneer Basin Map]

See Document Markup

Esmt Reqd for any public storm infrastructure not in ROW.[Storm Report; Pioneer Basin Map]

See Document Markup

Is it possible to inlet easterly frontage flows across stream culvert using DI and 1-ft cover to avoid mixing the PGIS w/ the stream; then gutter flow only to westerly CB and 2nd Biocell inlet? This would allow the stream and easterly ditch to bypass the frontage storm facility altogether [Storm Report; Pioneer Basin Map

See Document Markup

Based on pipe alignment shown and the flow splitter detail, it seems the polluted road water is mixing with the clean stream water prior to the road water being treated. If doable, the stream should be isolated from the PGIS until after treatment of the road runoff. [Storm Report; Pioneer Basin Map]

See Document Markup

Since flow control is triggered, is the biocell large enough to treat all of the frontage basin? This would eliminate the need for a splitter structure. [Storm Report; Pioneer Basin Map]

See Document Markup

At time of civil, locate storm main at proposed curb alignment per standards. Provide stub and cap for future connection. [Storm Report; Pioneer Basin Map]

See Document Markup

Stub and cap if WDFW allows ditch connection to stream.[Storm Report; Pioneer Basin Map]

See Document Markup

Clarify...vault is connected to POC, but it appears that the vault is discharging back into the flow splitter per the Bioswale Detail Sheet. [Storm Report; Fig. D3]

See Document Markup

Please be aware that discharging roof runoff to the permeable pavement reservoir course is only acceptable if there is adequate separation to the restrictive layer and an individual subbasin meets the LID Performance Standard, otherwise List 2 BMPs would apply. If List 2 applies, then roof runoff must be evaluated per MR5 BMPs. BMP T5.10A is not applicable (high density multi-family) then bioretention must be considered. If bioretention infeasible, then roof infiltration would require a minimum separation of 5ft to the restrictive layer...which is not possible based on the geotech analysis. (A separation down to 3ft would be allowed if supported by a mounding analysis). [Storm Report; Onsite Basin Map]

See Document Markup

Due to the minimal depth to the restrictive layer on this site, any infiltration facility other than permeable pavement will require a mounding analysis in accordance with Ecology Vol. III, Section 3.3.4. [Storm Report; Onsite Basin Map]

See Document Markup

Drive aisles must be permeable if feasible per Ecology MR5 [Storm Report; Onsite Basin Map]

See Document Markup

It is unclear where/how the stream culvert enters along with the road frontage conveyance pipe and the bioswale outlet pipe (see Fig. D1). How does the combined volume of the stream and easterly ditch compare to the frontage volume? It would seem that the frontage runoff would be significantly diluted prior to being treated. [Storm Report; Fig. F4]

See Document Markup

This area differs from the biocell shown on the Basin Map. [Storm Report; Bioswale Details]

See Document Markup

Standing Water Elevation...won't drain down w/in 48hrs. Redesign accordingly. [Storm Report; Bioswale Details]

See Document Markup

Any storm facility serving public infrastructure must be in ROW or a tract dedicated to the City. [Storm Report; Bioswale Details]

Other/Miscellaneous

If any portion of the project site remains in a regulated floodplain after FEMA’s LOMR determination, development of the property shall adhere to the regulations contained in PMC Chapter 21.07. Specifically: - The applicant shall submit a habitat assessment prepared by a qualified professional evaluating the effects and/or indirect effects of the proposed development (during both construction and post-construction) on floodplain functions and documenting that the proposed development will not result in “take” of any species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). - If it is determined that the proposed project will impact any listed species or their habitat, the applicant shall provide a mitigation plan to achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions as those lost prior to development of the site. - Provide compensatory storage, if necessary, in accordance with PMC 21.07.060(1)f. - The lowest floor of any structure, including any basement, shall be elevated 1-foot (min) above the BFE and/or floodproofed to 1-foot (min) above the BFE. Please be aware that providing additional freeboard above the BFE can reduce insurance premiums. - No occupancy permit shall be issued until such time as a Federal Emergency Management Agency Elevation Certificate is completed based on “Finished Construction” and submitted to the Engineering Services Manager.

See Document Markup

Culvert appears to conflict with the existing power pole. [Storm Report; Pioneer Basin Map]

See Document Markup

See review comments in the Preliminary Storm Report. Make revisions as needed. [Site Plan Part 1-Storm Master Plan; Pg 74]

See Document Markup

Indicate the flow control facilities for the individual building structures considering the Ecology Manual minimum separation requirements for infiltrating concentrated storm runoff. [Site Plan Part 1-Storm Master Plan; Pg 74]

See Document Markup

Culvert appears to conflict with the existing power pole. [Site Plan Part 1-Storm Master Plan; Pg 74]

See Document Markup

See review comments in the Preliminary Storm Report. Make revisions as needed. [Site Plan Part 1-Storm Detention Plan; Pg 77]

See Document Markup

See review comments in the Preliminary Storm Report. Make revisions as needed. [Site Plan Part 1-Pioneer Frontage Storm Plan; Pg 79]

See Document Markup

The stream realignment is subject to the review and approval of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Prior to Preliminary Site Plan approval, the applicant shall acknowledge that the WDFW conditions of approval may revise the proposed stream realignment which in turn could necessitate revisions to the site plan currently being considered under this application. [Site Plan Part 1-Pioneer Frontage Storm Plan; Pg 79]

See Document Markup

See review comments in the Preliminary Storm Report. Make revisions as needed. [Site Plan Part 1-Storm Notes and Details; Pg 81]

See Document Markup

See review comments in the Preliminary Storm Report. Make revisions as needed. [Site Plan Part 1-Storm Notes and Details; Pg 81]

See Document Markup

See review comments in the Preliminary Storm Report. Make revisions as needed. [Site Plan Part 2-Impervious Surfacing Plan; Pg 1]

See Document Markup

See review comments in the Preliminary Storm Report. Make revisions as needed. [Site Plan Part 2-Aisle/Pervious/Roof Drain Exhibit; Pg 2]

See Document Markup

See review comments in the Preliminary Storm Report. Make revisions as needed. [Site Plan Part 2-Pioneer Storm Details; Pg 4]

See Document Markup

See review comments in the Preliminary Storm Report. Make revisions as needed. [Site Plan Part 2-Pioneer Frontage Plan; Pg 10]

See Document Markup

Publicly maintained storm facilities shall be in a dedicated tract. [Site Plan Part 1-Storm Notes and Details; Pg 81]

See Document Markup

Remove/Relocate Exist'g Power Pole [Site Plan Part 2-Shaw Road Frontage Plan; Pg 9]

See Document Markup

Non-standard design...must have documented City Engineer approval (AMR? Other?). [Site Plan Part 2-Shaw Road Frontage Plan; Pg 9]

See Document Markup

See review comments in the Preliminary Storm Report. Make revisions as needed. [Site Plan Part 2-Pioneer Frontage Plan; Pg 10]

See Document Markup

Curb alignment does not appear to align with the Pioneer Crossing curb west of Shaw Road. [Site Plan Part 2-Pioneer Frontage Plan; Pg 10]

See Document Markup

Per City Standards, curb radius must align with future curb extension. If non-standard design is desired, then City Engineer approval must be obtained using the AMR process. [Site Plan Part 2-Pioneer Frontage Plan; Pg 10]

See Document Markup

Depending on the outcome of the City Engineer's decision, if the non-standard curb radius AMR is not approved, then the existing power pole must be relocated to the future planter strip area. If the AMR is approved, there must be a minimum of 4-ft separation between the travel lane and face of pole while meeting City Standard taper requirements. If 4-ft cannot be provided, the power pole must be relocated. [Site Plan Part 2-Pioneer Frontage Plan; Pg 10]

Other/Miscellaneous

The December 2021 resubmittal has proposed a realignment of the regulated stream that runs along the east property line which currently discharges to the existing Pioneer Way ditch. The applicant is aware that the stream realignment is subject to the review and approval of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Prior to Preliminary Site Plan approval, the applicant shall acknowledge that the WDFW conditions of approval may revise the proposed stream realignment which in turn could necessitate revisions to the site plan currently being considered under this application.

Other/Miscellaneous

Per City Standards, the easterly Pioneer Way curb radius must align with future curb extension. If non-standard design is desired, then City Engineer approval must be obtained using the AMR process prior to Preliminary Site Plan approval. Depending on the outcome of the City Engineer's decision, if the non-standard curb radius AMR is not approved, then the existing power pole must be relocated to the future planter strip area. If the AMR is approved, there must be a minimum of 4-ft separation between the travel lane and face of pole while meeting City Standard taper requirements. If 4-ft cannot be provided, the power pole must be relocated.

See Document Markup

per MTC report dated April 13, 2022, Falling Head tests were conducted. [MTC Letter 6/30/22; Pg 5]

See Document Markup

also adequate separation [MTC Letter 6/30/22; Pg 5]

See Document Markup

Krazan subsequently revised the groundwater depth to 3ft bgs based on monitoring well results. [MTC Letter 6/30/22; Pg 6]

See Document Markup

A revised stormwater report and preliminary storm design was not provided with this submittal. See prior stormwater review comments outlined in DRT letter dated May 6, 2022. [Prelim Civil Dwgs Part 1; Cover Sheet]

See Document Markup

At time of civil application, emphasize the grading aspects of the project and minimize the other backgrounds (buildings, utilities, amenities, etc) for legibility.[Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Grading Master Plan]

See Document Markup

At time of civil application, emphasize the grading aspects of the project and minimize the other backgrounds (buildings, utilities, amenities, etc) for legibility.[Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Grading Plan West]

See Document Markup

At time of civil application, emphasize the grading aspects of the project and minimize the other backgrounds (buildings, utilities, amenities, etc) for legibility.[Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Grading Plan East]

See Document Markup

At time of civil application, emphasize the storm design and minimize the other backgrounds (buildings, other utilities, amenities, etc) for legibility.[Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Master Plan]

See Document Markup

Per prior comment, DRT letter dated May 6, 2022: The preliminary storm report indicates the use of run-on onto permeable pavement areas. Please be aware that permeable pavement must be used for any pavement areas "where feasible" if choosing the MR5 List Option rather than the LID Performance Standard. If the design intent is to meet the LID Performance Standard, then any concentrated infiltration facility (roof runoff) must meet Ecology's separation criteria.[Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Master Plan]

See Document Markup

An updated storm design and report was not provided with this resubmittal. As discussed in the DRTletter dated May 6, 2022, as well as multiple meetings, the proposed storm design does not meet currentregulations and must be revised prior to preliminary site plan approval. The Ecology Manual clearlystates that concentrated stormwater (roof runoff) intended to be infiltrated shall have a minimumseparation to any restrictive layer of 5-feet unless a mounding analysis would support a separation downto 3-feet. Based on submitted PIT test results, the restrictive layer is essentially the existing groundsurface, and considering the applicant?s intention to import 1 to 3 feet of engineered fill, the minimumseparation of 5-feet cannot be met…deeming the proposed Onsite stormwater plan not viable.[Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Master Plan]

See Document Markup

In addition to Ecology criteria, the storm outlet design is subject to WDFW conditions and approval. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Master Plan]

See Document Markup

If this is intended to be a combined water quality and flow control facility, the design must adhere to Ecology criteria outlined in Ecology Manual Vol V for combined facilities, i.e., 2 cell design for WQ, etc. Similarly, the design must meet the WQ treatment and detention volumes of the original, approved, CES design. See prior comments in the Storm Report dated December 15, 2021. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Master Plan]

See Document Markup

Gravel Bed porosity to be verified at time of civil application. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Master Plan]

See Document Markup

Per prior review comment, culvert appears to conflict with the existing power pole. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Master Plan]

See Document Markup

Per prior review comments, indicated the methodology of flow control for building structures considering the Ecology Manual minimum separation requirements for infiltrating concentrated storm runoff and/or retention facilities.[Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Master Plan]

See Document Markup

At time of civil application, emphasize the storm design and minimize the other backgrounds (buildings, other utilities, amenities, etc) for legibility.[Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Plan West]

See Document Markup

At time of civil application, emphasize the storm design and minimize the other backgrounds (buildings, other utilities, amenities, etc) for legibility.[Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Plan East]

See Document Markup

Outlet to stream subject to WDFW requirements. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Profiles]

See Document Markup

Per prior comment, DRT letter dated May 6, 2022: Liner must be impervious due to groundwater levels onsite. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Detention Plan]

See Document Markup

Per prior comment, DRT letter dated May 6, 2022: Min. wetpool storage for WQ is 23,454cf below live storage per CES design report. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Detention Plan]

See Document Markup

Wetpool storage volume for WQ must account for the porosity of the glass backfill. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Detention Plan]

See Document Markup

Per prior comment, DRT letter dated May 6, 2022: At time of civil application, the lower arm of the control riser shall extend 2-ft below the Dead Storage elevation (per Ecology reqts). [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Detention Plan]

See Document Markup

Per prior comment, DRT letter dated May 6, 2022: Due to depth of groundwater (El 70.63) and the history of failures associated with clay liners in saturated conditions, a synthetic liner shall be used. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Detention Plan]

See Document Markup

If this is intended to be a combined water quality and flow control facility, the design must adhere to Ecology criteria outlined in Ecology Manual Vol V for combined facilities, i.e., 2 cell design for WQ, etc. Similarly, the design must meet the WQ treatment and detention volumes of the original, approved, CES design. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Detention Plan]

See Document Markup

This is confusing. What is meant by Treatment Liner? There is no infiltration to subgrade, so no treatment capability through the liner, and the original design was based on WQ wetpool volume. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Storm Detention Plan]

See Document Markup

Per prior comment, DRT letter dated May 6, 2022: The preliminary storm report indicates the use of run-on onto permeable pavement areas. Please be aware that permeable pavement must be used for any pavement areas "where feasible" if choosing the MR5 List Option rather than the LID Performance Standard. If the design intent is to meet the LID Performance Standard, then any concentrated infiltration facility (roof runoff) must meet Ecology's minimum separation criteria.[Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Aisle/Pervious/Roof Drain Exhibit]

See Document Markup

Per prior comment, DRT letter dated May 6, 2022: Please be aware that discharging roof runoff to the permeable pavement reservoir course is only acceptable if there is adequate separation to the restrictive layer and an individual subbasin meets the LID Performance Standard, otherwise List 2 BMPs would apply. If List 2 applies, then roof runoff must be evaluated per MR5 BMPs. BMP T5.10A is not applicable (high density multi-family) then bioretention must be considered. If bioretention infeasible, then roof infiltration would require a minimum separation of 5ft to the restrictive layer...which is not possible based on the geotech analysis. (A separation down to 3ft would be allowed if supported by a mounding analysis). [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Aisle/Pervious/Roof Drain Exhibit]

See Document Markup

Drive aisles must be permeable if feasible per Ecology MR5. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Aisle/Pervious/Roof Drain Exhibit]

See Document Markup

Refer to APWA GSPs for permeable pavement design criteria. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Aisle/Pervious/Roof Drain Exhibit]

See Document Markup

Refer to APWA GSPs for permeable pavement design criteria. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Aisle/Pervious/Roof Drain Exhibit]

See Document Markup

Refer to APWA GSPs for permeable pavement design criteria. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Shaw Storm Details]

See Document Markup

Per prior review comments, face of existing light standard must be 24in (min) from face of curb. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Shaw Storm Details]

See Document Markup

Sidewalk should be permeable if feasible. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Pioneer Storm Details]

See Document Markup

Min. 4-ft clear zone required btwn existing pole and travel lane. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Pioneer Storm Details]

See Document Markup

See prior review comments in the Preliminary Storm Report dated December 15, 2021 and DRT letter dated May 6, 2022 for requested frontage revision and alignment.[Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Pioneer Frontage Storm Plan]

See Document Markup

Per prior review comments outlined in the DRT letter dated May 6, 2022, the stream realignment is subject to the review and approval of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Prior to Preliminary Site Plan approval, the applicant shall acknowledge that the WDFW conditions of approval may revise the proposed stream realignment which in turn could necessitated revisions to the site plan currently being considered under this application. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Pioneer Frontage Storm Plan]

See Document Markup

Per prior review comments outlined in the DRT letter dated May 6, 2022, it appears the existing power pole conflicts with the proposed stream culvert. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 1; Pioneer Frontage Storm Plan]

See Document Markup

See prior review comments in the Preliminary Storm Report dated December 15, 2021 and DRT letter dated May 6, 2022 for requested frontage revision and alignment.[Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 2; Pioneer Frontage Storm Plan]

See Document Markup

Per prior review comment, Standing Water Elevation...won't drain down w/in 48hrs. Redesign accordingly. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 2; Pioneer Frontage Storm Details]

See Document Markup

See prior review comments in the storm report dated December 15, 2021. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 2; Pioneer Frontage Storm Details]

See Document Markup

See prior review comments outlined in the Preliminary Storm Report dated December 15, 2021 and the DRT letter dated May 6, 2022. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 2; Pioneer Frontage Storm Details]

See Document Markup

See prior review comments on the Water Master Plan previous submittal and DRT letter dated May 6, 2022. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 2; Water Master Plan]

See Document Markup

This is a duplicate of Sheet 10 of 21, this packet. [Prelim Civil Dwgs Part 2; Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Sht 16]

See Document Markup

See prior review comments on the Shaw Frontage Plan previous submittal and DRT letter dated May 6, 2022. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 2; Shaw Frontage Plan]

See Document Markup

See prior review comments on the Pioneer Frontage Plan previous submittal and DRT letter dated May 6, 2022. [Prelim. Civil Dwgs Part 2; Pioneer Frontage Plan]

Other/Miscellaneous

• Plans would need to be complete at the time of submittal with all building, plumbing, mechanical, truss specs stamped by the truss engineer and showing all current 2018 I-codes. • Include 2018 Washington State Energy code items and supporting reports for new construction. • This is not a complete plan review but informational only. No other Building items at this time. Contact me for any clarification of building requirements.

Other/Miscellaneous

• SHEET 4/74 ARCHITECTURAL_R2: Provide complete calculations per note “SEE FRONTAGE CALULATIONS FOR AREA INCREASE ON SHEET #AG1.2”. Sheets are not labeled and did not find any calculations to support proposed increases for each building. Identify areas claiming as yards as unable to confirm “modifications to the base allowable area” based on what is shown on page 4 of 74. STANDARD COMMENTS • Building plans will need to be complete with all building, mechanical, plumbing, energy code items and accessibility requirements that may apply on the plans for complete review during Building permit application. All building code related eliminates will be reviewed to codes during building plan review. • The truss specs will also be required with the truss engineers’ stamps and a layout that matches the submitted plans at the time of submittal. • The R-2 apartments 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. • Apartments are required to have Type A & B units for accessibility, and this will need to be clearly depicted on the plans. • Plans will need to be per the applicable codes 2018 adopted February 1, 2021, for all permits. • All electrical is permitted by the Washington State Department of L & I. • Accessible parking and access to the public way will be required. For all accessible requirements the City adopted the 2018 IBC / WAC 51-50 and the ICC A117.1-2009 standard. • Please reach out to me if I can answer any other questions in relationship to Building code items for this project. • Architectual plans must detail compliance for Electrical Vehicle charging:

Other/Miscellaneous

CRITICAL AREAS – STREAM BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN: Currently under review by city’s critical areas consultant (Confluence). See 08/03/22 review letter in Portal. CRITICAL AREAS – GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW: Soil liquefaction report being reviewed by Building Division

Other/Miscellaneous

SEPA: The city’s Safe Routes to Schools Plan indicates a need to slow and calm traffic on this high speed 5 lane arterial corridor; this project is within the walk distance of Shaw Road elementary - school children are expected to walk to and from the site to attend. The project is anticipated to be required through SEPA to mitigate existing unsafe conditions to allow safe walking for children residing in the area as a result of the project impacts. This may include speed zone signage off site, or some other form of improvements, in coordination with the School District, Public Works and the city Traffic Engineer. Please be aware this is anticipated to be a SEPA mitigation measure.

See Document Markup

provide ADA raised pathway cross walk. [arch site plan sheet 1]

See Document Markup

Landscaping with a wall or berm required by code. 25' landscape setback required by SPO overlay [arch site plan sheet 1]

See Document Markup

Plaza space oriented to street corner required - Shaw Road has a min/max setback. See PMC 20.30.037 [arch site plan sheet 1]

See Document Markup

Plaza area and street orientation required - max setback is 20' See PMC 20.30.037 [arch site plan sheet 1]

See Document Markup

25' setback for building H and adjacent car port [arch site plan sheet 1]

See Document Markup

SPO overlay only allows 25' landscaping between building and street - not drive thru lane, [arch site plan sheet 1]

See Document Markup

Landscape yard at zero [arch site plan sheet 1]

See Document Markup

10' building setback from buffer. 10 foot building setback from all buffers required by PMC 21.06.840. [arch site plan sheet 1]

See Document Markup

10' building setback from buffer. 10 foot building setback from all buffers required by PMC 21.06.840. [arch site plan sheet 1.

See Document Markup

Swale cannot conflict with site plan design principles and landscape code. Remaining questions about plantings to meet landscaping code.

Other/Miscellaneous

RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN: Building setbacks from all roadway frontages (Shaw and Pioneer) is 25’ per PMC 20.25.020 (12). Building H and the adjacent car port structure appears to not meet this standard and may only be constructed as shown if the Development Agreement authorizes setbacks. Can cumulative adjustments to yard spaces within the court yard and yard spaces for buildings G and H be made to adjust the setback along Shaw Road to 25’ for building H? Can the carport nearest Shaw Road be omitted?

Other/Miscellaneous

RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN: Please remove the on site school bus stop improvements, per the direction from PSD staff and city Traffic Engineer, provided on June 27. Provide frontage stop improvements per the same guidance provided.

Other/Miscellaneous

RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN: PMC 21.06.840 requires a 10’ building setback from all critical area buffers.

Other/Miscellaneous

RM PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS – DENSITY BONUSES - UPDATED ANALYSIS AUGUST, 2022: The overall land area is now described as 8.67a, which allows a total of 139 total units (8.67 X 16 units/acre). However, land area on the open space calculation sheets still indicates 8.29a. Please provide correct calculations from a land surveyor. CRITICAL AREA BUFFER DENSITY TRANSFER - UPDATED ANALYSIS AUGUST, 2022: To transfer the density from the off-site stream buffer, a permanent protective easement shall be established pursuant to PMC 21.06. – a copy must be provided with the preliminary site plan application for TPN 0420351000. The land area involved and shown in the June 29, 2022 indicates: 1.35 acres off-site RS-10 land area (4 units per acre) and .96 acres on site RM-20 land area in critical area and buffer. - 1.35a X 4 units/a = 5 units X .25 bonus density transfer = 1.25 transfer density units - .96a X 16 units/a = 15 units X .25 bonus density transfer = 4 transfer density units - 5 units eligible for transfer from critical areas Other notes: - Please ensure the calculation does not include areas of buffer on CG zoned lands (the buffer calc. exhibit shows a small area (roughly 1,100 square feet) on CG which cannot be used to transfer residential density). - Is the area of the Williams pipe line on the far SE corner of the site plan a buffer area eligible for transfer? OPEN SPACE BONUS - UPDATED ANALYSIS AUGUST, 2022: This bonus is related to centralized active open space above and beyond the required active amenity area required by 20.25.040 (2)(A). T). The analysis shows the site qualifies for this bonus from a land area calculation. Please notes that active open space amenities will be checked at the final permit (civil) stage. – 8.67a X 16 units = 139 units (base allowed by RM-20). - 139 units X .15 bonus = 21 density units eligible for open space PUBLIC TRANSIT: Bus stops for School District only will not count toward this requirement per the code text requirements for bonuses. An off-site public transit stop improvement will be required at the time of civils. City staff will facilitate the site location identification, as we have with other developments. The density bonus calculation is: - 139 units X .05 = 7 units eligible for transit stop improvements. ADA units. Code requires: “Provision of handicapped accessible dwelling units and at least one parking stall per unit designated for handicapped use adjacent to the dwelling units such that 100% of said bonus units are in addition to the number required through the building code and Americans with Disabilities Act”. This is in addition to building code-required units – this needs to be verified with your architect . This also requires additional ADA parking stalls. The bonus is provided based on above and beyond the base building code requirements for ADA units. Your architect still needs to provide a memo documenting base IRC code requirements (X number of units), plus the 14 required based on the bonus (Y number of units) and show how the site meets the total (X + Y), as well as show that all ADA parking stalls are provided on the site plan. All bonus units must be Type A accessible. Per the city's building code official's calculation, 9.3 units are required for the site. The calculation is based on the overall total units that would be permitted maximum, with the bonus applied. The density bonus calculation is 139 units X .10 = 13.9 units. The density bonus calculation is always based on the base quantity of units allowed by zoning, without any bonuses applied. The total number of type A accessible ADA units would therefore be 23.2, or 23 total units. The site plan presently indicates only 10 are provided. The project architect will need to provide 23 accessible parking stalls, and the appropriate number of van accessible stalls based on the IBC ratios. Some accessible stalls will need to be provided under carport cover. Please provide this in the architects memo. Max density calculation potential = 5 units (critical areas) + 21 (open space) + 7 (transit) + 14 (ADA – not yet eligible - needs to be verified) = 47 bonus units potentially allowed, but not verified. 47 bonus units + 139 base (based on 8.67a land area - land area needs to be verified by a surveyor) = 186 units possible, but not verified as eligible without further analysis. The proposed 193 units exceeds the maximum cap with density bonuses, assuming the ADA units and parking stalls are provided to meet the density bonuses.

Other/Miscellaneous

LANDSCAPING: Any DA landscape yard proposed cannot be assumed until the DA is approved. Please reference previous review notes for correct yard areas. Once the DA is approved, the corrected yards will be plan checked at the civil permit stage. The type IV landscape islands can be adjusted administratively. LANDSCAPING: The buffer area on the south side of the stream corridor on East Pioneer and the entire east site of the site plan shall include only native plants. The landscape plan sheets show cultivated varieties of ornamentals in the stream buffer areas. The stream mitigation plan landscaping sheets do not show a large enough area of native buffer – please reconcile the sheets. This will also be covered in the Confluence letter review (separate cover). LANDSCAPING: Please specify the ‘marsh mix’ of plants. The bio swale area near the Shaw/Pioneer corner must be landscaped to meet the intent of the Type II landscape design. Grass line swales do not qualify to meet code. I cannot locate the marsh mix on the details sheets. Additionally, the swale is conflicting with the building location (PMC 20.30.037).

Other/Miscellaneous

COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN: Lot 2 drive through land use – the Shaw Pioneer overlay district requires “a 25-foot arterial setback shall be preferred in CG/CB zones and the setback area shall be landscaped. Arterial setbacks of less than 25 feet may be permitted upon demonstration that the setback is landscaped and provides a pedestrian-friendly experience consistent with subsection (3) of this section. Buildings shall be oriented toward the adjacent street(s) and separated from the street by the above landscaped setback.” The drive-through restaurant separates the building frontage from the public street – a 25’ landscaped setback with a berm is required. The drive through lane is not allowed to separate the building frontage from the street ROW and may only be deviated from through the DA.

Other/Miscellaneous

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW– COMMERCIAL: Provide analysis for PMC 20.26.300 (1)-(5), PMC 20.46 (SPO Overlay) and 20.30.037 (site plan design principles) related to the two commercial structures.

Other/Miscellaneous

COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN: Please provide parking space break down per proposed building use(s). A total of 73 stalls are provided – we need a break down based on total floor area and land uses anticipated.

Other/Miscellaneous

COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN: A required plaza space on the lot 1 commercial building shall be located on the Shaw Road and Pioneer side per PMC 20.30.037; additional landscape area (min. 8 feet) shall be located between the plaza and the Shaw Road shared use path, with a large perpendicular access walk way connecting to the shared use path. Additional comments will occur at the time of civil.

Other/Miscellaneous

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW – RESIDENTIAL: PMC 20.26.200 (4)(b)(iv). Please address the code requirements with a revised architects narrative and how the roof line change for each building is meeting code, staff cannot determine compliance: “Roofline variety in buildings over one story in height such that no ridgeline is greater than 24 feet in length without a two-foot vertical or sloped offset that creates a new ridgeline that is at least 10 feet in length”. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW– RESIDENTIAL: PMC 20.26.200 (5)(b)(iv). The Abbey Road 12/22/21 response letter does not describe the approach to change in each story of the building how the horizontal change is met. The lower floor on buildings 1, 2 and 3 has a pronounced horizontal trim band but stories above do not. Code contemplates between stories, not limited to the lowest floor only. “Between the stories of a building, a change in materials or color separated by continuous horizontal trim bands, continuous horizontal decorative masonry, or a recess or projection by at least two feet ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW– RESIDENTIAL: PMC 20.26.200 (6)(b). Section (6)(b) requires some level of variation between all 8 buildings and cannot ‘photo-copy’ the design throughout. If the DA is approved with a deviation, the allowed variation standard would be plan checked at the building permit stage. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW– RESIDENTIAL: PMC 20.26.200 (7) – entry design. Please provide a short narrative response on which standards (2) are being applied to the entry ways on each building type; each entry looks covered, but we cannot determine based on Abbey Road’s response which other standard is selected. The elevations don’t show enough detail to conduct determine on the two required methods used. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW– RESIDENTIAL: PMC 20.26.200 (8), (9) – Abutting RS zone standards. Staff is accepting of the issues related to the adjacent RS zoned property given that a protective easement for the stream corridor will substantially separate the site development from any future residential land uses.

Other/Miscellaneous

OPEN SPACE AND SITE LAND AREA: Open space calculation sheets provided (dated 05/17/22) indicate the site is 8.29a. The density calculation now states the site is 8.67a; four different calculations have been provided since the last resubmittal. Please provide a sheet from your land surveyor with a certified letter from your surveyor, indicating the correct and true land area of the RM zoned land area.

Other/Miscellaneous

LANDSCAPE: Please anticipate full comments at the time of civil permit on the overall landscape planting plans. Staff does not conduct full review at a preliminary site plan stage. However, some issues are noted right now that need to be accounted for in the design: - The landscaping in the road side stream are not reconciled with the stream re-vegetation plan and critical areas ordinance; these areas must be entirely designed as a stream buffer (native plantings only), in accordance with the project biologist recommendations. - The swale / water quality features on the street frontage on Pioneer must meet the type II landscaping requirements (variety of shrubs and trees) and cannot be grasses/rushes/sedges only. - Additional silva cells will be required under parking stalls adjacent to each reduced landscape island to mitigate for lost planting area.

See Document Markup

Additional density of plants and street trees required. Large trees must be used 25 ft OC. PSD school bus stop required back of walk. Please address at the time of civil permit. [landscape sheets, L1.1]

See Document Markup

Landscape yard must be 12 ft along this portion of Shaw Road frontage. Please address at the time of civil permit. [landscape sheets, L1.1]

See Document Markup

Row of large shade trees required in this area along main drive aisle. Adjust walkway to place the 6 ft landscape buffer along curb with trees, shift walkway along fenceline and away from curb line. Please address at the time of civil permit. [landscape sheets, L1.1]

See Document Markup

Add four large shade trees into the courtyard between buildings B and F to meet architectural design review . Please address at the time of civil permit. [landscape sheets, L1.2]

See Document Markup

All landscape islands shall have 3 silva cells on each side (6 total for each island, under parking stalls only) to compensate for reduced parking lot island sizes. Please address at the time of civil permit. [landscape sheets, L1.2]

See Document Markup

Adjust walkway interior to landscape to buffer walk way from main driveway. Please address at the time of civil permit. [landscape sheets, L1.3]

See Document Markup

Stream buffer area shall be landscaped in accordance with buffer mitigation plan from wetland biologist (native plantings only) [landscape sheets, L1.3]

See Document Markup

Add three large shade trees into the landscape areas around bldg A to meet architectural design review. Please address at the time of civil permit. [landscape sheets, L1.2]

See Document Markup

6'-6"

Other/Miscellaneous

City has not received an updated TIA for this project. It’s my understanding the applicant’s traffic engineer is working on updating this document. Please see email sent 2/4/2022 for additional information on TIA requirements. The City will need to review/approve this document prior to preliminary site plan approval. Also, the following items were not addressed during the previous review: 1. Right turn pocket was not evaluated at the E Pioneer Driveway using WSDOT Exhibit 1310-11. 2. Provide a narrative within your traffic analysis showing how this driveway would be evaluated using this WSDOT Exhibit 1310-11. Provide your professional opinion on how this exhibit should be interpreted for this development. City will require a reduced speed school zone to be installed for Shaw Rd Elementary. The City has determined a reduced speed school zone on Shaw Rd is feasible. Design required during civil submittal. Coordinate with Engineering staff regarding equipment specs. Civil plan set shall provide a detailed channelization plan for all striping & pavement markings in within ROW. All proposed striping shall meet City and MUTCD requirements. Plan shall include signage located in ROW. All City standard details related to pavement markings, striping, sign placement must be provided. Provide AutoTurn analysis for this radius (NBR movement from outside Shaw Rd lane) to ensure design vehicles can safely maneuver without impacting WBL turn pocket Street lighting plan will be reviewed during civil review. Please reference “conditions” section for street lighting design requirements. Preliminary streetlight design does not meet City standards. (SL1) The E Pioneer curb alignment does not match Pioneer crossing offset. I estimate the curb alignment needs to shift 2ft toward roadway centerline. This will place the curb at approximately 34ft from centerline. Please see “conditions” section for more details. (sheet 91) Per previous comment, ROW dedication on E Pioneer needs clarification. City estimates that only 52.5ft (from centerline) is needed along frontage. However, 56ft (from centerline) is shown. (sheet 91) On the east side of the E Pioneer driveway, the creek alignment needs to shift approximately 2ft south of current location (match offset/alignment on the west side of the driveway). This will avoid conflicts with future frontage improvements. (sheet 91) Per previous comments, sight distance analysis required at the E Pioneer driveway per City Standards. ESD of 415ft is required at this driveway. Assume 14.5ft setback from the E Pioneer curb alignment (west side only) and 3.5ft driver eye height. It appears there’s a pedestrian barricade and a fence that will obstruct sight distance here. (sheet 91) On sheet 91, please reference Engineering comments regarding the radius design at the E Pioneer driveway. Per previous comments, the channelization plan for E Pioneer needs to provide the following information: 1. Applicant will need to verify there’s adequate ROW to accommodate paved offsite taper. 2. Applicant to verify paved transition will provide adequate utility pole clearance from the travel lane. (sheet 92) Bus Stop 2A & 2B are not feasible. These locations will cause significant sight distance hazard for vehicles entering E Pioneer from site driveway. Please clarify if on-site school bus access is necessary. Email from PSD (9/21/22) seemed to indicate they do not want internal bus access. (sheet 97)

Other/Miscellaneous

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 11.08.130, 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. Based on the materials submitted, the applicant would be expected to construct half-street improvements on the following streets: a. E Pioneer is designated as a major arterial roadway, consisting of curb, gutter, 10’ planter strips, 8’ sidewalks, and City standard streetlights every 150ft. b. The east leg of the Shaw/Pioneer intersection was designed to accommodate 5 lanes of traffic (56ft throat) to align with the existing channelization on west side of Shaw Rd. The curb line along the south side of E Pioneer frontage shall continue this alignment heading East (approximately 34ft from centerline). This will require roadway widening to accommodate this alignment. c. Sidewalks and planter strips will not be required east the E Pioneer driveway. However, ROW dedication will be required to facilitate future improvements. d. A TWLTL is required along the E Pioneer frontage (minimum 75ft on either side of driveway). e. Paved transitions off-site will be required for safety reasons. f. Shaw Rd is designated as a major arterial. Per our comprehensive plan, this section of Shaw Rd shall be constructed with a shared use path along the entire length of frontage. The dimensions and materials shall match the existing Shaw Rd shared use path constructed between 23rd Ave SE & Manorwood Dr. g. As part of these improvements, additional right-of-way (ROW) may need to be dedicated to the City. During civil review, City staff shall review street tree placement, monument signage, fences, etc. to ensure required sight distance requirements are met. Site access driveways shall meet our minimum commercial driveway requirements (35ft curb radius, 30ft width). This is could change based on design vehicles used for the AutoTurn. Site access restrictions: a. No SBL movement at traffic signal b. E Pioneer Driveway Driveway can remain full access as shown with the following conditions: 1. Driveway spacing from Shaw Rd remains as shown on the current site plan 2. TWLTL extending 75ft on either side of driveway (within E Pioneer) 3. Entering sight distance standards are met to allow outbound left turns. 4. At the City's full discretion, outbound left turns from the proposed E Pioneer driveway can be restricted in the future. The following statement will be placed on the face of the short plat: a. “At the discretion of the City, the City may restrict outbound left turns from the E Pioneer access in the future. At the request of the City, the Owners, Heirs, Successors and Assigns agree to renovate and/or improve the driveway access in accordance with the City of Puyallup Municipal Code and Engineering Standards.” At the time of civil permit review provide a separate street lighting plan and pavement striping plan (channelization) sheet for the City to review. a. Street lighting plan: i. City standard streetlights are required every 150ft along E Pioneer frontage. ii. E Pioneer (Arterial) will require GE EVOLVE ELR2 Fixtures ERL2-3-23-A3-40-D-Gray-A-V1 (City to provide latest part numbers) iii. The existing service cabinet at the E Pioneer/Shaw Rd traffic signal has capacity to power the E Pioneer streetlights. iv. City would allow new streetlights to be installed on the north side of E Pioneer to avoid overhead utility conflicts. v. If the applicant choses to install streetlights on the south side of E Pioneer, it is the sole responsibility of the design engineer to ensure streetlight design/placement is outside of the 10ft minimum “safe zone” area. The City will not allow streetlights to be within 10ft of the PSE primary for safety reasons. vi. Streetlights shall have shorting caps installed with remote photocell located on the service cabinet. vii. The existing PSE utility pole mounted streetlight does not meet current City standards and will be removed with installation of City standard streetlights. viii. Streetlight design shall provide the following: 1. Provide details on how streetlights will be powered 2. Location of conduit runs 3. Wiring Schedule a. Conduit size and type for each raceway b. Conductors details 4. Pole schedule a. STA & offset for each luminaire 5. Show location of junction boxes b. Channelization + signage plan: i. Shaw Rd/E Pioneer traffic signal may require striping and signage modifications based on the design of the E Pioneer frontage/driveway. ii. The new Shaw Rd traffic signal will also require striping and signage modifications. iii. Pavement markings approaching traffic signal shall be thermoplastic Traffic signal modifications a. The Shaw Rd access intersection (signal) will require modifications to accommodate the proposed driveway. The applicant will coordinate with the City’s Adaptive Signal Contractor to purchase/install/configure proprietary equipment. b. Signal designer will implement modifications to the westbound and eastbound approach: i. Signal heads + phases ii. Flashing yellow arrows iii. Left turn phases iv. Striping/channelization modifications - Channelization shall match the assumptions outlined in the TIA c. The applicant will install a new crosswalk at this signal to accommodate pedestrians crossing Shaw Rd. At this location, only one crosswalk will be allowed to cross Shaw Rd. d. Crosswalk will be installed on the south leg of the intersections (see additional requirements below). e. The required signal/intersection modifications must be fully configured and operational no less than 2 weeks prior to receiving occupancy for any building on-site. Adaptive signal contractor (Rhythm Engineering) will be required to configure the adaptive system on-site. f. At the SE corner of the new Shaw Rd access location, adequate ROW must be dedicated, or an easement granted for signal maintenance purposes. Based on comments received from the school district, this site will not receive bus service for students attending Shaw Rd Elementary. These students will be expected to walk. Based on the increase volume of elementary age students walking to Shaw Rd Elementary. The City will require the following modifications: a. At the new traffic signal, an electronic blank-out sign shall be mounted on the eastbound signal pole that restricts eastbound “right turn on red” vehicle movement when pedestrians are using the crossing b. Internal pedestrian paths will need to accommodate safe routing to the traffic signal. c. Reduced Speed School Zone along Shaw Rd has been requested by the School District. If the City determines a reduced speed school zone is feasible/warranted for Shaw Rd Elementary, this mitigation will be required (to be installed by the East Town Crossing development).

See Document Markup

-The proposed engineered fill below the permeable pavement section must comply with the Soil Suitability Criteria for treatment...otherwise, permeable pavement is infeasible. Provide acknowlegement from a licensed geotechnical engineer that the proposed import fill can/will meet the treatment criteria as well as the assumed infiltration rate. [Storm Report; Cover]

See Document Markup

OK...pavement only and LID Performance Standard met. [Storm Report; Pg 4]

See Document Markup

The City's recommendation would be to connect the existing grass-lined ditch east of the project site with the proposed stream to avoid mixing "clean" ditch runoff and "clean" stream water with the polluted road runoff...see add'l review comments on Pioneer Basin Map, Appendix D. [Storm Report; Pg 5]

See Document Markup

-This design approach appears to be recirculating stormwater between the splitter and the biocell...see add'l comments Pioneer Basin Map, Appendix D. [Storm Report; Pg 6]

See Document Markup

Since flow control (MR7) is triggered, is the biocell large enough to treat (MR6) the entire frontage basin? This would eliminate the need for the "splitter" structure. Also, see add'l review comments on Pioneer Basin Map, Appendix D. [Storm Report; Pg 6]

See Document Markup

Clarify...is the intent to strip the site to these lower elevations? Considering the results of the PIT testing, its obvious that any existing soil above the "restrictive layer" elevation is also non-infiltrative. [Storm Report; Pg 6]

See Document Markup

Hard surfaces must be permeable to the extent feasible per MR5 List Option...essentially no run-on allowed. If the design intent is to meet the LID Performance Standard, then any concentrated infiltration facility (roof runoff) must meet Ecology's separation criteria. [Storm Report; Pg 7]

See Document Markup

NOTE: The engineered fill must also meet the WQ Soil Suitability Criteria per Ecology, Sect. 3.3.7, SSC-6. This will require geotechnical confirmation prior to PSP approval to ensure that permeable pavement is feasible. [Storm Report; Pg 7]

See Document Markup

Due to the minimal depth to the restrictive layer on this site, any infiltration facility other than permeable pavement will require a mounding analysis in accordance with Ecology 3.3.4. [Storm Report; Pg 8]

See Document Markup