CITY OF PUYALLUP PERMITTING PORTAL

BLTR - Access parking

The previous comment regarding the EV parking requirements has not yet been addressed. The parking calculations provided do not align with Table 429.2 of the Washington State Building Code referenced earlier. The requirements are as follows: -EV Charging Stations: 10% of the total parking spaces. -EV-Ready Parking Spaces: 25% of the total parking spaces. -EV-Capable Parking Spaces: 10% of the total parking spaces. Per Table 429.2, all numbers will be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Currently, the calculations show only 10% for “E-Stalls now” and 10% for “future.” Please update the site plan calculations to include all three categories as listed. Additionally, clearly label each stall on the plan according to its category to facilitate verification, construction, and inspection. You can find the requirements for each category list above in 429.2.1 and 429.2.2 in the Washington State Building Code.

See Document Markup

PER PRIOR COMMENT: To ensure viability of the proposed storm design and prior to Landuse Approval, provide elevation of the restrictive layer for permeable pavement... either the wet-season high groundwater elevation measured between Dec 1 and Apr 1, or other restrictive soil layer, and include the investigation in the geotech section. (Note: Min. 1ft for separation; min 1.5ft for treatment). [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 9 of 104]

See Document Markup

See comment on Page 9 of 104. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 86 of 104]

BLTR - Access parking

The previous comment regarding the EV parking requirements has not yet been addressed. The parking calculations provided do not align with Table 429.2 of the Washington State Building Code referenced earlier. The requirements are as follows: -EV Charging Stations: 10% of the total parking spaces. -EV-Ready Parking Spaces: 25% of the total parking spaces. -EV-Capable Parking Spaces: 10% of the total parking spaces. Per Table 429.2, all numbers will be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Currently, the calculations show only 10% for “E-Stalls now” and 10% for “future.” Please update the site plan calculations to include all three categories as listed. Additionally, clearly label each stall on the plan according to its category to facilitate verification, construction, and inspection. You can find the requirements for each category list above in 429.2.1 and 429.2.2 in the Washington State Building Code.

See Document Markup

Per previous comments, remove trees here. Will interfere with SB visibility of signal heads & impact EB right turn on red sight distance. PSP and landscaping plan still showing trees in this area [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

Other/Miscellaneous

Traffic Scoping: For LUC 221 (Midrise) Multifamily, please verify the number of livable floors associated with parcel C. Has there been any other changes to the 2021 site plan? Please update the traffic scoping worksheet with EV charging station trips. Based on recent development in the City of Puyallup (4 stalls), Transpo Group assumed 10 daily trips/stall, 1.5 trips/stall during the AM peak hour, 2 trips/stall during the PM peak hour. No pass-rates were assumed. Please apply these rates to your current 6 stall proposal. Explanation provided below: Programmatic Consideration Use of EV Stalls. The proposal includes 4 stalls with 2 charging units (i.e., there can be a vehicle on each side of the unit). Each unit includes 2 plugs total allowing for charging the most common connection configurations (CHAdeMO and Tesla style). The plug types are specific to the vehicle so there can only be one vehicle at a station charging at a time with the specific plug type (e.g., if you have Leaf you need the CHAdeMO plug type and if someone else is using that type you will have to wait or find another station.) Therefore, there can only be 2 of one kind of vehicle charging at any given time, limiting the usage. Additionally, typical charge times range between 20-40 minutes. Given these limitations, we are anticipating the 4 stalls to provide an average of 20 total charges per day (i.e., 5 charges per stall per day), which equates to a weekday daily trip generation rate of 10 trips/plug (or 40 EV trips for the site per day). We distributed these daily trips assuming 2 trips/stall in the PM peak hour (i.e., 8 EV trips with the 4 stalls) and 1.5 trips/stall in the AM peak hour (i.e., 6 EV trips with the 4 stalls). This equates to ~35 percent of daily trips occurring during the peak hours. This is conservative relative to the gas station which estimates only 12 percent of daily trips occurring during the peak hours. Other EV Data. The trip generation study Charging Electric Vehicles in Smart Cities: An EVI-Pro Analysis of Columbus, Ohio (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2018) included review of EV stall usage in Seattle. The study showed there were 2.22 sessions/day/plug or 4.44 trips/day/plug. For the proposed project with 4 plugs, the study indicates that there would be 17.76 total daily trips or less trips than the programmatic estimate. There were no peak hour data in the 2018 study; however, if it was assumed 35% of the daily trips occurred during the peak hours (consistent with the programmatic estimate above) then with the lower daily trip rates from the 2018 study there would be less peak hour trips projected. As such, use of the programmatic estimate is conservative relative to the 2018 study and was the basis of analysis. Once the traffic scoping worksheet has been approved for Site plan “B”, the TIA will need to be updated with this information. Vehicle trips generated by site plan “C” & “B” must be evaluated as one project/TIA per SEPA.

See Document Markup

Prior to civil submittal, please coordinate with City staff regarding the placement and type of Streetlights. City standard 12ft arms are preferred. If possible, offset will need to be modified to avoid 17ft arms.

See Document Markup

Use AutoTurn to size RIRO channelization device appropriately that will allow an ambulance to complete an outbound left turn without driving over the curb. [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

Other/Miscellaneous

City of Puyallup has not received an updated traffic scoping document for this project that includes trips generated by the proposed EV charging stations. Once the traffic scoping worksheet is reviewed, a written response would be sent to the applicant’s traffic engineer outlining the scope of the project’s Traffic Impact Study (TIS).

See Document Markup

It does not appear that Method 2 is the correct approach. The provided EnCo wetland assessment (Appendix E) categorized the wetland as a Category II, Depressional wetland. Per Ecology Appendix I-C.4, Method 1 must be used to verify the hydroperiod protections. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 65]

See Document Markup

At time of civil application, no structures (walls, stairs, etc.) shall be constructed over the storm main. [Plans-Lot C; Sht C2.2]

See Document Markup

Per prior comment-Revise report to comply with Minimum Requirement 8 (MR8)-see comments on Page 10. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 1 of 95]

See Document Markup

Clarify-pipes under driving surfaces require 3ft min cover (1ft for ductile). Does not appear that there is adequate space in the pavement section to meet separation and cover reqts using perforated pipes. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 95]

See Document Markup

To ensure viability of the proposed storm design and prior to Landuse Approval, provide elevation of the restrictive layer (wet-season high groundwater or soil layer) and include the investigation in the geotech section. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 95]

See Document Markup

As mentioned on the prior page, it does not appear that there is adequate space in the pavement section to comply with cover and separation requirements. Additional clarification is needed to ensure the proposed design can meet regulations and effectively infiltrate the project runoff to avoid the MR7 threshold. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 9 of 95]

See Document Markup

Per prior comment...it does not appear that Method 2 is the correct approach. The provided EnCo wetland assessment (Appendix E) categorized the wetland as a Category II, Depressional wetland. Per Ecology Appendix I-C.4, Method 1 must be used to verify the hydroperiod protections. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 10 of 95]

See Document Markup

Per meeting on April 11, 2023, the City suggested analyzing the wetland using the overall tributary basin rather than solely the runoff from the project site. To the City's recollection, it was never agreed to forego the Method 1 analysis which is mandated by the Ecology Manual. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 10 of 65]

See Document Markup

See comments under MR5 and MR7. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 16 of 95]

See Document Markup

See comments under MR5 and MR7. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 20 of 95]

See Document Markup

See comments under MR8. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 38 of 95]

See Document Markup

Clarify-pipes under driving surfaces require 3ft min cover (1ft for ductile). Does not appear that there is adequate space in the pavement section to meet separation and cover reqts using perforated pipe. [Plans-Lot C; Sht C2.2]

See Document Markup

Show connection to sewer. May need to relocate enclosure to make connection. Per prior comment-See City Standards Section 208 for trash enclosure requirements. [Plans-Lot C; Sht C2.2]

See Document Markup

PER PRIOR COMMENT: To ensure viability of the proposed storm design and prior to Landuse Approval, provide elevation of the restrictive layer for permeable pavement... either the wet-season high groundwater elevation measured between Dec 1 and Apr 1, or other restrictive soil layer, and include the investigation in the geotech section. (Note: Min. 1ft for separation; min 1.5ft for treatment). [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 9 of 104]

See Document Markup

See comment on Page 9 of 104. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 86 of 104]

Other/Miscellaneous

Architectural Design Review OCTOBER, 2023 COMMENT: Architectural design review will occur with the Board. The anticipated date of review is 11/02/23. PREVIOUS COMMENTS: 1. Provide revised building elevations to address the below design review requirements. Please itemize the applicable code requirements in a narrative letter, providing callouts on the elevations and a narrative report from the architect demonstrating compliance with the architectural standards described in the narrative. (PMC 20.52) 2. The design narrative did not address PMC 20.52.015(1) design principles. Please revise the design review narrative to address this code section. 3. Per PMC 20.52.015(2), the use of high-quality building materials shall be incorporated in the building design. The Design Review Board will not consider Hardi plank siding as a high-quality material on street facing elevations. Code is specific about material types. Be prepared to offer a different material type. 4. Per 20.52.025(1), the upper floor stepback of a building three stories or taller shall be a minimum of 10-feet. Alternatively, a total 10-foot step may be accommodated over multiple stories (e.g., seven feet on third floor, three feet on upper floor). In your design response, you stated that you are meeting this through eliminating decks on the upper floors. PMC 20.31.026(15) requires a 10-foot by 8-foot private deck is require for all upper story units. A variance may be required to deviate from PMC 20.31.026(15). Additionally, it has been staff experience that the Design Review Board would not support deviating from the upper floor setbacks through the removal of outdoor private space. Be prepared to offer a different alternative. 5. Per PMC 20.52.025(2)(b), the ground floor of street facing façade shall consist of at least 60 percent visual transparency between 2 feet and 8 feet. I It appears that the southeast facade may be compliant but there are no calculations to confirm compliance. It isn’t clear if the northeast and southwest elevations are also compliant. Revise the drawings as necessary and provide transparency calculation for the northeast, southeast, and southwest building facades. Please note, that as you are addressing the transparency requirements, ensure that the windows are also compliant with PMC 20.52.025(2)(d). 6. PMC 20.52.025(5) applies to blank walls. The provided building elevations do not appear to have areas over 30 feet in length or 400 sq. ft. in area without building articulation or openings. No revision is required at this time, but please review this section as you further develop the building elevations. 7. Per PMC 20.52.025(6), the proposed buildings shall have a minimum of 30 percent of the building façades with a minimum of two exterior materials. PMC requires the use of metal paneling, brick, decorative faux stone, masonry, and masonry veneer for a minimum of 60% of the exterior face, excluding gables, windows, doors, and related trim. Revise drawings as necessary, provide the needed callouts and calculations, and update the design review narrative. 8. Per PMC 20.52.025(6), If the continuous roofline exceeds 50 feet in length on a roofline with slopes of less than three feet vertical to 12 feet horizontal, the following methods shall be used: a. The height of the visible roofline must change at least four feet if the adjacent roof segments are less than 50 feet in length. b. The height of the visible roofline must change at least eight feet if the adjacent roof segments are 50 feet or more in length. c. The length of a sloped or gabled roofline must be at least 20 feet, with a minimum slope of three feet vertical to 12 feet horizontal. The building elevations are missing roof slope callouts to ensure compliance with these standards. Provide revised building elevations to ensure roof modulation compliance.

Other/Miscellaneous

Parcel B – no issues Parcel C – • With the current site plans changes review as follows • 10% maximum grade • Shrink parking island back down to original size. 22.2’ wide fire lane will not be allowed. Fire Lane is required to be a 26’ considering this is being used as a fire truck turn-around and the main fire lane on a dead-end. Approval will be given with a 26’ wide leg in the loading zone. Show dimensions on site plan. • Show the location for F.D.C. A fire hydrant is required to be within 10-15’ of F.D.C. Do not block either item with a parking stall. • Notice: for future submittals and Civils. No traffic calming devices will be allowed at the entry. Islands, pork chops, or right in right out will not be allowed. • Auto-turn does not show what fire apparatus was used. Provide Auto-turn using our current fire truck. Email ddrake@puyallupwa.gov for specs.

BLTR - Access parking

Accessible parking and access to the public way would be required as well as the accessibility requirements to the building. The site plan does not clearly identify required accessible parking. Provide minimum accessible parking including required accessible EV parking at the building. The six EV parking provided off site can contribute to the total quantity of number required. Based on historical timeline of preliminary site plan to a complete building application appears this building permit may be applied for after June 30, 2023. Please be aware July 1, 2023 forward Washington State will adopt the 2021 I-codes with Washington State Amendments and 2021 WSEC. See Section 429 of the 2021 IBC for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure to determine the number of EV parking stalls that will be required under 2021 Code cycle as there are significant changes, reference Table 429.2. ***PER COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER; SITE PLAN IDENTIFY ADA STALLS (A01) EV PARKING IS SHOWN OFF SITE. WAC 51-50-0429 SECTION 429.4 OF 2018 REQUIRES ONE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. THE 2021 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRES 10 % ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES, ROUNDED TO NEXT WHOLE NUMBER SHALL BE EV CHARGING STATIONS. (SEE COMPLETE WAC 51-50-0429 FOR ALL ACCESSIBLE REQUIREMENTS IN 2021 CODE). ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGING STATIONS REQUIRE TO MEET ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO BUILDING. REFERENCE SECTION 502.4.1 LOCATION IN THE ICC A117.1-2009 AND SECTION 1104 - ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IN 2018/2021 IBC. UPDATE SITE PLAN REFLECTING ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS WITH ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO BUILDING. 6/5/2024 PROVIDE PARKING CALCULATIONS ON SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE EV PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER 2021 SECTION 429. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR NUMBER OF EV CHARGING STATIONS, THE NUMBER OF EV-READY AND NUMBER OF EV CAPABLE PARKING SPACES ON SITE PLAN TO REFLECT THE NEW ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE FROM TABLE 429.2 WILL BE MET.

Other/Miscellaneous

WATER: 1. Water to Parcel C is to be provided by Fruitland Mutual Water Company. The applicant shall provide a water availability letter prior to site plan approval for the individual sites. (NOTE: Applicant Response Letter dated December 27, 2022 states the Water Availability Letter was submitted with the second review materials, but it was not in the documentation provided. Please email directly.)

Other/Miscellaneous

STORMWATER: Parcel B and Parcel C Preliminary Drainage Report Shared Comments: 1. Per the conditions of the Short Plat APN 201912305002, Short Plat APN 201912305005, as well as State vesting criteria, the proposed projects are not vested to prior stormwater regulations. As a result, the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. Revise accordingly. 2. See additional review comments contained in each Drainage Report (Lot B dated November 2022 and Lot C dated December 2022), make appropriate corrections, and resubmit for further review.

Other/Miscellaneous

STORMWATER: Parcel C Preliminary Drainage Report Comments: 1. The submitted MR8 Wetland Protection analysis for Lot C did not comply with the Ecology Manual criteria contained in Appendix I-C. In addition, it appears that Method 1 would be applicable to the parcel since there is legal access to the wetland. Prior to Landuse approval, revise the project constraints as necessary to show compliance with MR8. 2. The Ecology Manual also requires that any post-developed flows released above and beyond those necessary for MR8 compliance shall be mitigated per MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the Engineer-of-Record (EoR) shall document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 as a result of MR8 compliance (is deep layer infiltration not possible?). 3. Confirm that the composite long-term infiltration rate is a corrected rate as outlined by Ecology, Section V-5.4.

See Document Markup

Per the conditions of the Short Plat, APN 201912305002, and State vesting criteria, the Project is not vested to prior stormwater regulations. As a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. At time of civil application, revise references accordingly. [Storm Report-Lot B; Pg 1 of 16]

See Document Markup

Incorrect reference...should read P-18-0172 and 201912305002. [Storm Report-Lot B; Pg 4 of 16]

See Document Markup

Project is not vested, as a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. [Storm Report-Lot B; Pg 5 of 16]

See Document Markup

Use current manual flow chart, Figure 1-3.1. [Storm Report-Lot B; Pg 6 of 16]

See Document Markup

Per the conditions of the Short Plat, APN 201912305005, and State vesting criteria, the Project is not vested to prior stormwater regulations. As a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. At time of civil application, revise references accordingly. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 1 of 65]

See Document Markup

Revise report to comply with Minimum Requirement 8 (MR8)-see comments on Page 8. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 1 of 65]

See Document Markup

Project is not vested, as a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 5 of 65]

See Document Markup

Use current manual flow chart, Figure 1-3.1. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 6 of 65]

See Document Markup

See comments regarding MR8 compliance (Pg 8 of 65). Any post-developed flows released above and beyond those necessary for MR8 compliance shall be mitigated per MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the EoR must document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 (as a result of MR8 compliance). Is deep layer infiltration of the MR8 overflows possible? [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 7 of 65]

See Document Markup

At time of civil application, it must be shown that the underlying soils meet treatment criteria (SSC-6). [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 65]

See Document Markup

Per Ecology, after showing MR8 compliance, the project must mitigate for MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the EoR shall document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 (as a result of MR8 compliance). [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 65]

See Document Markup

Refer to the 2019 Ecology Manual criteria, App. 1-C. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 65]

See Document Markup

Per MR8, the applicant must comply with the wetland protection criteria. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 65]

See Document Markup

It does not appear that Method 2 is the correct approach. The provided EnCo wetland assessment (Appendix E) categorized the wetland as a Category II, Depressional wetland. Per Ecology Appendix I-C.4, Method 1 must be used to verify the hydroperiod protections. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 65]

See Document Markup

Unless otherwise agreed upon between the City and applicant, revise the preliminary storm report to adhere to current stormwater regulations (2019 Ecology Manual) including MR8 compliance. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 65]

See Document Markup

Per MR8, the applicant must comply with the wetland protection criteria. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 9 of 65]

See Document Markup

Clarify...value should be multiplied by appropriate correction factors per Ecology Section V-5.4. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 9 of 65]

See Document Markup

See comment associated with MR4, Pg 7 of 65. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 14 of 65]

See Document Markup

See commentst associated with MR4 ( Pg 7 of 65) and MR8 compliance (Pg 8 of 65). [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 15 of 65]

See Document Markup

Use permeable pavement for access path and sidewalks unless infeasible. (NOTE: Pathways/Sidewalks are non-pollution generating. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 15 of 65]

See Document Markup

Clarify...value should be multiplied by appropriate correction factors per Ecology Section V-5.4. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 53 of 65]

See Document Markup

Roof Discharge to the regulated wetland must comply with MR8 criteria per Ecology. [Plans-Lot C; Sht C2.2]

See Document Markup

At time of civil application, no structures (walls, stairs, etc.) shall be constructed over the storm main. [Plans-Lot C; Sht C2.2]

See Document Markup

Per prior comment-Revise report to comply with Minimum Requirement 8 (MR8)-see comments on Page 10. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 1 of 95]

See Document Markup

Clarify-pipes under driving surfaces require 3ft min cover (1ft for ductile). Does not appear that there is adequate space in the pavement section to meet separation and cover reqts using perforated pipes. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 95]

See Document Markup

To ensure viability of the proposed storm design and prior to Landuse Approval, provide elevation of the restrictive layer (wet-season high groundwater or soil layer) and include the investigation in the geotech section. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 95]

See Document Markup

As mentioned on the prior page, it does not appear that there is adequate space in the pavement section to comply with cover and separation requirements. Additional clarification is needed to ensure the proposed design can meet regulations and effectively infiltrate the project runoff to avoid the MR7 threshold. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 9 of 95]

See Document Markup

Per prior comment...it does not appear that Method 2 is the correct approach. The provided EnCo wetland assessment (Appendix E) categorized the wetland as a Category II, Depressional wetland. Per Ecology Appendix I-C.4, Method 1 must be used to verify the hydroperiod protections. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 10 of 95]

See Document Markup

Per meeting on April 11, 2023, the City suggested analyzing the wetland using the overall tributary basin rather than solely the runoff from the project site. To the City's recollection, it was never agreed to forego the Method 1 analysis which is mandated by the Ecology Manual. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 10 of 65]

See Document Markup

See comments under MR5 and MR7. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 16 of 95]

See Document Markup

See comments under MR5 and MR7. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 20 of 95]

See Document Markup

See comments under MR8. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 38 of 95]

See Document Markup

Clarify-pipes under driving surfaces require 3ft min cover (1ft for ductile). Does not appear that there is adequate space in the pavement section to meet separation and cover reqts using perforated pipe. [Plans-Lot C; Sht C2.2]

See Document Markup

Show connection to sewer. May need to relocate enclosure to make connection. Per prior comment-See City Standards Section 208 for trash enclosure requirements. [Plans-Lot C; Sht C2.2]

BLTR - Access parking

Accessible parking and access to the public way would be required as well as the accessibility requirements to the building. The site plan does not clearly identify required accessible parking. Provide minimum accessible parking including required accessible EV parking at the building. The six EV parking provided off site can contribute to the total quantity of number required. Based on historical timeline of preliminary site plan to a complete building application appears this building permit may be applied for after June 30, 2023. Please be aware July 1, 2023 forward Washington State will adopt the 2021 I-codes with Washington State Amendments and 2021 WSEC. See Section 429 of the 2021 IBC for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure to determine the number of EV parking stalls that will be required under 2021 Code cycle as there are significant changes, reference Table 429.2. ***PER COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER; SITE PLAN IDENTIFY ADA STALLS (A01) EV PARKING IS SHOWN OFF SITE. WAC 51-50-0429 SECTION 429.4 OF 2018 REQUIRES ONE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. THE 2021 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRES 10 % ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES, ROUNDED TO NEXT WHOLE NUMBER SHALL BE EV CHARGING STATIONS. (SEE COMPLETE WAC 51-50-0429 FOR ALL ACCESSIBLE REQUIREMENTS IN 2021 CODE). ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGING STATIONS REQUIRE TO MEET ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO BUILDING. REFERENCE SECTION 502.4.1 LOCATION IN THE ICC A117.1-2009 AND SECTION 1104 - ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IN 2018/2021 IBC. UPDATE SITE PLAN REFLECTING ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS WITH ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO BUILDING.

See Document Markup

Modify fence as needed to meet sight distance standards [LOT B Preliminary Plans C1.0]

See Document Markup

Provide details on where & why streetlight is being relocated [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

See Document Markup

Per previous comments, remove trees here. Will interfere with SB visibility of signal heads & impact EB right turn on red sight distance. PSP and landscaping plan still showing trees in this area [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

See Document Markup

Streetlight arm must overhang 3ft from face of curb (over the roadway) per city standards. How long is the proposed arm? Should consider installing streetlights on the south side of 43rd Ave SE to avoid significant overhead utility conflicts. [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

See Document Markup

During civil review, additional counter measures, signage, striping, c-curb may be necessary to enforce right-in/right-out restriction. [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

See Document Markup

During Civil design, must verify existing streetlight conduit under driveway meets City standards (schedule 80) [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

See Document Markup

Proposed frontage design not consistent with approved AMR. Street trees are shown at back of sidewalk [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

Other/Miscellaneous

Traffic Scoping: For LUC 221 (Midrise) Multifamily, please verify the number of livable floors associated with parcel C. Has there been any other changes to the 2021 site plan? Please update the traffic scoping worksheet with EV charging station trips. Based on recent development in the City of Puyallup (4 stalls), Transpo Group assumed 10 daily trips/stall, 1.5 trips/stall during the AM peak hour, 2 trips/stall during the PM peak hour. No pass-rates were assumed. Please apply these rates to your current 6 stall proposal. Explanation provided below: Programmatic Consideration Use of EV Stalls. The proposal includes 4 stalls with 2 charging units (i.e., there can be a vehicle on each side of the unit). Each unit includes 2 plugs total allowing for charging the most common connection configurations (CHAdeMO and Tesla style). The plug types are specific to the vehicle so there can only be one vehicle at a station charging at a time with the specific plug type (e.g., if you have Leaf you need the CHAdeMO plug type and if someone else is using that type you will have to wait or find another station.) Therefore, there can only be 2 of one kind of vehicle charging at any given time, limiting the usage. Additionally, typical charge times range between 20-40 minutes. Given these limitations, we are anticipating the 4 stalls to provide an average of 20 total charges per day (i.e., 5 charges per stall per day), which equates to a weekday daily trip generation rate of 10 trips/plug (or 40 EV trips for the site per day). We distributed these daily trips assuming 2 trips/stall in the PM peak hour (i.e., 8 EV trips with the 4 stalls) and 1.5 trips/stall in the AM peak hour (i.e., 6 EV trips with the 4 stalls). This equates to ~35 percent of daily trips occurring during the peak hours. This is conservative relative to the gas station which estimates only 12 percent of daily trips occurring during the peak hours. Other EV Data. The trip generation study Charging Electric Vehicles in Smart Cities: An EVI-Pro Analysis of Columbus, Ohio (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2018) included review of EV stall usage in Seattle. The study showed there were 2.22 sessions/day/plug or 4.44 trips/day/plug. For the proposed project with 4 plugs, the study indicates that there would be 17.76 total daily trips or less trips than the programmatic estimate. There were no peak hour data in the 2018 study; however, if it was assumed 35% of the daily trips occurred during the peak hours (consistent with the programmatic estimate above) then with the lower daily trip rates from the 2018 study there would be less peak hour trips projected. As such, use of the programmatic estimate is conservative relative to the 2018 study and was the basis of analysis. Once the traffic scoping worksheet has been approved for Site plan “B”, the TIA will need to be updated with this information. Vehicle trips generated by site plan “C” & “B” must be evaluated as one project/TIA per SEPA.

See Document Markup

Prior to civil submittal, please coordinate with City staff regarding the placement and type of Streetlights. City standard 12ft arms are preferred. If possible, offset will need to be modified to avoid 17ft arms.

See Document Markup

Use AutoTurn to size RIRO channelization device appropriately that will allow an ambulance to complete an outbound left turn without driving over the curb. [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

Other/Miscellaneous

City of Puyallup has not received an updated traffic scoping document for this project that includes trips generated by the proposed EV charging stations. Once the traffic scoping worksheet is reviewed, a written response would be sent to the applicant’s traffic engineer outlining the scope of the project’s Traffic Impact Study (TIS).

Other/Miscellaneous

Parcel B – no issues Parcel C – • With the current site plans changes review as follows • 10% maximum grade • Shrink parking island back down to original size. 22.2’ wide fire lane will not be allowed. Fire Lane is required to be a 26’ considering this is being used as a fire truck turn-around and the main fire lane on a dead-end. Approval will be given with a 26’ wide leg in the loading zone. Show dimensions on site plan. • Show the location for F.D.C. A fire hydrant is required to be within 10-15’ of F.D.C. Do not block either item with a parking stall. • Notice: for future submittals and Civils. No traffic calming devices will be allowed at the entry. Islands, pork chops, or right in right out will not be allowed. • Auto-turn does not show what fire apparatus was used. Provide Auto-turn using our current fire truck. Email ddrake@puyallupwa.gov for specs.

Other/Miscellaneous

Architectural Design Review OCTOBER, 2023 COMMENT: Architectural design review will occur with the Board. The anticipated date of review is 11/02/23. PREVIOUS COMMENTS: 1. Provide revised building elevations to address the below design review requirements. Please itemize the applicable code requirements in a narrative letter, providing callouts on the elevations and a narrative report from the architect demonstrating compliance with the architectural standards described in the narrative. (PMC 20.52) 2. The design narrative did not address PMC 20.52.015(1) design principles. Please revise the design review narrative to address this code section. 3. Per PMC 20.52.015(2), the use of high-quality building materials shall be incorporated in the building design. The Design Review Board will not consider Hardi plank siding as a high-quality material on street facing elevations. Code is specific about material types. Be prepared to offer a different material type. 4. Per 20.52.025(1), the upper floor stepback of a building three stories or taller shall be a minimum of 10-feet. Alternatively, a total 10-foot step may be accommodated over multiple stories (e.g., seven feet on third floor, three feet on upper floor). In your design response, you stated that you are meeting this through eliminating decks on the upper floors. PMC 20.31.026(15) requires a 10-foot by 8-foot private deck is require for all upper story units. A variance may be required to deviate from PMC 20.31.026(15). Additionally, it has been staff experience that the Design Review Board would not support deviating from the upper floor setbacks through the removal of outdoor private space. Be prepared to offer a different alternative. 5. Per PMC 20.52.025(2)(b), the ground floor of street facing façade shall consist of at least 60 percent visual transparency between 2 feet and 8 feet. I It appears that the southeast facade may be compliant but there are no calculations to confirm compliance. It isn’t clear if the northeast and southwest elevations are also compliant. Revise the drawings as necessary and provide transparency calculation for the northeast, southeast, and southwest building facades. Please note, that as you are addressing the transparency requirements, ensure that the windows are also compliant with PMC 20.52.025(2)(d). 6. PMC 20.52.025(5) applies to blank walls. The provided building elevations do not appear to have areas over 30 feet in length or 400 sq. ft. in area without building articulation or openings. No revision is required at this time, but please review this section as you further develop the building elevations. 7. Per PMC 20.52.025(6), the proposed buildings shall have a minimum of 30 percent of the building façades with a minimum of two exterior materials. PMC requires the use of metal paneling, brick, decorative faux stone, masonry, and masonry veneer for a minimum of 60% of the exterior face, excluding gables, windows, doors, and related trim. Revise drawings as necessary, provide the needed callouts and calculations, and update the design review narrative. 8. Per PMC 20.52.025(6), If the continuous roofline exceeds 50 feet in length on a roofline with slopes of less than three feet vertical to 12 feet horizontal, the following methods shall be used: a. The height of the visible roofline must change at least four feet if the adjacent roof segments are less than 50 feet in length. b. The height of the visible roofline must change at least eight feet if the adjacent roof segments are 50 feet or more in length. c. The length of a sloped or gabled roofline must be at least 20 feet, with a minimum slope of three feet vertical to 12 feet horizontal. The building elevations are missing roof slope callouts to ensure compliance with these standards. Provide revised building elevations to ensure roof modulation compliance.

Other/Miscellaneous

SEPA Checklist 1. First Review Comment: Please provide a 4’ wide blacktop asphalt pathway from the NE corner of parcel C to the corner of 39th and 5th. Planning is considering this requirement given the wetland parcel A is part of the mixed use site plan with parcel B and C. Second Review Comment: Please show how the pathway shown on drawing C2.0 (sheet 1 of Preliminary Grading, Storm, and Utilities dated 12/13/2022) connects to the corner of 39th and 5th.

Other/Miscellaneous

2. First Review Comment: Per PMC 20.31.026(3), the front yard setback is 12 feet to 20 feet from Build-to-Area (BTA). Additionally, PMC 20.31.027(2)(c) requires new buildings built 12 feet from right-of-way or 20 feet from right-of-way to accommodate an 8 feet plaza. 4 feet of the plaza may extend into the 12 feet type II landscape buffer. Since the required 8 feet plaza may extend into the landscape buffer by 4 feet, the minimum building setback is considered 16 feet instead of 12 feet, unless the plaza is proposed as an outdoor café seating use. Per PMC 20.31.027(2)(c), Outdoor café seating plaza use is allowed to project into the 12 feet landscaping buffer by 6 feet, which allows a minimum building setback of 14 feet instead of 12 feet. The Lot C building is setback 10-feet from street right-of-way, which is not compliant with the 16-foot setback requirement stated above. Additionally, the 8-foot plaza shall run along the entire width of the building and shall be covered by awning that is at least 6 feet deep. In general, the code is requiring an 8-foot landscaping buffer from public right-of-way, followed by the 8-foot plaza, and then the building being set between 16 and 20 feet. Please revise all site plans to ensure compliance with setback standards and denote on architect plans and landscape plans if any proposed plaza will be used as an outdoor café seating area. Second Review Comment: Drawing C2.2 (Sheet 3 of Preliminary Grading, Storm, and Utilities dated 12/13/2022) shows the building setback line to be 14.00’ from 5th St SE and 14.08’ from 43rd Ave SE. Drawing L-3 (Sheet 3 of Conceptual Landscape Plan dated 8/12/2022) shows the building setback line to be 14’ from 5th St SE and 14’ from 43rd Ave SE. This is not compliant with the 16-foot setback requirement stated in the first review comment. 20.31.027 Site plan design principles.(2)(a) stipulates ‘A pedestrian-oriented plaza space in front of the building at least eight feet deep running the full width of the building. This area shall be covered by awnings covering at least six feet of the plaza space.’. Please show how this standard is being met.

Other/Miscellaneous

3. First Review Comment: Per PMC 20.31.026(15), each upper floor dwelling unit requires a minimum of 10-foot by 8-foot private open space. Clearly indicate the private open space for each dwelling unit on site plans and provide a narrative describing how the private open space requirements are being met. Second Review Comment: Please submit a floor plan for each level that shows how this standard is being met.

Other/Miscellaneous

4. First Review Comment: The City GIS shows existing trees located within the development footprint which are not denoted on the site plans, preliminary landscape plans, or other documents. To ensure compliance with Vegetation Management Standards regarding significant tree protection, the planting plan shall denote all existing trees with Diameter-at-Breast Height (DBH) and indicate if the tree is to be removed or retained. If your site includes any significant trees, then you must include a tree risk assessment completed by a certified arborist and provide the critical root protection zone for any retained significant trees on the grading plan. Second Review Comment: Updated landscape plan shows significant trees that will be retained and significant trees that will be removed with development. Please submit a tree risk assessment completed by a certified arborist and provide critical protection zone for any retained significant trees on the grading plan.

Other/Miscellaneous

5. First Review Comment: Per PMC 25.58.005(2), the perimeter of all sites shall be landscaped the full depth of the required setback or 12 feet, which ever less; however, not less than 6 feet. The following landscape buffers are currently being encroached by off-street parking/paving: d. The Lot B western side yard requires a minimum 6-foot Type III landscape buffer. Second Review Comment: Updated landscape plan does not show landscape buffer on western side yard for Lot B.

Other/Miscellaneous

6. First Review Comment: Per PMC 25.58.005(2)(a)(ii), all retaining walls shall be setback from any rear or side yard a minimum of 6-feet, and the maximum retaining wall height within 30 feet of side and rear lot lines is 6 feet and shall include a Type I visual barrier landscape buffer. The proposed retaining walls are within 6 feet of lot lines and do not include a Type I visual barrier landscape buffer. Revise plans as necessary. Please note the proposed retaining walls are structures subject to wetland buffer building setback requirements detailed below. Second Review Comment: The revised civil plans show ‘Type III’ land scape buffers. Per the standard listed above ‘A Type I visual barrier landscape buffer shall be provided in front of all retaining walls, in accordance with the city’s vegetation management standards (VMS) manual.’

See Document Markup

Parking lot island cannot contain civil utilities, relocate. Island must be 15 feet wide min. [planning, sheet C2.2]

See Document Markup

See Document Markup

Other/Miscellaneous

See DRT comment letter and Redline markups for more information

See Document Markup

Modify fence as needed to meet sight distance standards [LOT B Preliminary Plans C1.0]

See Document Markup

Provide details on where & why streetlight is being relocated [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

See Document Markup

Per previous comments, remove trees here. Will interfere with SB visibility of signal heads & impact EB right turn on red sight distance. [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

See Document Markup

Streetlight arm must overhang 3ft from face of curb (over the roadway) per city standards. How long is the proposed arm? Should consider installing streetlights on the south side of 43rd Ave SE to avoid significant overhead utility conflicts. [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

See Document Markup

During civil review, additional counter measures, signage, striping, c-curb may be necessary to enforce right-in/right-out restriction. [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

See Document Markup

During Civil design, must verify existing streetlight conduit under driveway meets City standards (schedule 80) [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

See Document Markup

Proposed frontage design not consistent with approved AMR. Street trees are shown at back of sidewalk [LOT C Preliminary Plans C2.0]

Other/Miscellaneous

Traffic Scoping: For LUC 221 (Midrise) Multifamily, please verify the number of livable floors associated with parcel C. Has there been any other changes to the 2021 site plan? Please update the traffic scoping worksheet with EV charging station trips. Based on recent development in the City of Puyallup (4 stalls), Transpo Group assumed 10 daily trips/stall, 1.5 trips/stall during the AM peak hour, 2 trips/stall during the PM peak hour. No pass-rates were assumed. Please apply these rates to your current 6 stall proposal. Explanation provided below: Programmatic Consideration Use of EV Stalls. The proposal includes 4 stalls with 2 charging units (i.e., there can be a vehicle on each side of the unit). Each unit includes 2 plugs total allowing for charging the most common connection configurations (CHAdeMO and Tesla style). The plug types are specific to the vehicle so there can only be one vehicle at a station charging at a time with the specific plug type (e.g., if you have Leaf you need the CHAdeMO plug type and if someone else is using that type you will have to wait or find another station.) Therefore, there can only be 2 of one kind of vehicle charging at any given time, limiting the usage. Additionally, typical charge times range between 20-40 minutes. Given these limitations, we are anticipating the 4 stalls to provide an average of 20 total charges per day (i.e., 5 charges per stall per day), which equates to a weekday daily trip generation rate of 10 trips/plug (or 40 EV trips for the site per day). We distributed these daily trips assuming 2 trips/stall in the PM peak hour (i.e., 8 EV trips with the 4 stalls) and 1.5 trips/stall in the AM peak hour (i.e., 6 EV trips with the 4 stalls). This equates to ~35 percent of daily trips occurring during the peak hours. This is conservative relative to the gas station which estimates only 12 percent of daily trips occurring during the peak hours. Other EV Data. The trip generation study Charging Electric Vehicles in Smart Cities: An EVI-Pro Analysis of Columbus, Ohio (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2018) included review of EV stall usage in Seattle. The study showed there were 2.22 sessions/day/plug or 4.44 trips/day/plug. For the proposed project with 4 plugs, the study indicates that there would be 17.76 total daily trips or less trips than the programmatic estimate. There were no peak hour data in the 2018 study; however, if it was assumed 35% of the daily trips occurred during the peak hours (consistent with the programmatic estimate above) then with the lower daily trip rates from the 2018 study there would be less peak hour trips projected. As such, use of the programmatic estimate is conservative relative to the 2018 study and was the basis of analysis. Once the traffic scoping worksheet has been approved for Site plan “B”, the TIA will need to be updated with this information. Vehicle trips generated by site plan “C” & “B” must be evaluated as one project/TIA per SEPA.

BLTR - Access parking

Other/Miscellaneous

WATER: 1. Water to Parcel C is to be provided by Fruitland Mutual Water Company. The applicant shall provide a water availability letter prior to site plan approval for the individual sites. (NOTE: Applicant Response Letter dated December 27, 2022 states the Water Availability Letter was submitted with the second review materials, but it was not in the documentation provided. Please email directly.)

Other/Miscellaneous

STORMWATER: Parcel B and Parcel C Preliminary Drainage Report Shared Comments: 1. Per the conditions of the Short Plat APN 201912305002, Short Plat APN 201912305005, as well as State vesting criteria, the proposed projects are not vested to prior stormwater regulations. As a result, the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. Revise accordingly. 2. See additional review comments contained in each Drainage Report (Lot B dated November 2022 and Lot C dated December 2022), make appropriate corrections, and resubmit for further review.

Other/Miscellaneous

STORMWATER: Parcel C Preliminary Drainage Report Comments: 1. The submitted MR8 Wetland Protection analysis for Lot C did not comply with the Ecology Manual criteria contained in Appendix I-C. In addition, it appears that Method 1 would be applicable to the parcel since there is legal access to the wetland. Prior to Landuse approval, revise the project constraints as necessary to show compliance with MR8. 2. The Ecology Manual also requires that any post-developed flows released above and beyond those necessary for MR8 compliance shall be mitigated per MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the Engineer-of-Record (EoR) shall document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 as a result of MR8 compliance (is deep layer infiltration not possible?). 3. Confirm that the composite long-term infiltration rate is a corrected rate as outlined by Ecology, Section V-5.4.

See Document Markup

Per the conditions of the Short Plat, APN 201912305002, and State vesting criteria, the Project is not vested to prior stormwater regulations. As a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. At time of civil application, revise references accordingly. [Storm Report-Lot B; Pg 1 of 16]

See Document Markup

Incorrect reference...should read P-18-0172 and 201912305002. [Storm Report-Lot B; Pg 4 of 16]

See Document Markup

Project is not vested, as a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. [Storm Report-Lot B; Pg 5 of 16]

See Document Markup

Use current manual flow chart, Figure 1-3.1. [Storm Report-Lot B; Pg 6 of 16]

See Document Markup

Per the conditions of the Short Plat, APN 201912305005, and State vesting criteria, the Project is not vested to prior stormwater regulations. As a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. At time of civil application, revise references accordingly. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 1 of 65]

See Document Markup

Revise report to comply with Minimum Requirement 8 (MR8)-see comments on Page 8. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 1 of 65]

See Document Markup

Project is not vested, as a result the 2019 Ecology Manual applies. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 5 of 65]

See Document Markup

Use current manual flow chart, Figure 1-3.1. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 6 of 65]

See Document Markup

See comments regarding MR8 compliance (Pg 8 of 65). Any post-developed flows released above and beyond those necessary for MR8 compliance shall be mitigated per MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the EoR must document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 (as a result of MR8 compliance). Is deep layer infiltration of the MR8 overflows possible? [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 7 of 65]

See Document Markup

At time of civil application, it must be shown that the underlying soils meet treatment criteria (SSC-6). [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 65]

See Document Markup

Per Ecology, after showing MR8 compliance, the project must mitigate for MR5 and MR7 unless infeasible. If determined to be infeasible, the EoR shall document why they are unable to meet the requirements of MR5 and MR7 (as a result of MR8 compliance). [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 65]

See Document Markup

Refer to the 2019 Ecology Manual criteria, App. 1-C. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 65]

See Document Markup

Per MR8, the applicant must comply with the wetland protection criteria. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 65]

See Document Markup

It does not appear that Method 2 is the correct approach. The provided EnCo wetland assessment (Appendix E) categorized the wetland as a Category II, Depressional wetland. Per Ecology Appendix I-C.4, Method 1 must be used to verify the hydroperiod protections. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 65]

See Document Markup

Unless otherwise agreed upon between the City and applicant, revise the preliminary storm report to adhere to current stormwater regulations (2019 Ecology Manual) including MR8 compliance. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 8 of 65]

See Document Markup

Per MR8, the applicant must comply with the wetland protection criteria. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 9 of 65]

See Document Markup

Clarify...value should be multiplied by appropriate correction factors per Ecology Section V-5.4. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 9 of 65]

See Document Markup

See comment associated with MR4, Pg 7 of 65. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 14 of 65]

See Document Markup

See commentst associated with MR4 ( Pg 7 of 65) and MR8 compliance (Pg 8 of 65). [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 15 of 65]

See Document Markup

Use permeable pavement for access path and sidewalks unless infeasible. (NOTE: Pathways/Sidewalks are non-pollution generating. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 15 of 65]

See Document Markup

Clarify...value should be multiplied by appropriate correction factors per Ecology Section V-5.4. [Storm Report-Lot C; Pg 53 of 65]

See Document Markup

Roof Discharge to the regulated wetland must comply with MR8 criteria per Ecology. [Plans-Lot C; Sht C2.2]

See Document Markup

At time of civil application, no structures (walls, stairs, etc.) shall be constructed over the storm main. [Plans-Lot C; Sht C2.2]

BLTR - Access parking

Accessible parking and access to the public way would be required as well as the accessibility requirements to the building. The site plan does not clearly identify required accessible parking. Provide minimum accessible parking including required accessible EV parking at the building. The six EV parking provided off site can contribute to the total quantity of number required. Based on historical timeline of preliminary site plan to a complete building application appears this building permit may be applied for after June 30, 2023. Please be aware July 1, 2023 forward Washington State will adopt the 2021 I-codes with Washington State Amendments and 2021 WSEC. See Section 429 of the 2021 IBC for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure to determine the number of EV parking stalls that will be required under 2021 Code cycle as there are significant changes, reference Table 429.2.

Other/Miscellaneous

Architectural Design Review Comments from first review have not been addressed. Revised building elevations have not been received. 1. Provide revised building elevations to address the below design review requirements. Please itemize the applicable code requirements in a narrative letter, providing callouts on the elevations and a narrative report from the architect demonstrating compliance with the architectural standards described in the narrative. (PMC 20.52) 2. The design narrative did not address PMC 20.52.015(1) design principles. Please revise the design review narrative to address this code section. 3. Per PMC 20.52.015(2), the use of high-quality building materials shall be incorporated in the building design. The Design Review Board will not consider Hardi plank siding as a high-quality material on street facing elevations. Code is specific about material types. Be prepared to offer a different material type. 4. Per 20.52.025(1), the upper floor stepback of a building three stories or taller shall be a minimum of 10-feet. Alternatively, a total 10-foot step may be accommodated over multiple stories (e.g., seven feet on third floor, three feet on upper floor). In your design response, you stated that you are meeting this through eliminating decks on the upper floors. PMC 20.31.026(15) requires a 10-foot by 8-foot private deck is require for all upper story units. A variance may be required to deviate from PMC 20.31.026(15). Additionally, it has been staff experience that the Design Review Board would not support deviating from the upper floor setbacks through the removal of outdoor private space. Be prepared to offer a different alternative. 5. Per PMC 20.52.025(2)(b), the ground floor of street facing façade shall consist of at least 60 percent visual transparency between 2 feet and 8 feet. I It appears that the southeast facade may be compliant but there are no calculations to confirm compliance. It isn’t clear if the northeast and southwest elevations are also compliant. Revise the drawings as necessary and provide transparency calculation for the northeast, southeast, and southwest building facades. Please note, that as you are addressing the transparency requirements, ensure that the windows are also compliant with PMC 20.52.025(2)(d). 6. PMC 20.52.025(5) applies to blank walls. The provided building elevations do not appear to have areas over 30 feet in length or 400 sq. ft. in area without building articulation or openings. No revision is required at this time, but please review this section as you further develop the building elevations. 7. Per PMC 20.52.025(6), the proposed buildings shall have a minimum of 30 percent of the building façades with a minimum of two exterior materials. PMC requires the use of metal paneling, brick, decorative faux stone, masonry, and masonry veneer for a minimum of 60% of the exterior face, excluding gables, windows, doors, and related trim. Revise drawings as necessary, provide the needed callouts and calculations, and update the design review narrative. 8. Per PMC 20.52.025(6), If the continuous roofline exceeds 50 feet in length on a roofline with slopes of less than three feet vertical to 12 feet horizontal, the following methods shall be used: a. The height of the visible roofline must change at least four feet if the adjacent roof segments are less than 50 feet in length. b. The height of the visible roofline must change at least eight feet if the adjacent roof segments are 50 feet or more in length. c. The length of a sloped or gabled roofline must be at least 20 feet, with a minimum slope of three feet vertical to 12 feet horizontal. The building elevations are missing roof slope callouts to ensure compliance with these standards. Provide revised building elevations to ensure roof modulation compliance.

Other/Miscellaneous

SEPA Checklist 1. First Review Comment: Please provide a 4’ wide blacktop asphalt pathway from the NE corner of parcel C to the corner of 39th and 5th. Planning is considering this requirement given the wetland parcel A is part of the mixed use site plan with parcel B and C. Second Review Comment: Please show how the pathway shown on drawing C2.0 (sheet 1 of Preliminary Grading, Storm, and Utilities dated 12/13/2022) connects to the corner of 39th and 5th.

Other/Miscellaneous

2. First Review Comment: Per PMC 20.31.026(3), the front yard setback is 12 feet to 20 feet from Build-to-Area (BTA). Additionally, PMC 20.31.027(2)(c) requires new buildings built 12 feet from right-of-way or 20 feet from right-of-way to accommodate an 8 feet plaza. 4 feet of the plaza may extend into the 12 feet type II landscape buffer. Since the required 8 feet plaza may extend into the landscape buffer by 4 feet, the minimum building setback is considered 16 feet instead of 12 feet, unless the plaza is proposed as an outdoor café seating use. Per PMC 20.31.027(2)(c), Outdoor café seating plaza use is allowed to project into the 12 feet landscaping buffer by 6 feet, which allows a minimum building setback of 14 feet instead of 12 feet. The Lot C building is setback 10-feet from street right-of-way, which is not compliant with the 16-foot setback requirement stated above. Additionally, the 8-foot plaza shall run along the entire width of the building and shall be covered by awning that is at least 6 feet deep. In general, the code is requiring an 8-foot landscaping buffer from public right-of-way, followed by the 8-foot plaza, and then the building being set between 16 and 20 feet. Please revise all site plans to ensure compliance with setback standards and denote on architect plans and landscape plans if any proposed plaza will be used as an outdoor café seating area. Second Review Comment: Drawing C2.2 (Sheet 3 of Preliminary Grading, Storm, and Utilities dated 12/13/2022) shows the building setback line to be 14.00’ from 5th St SE and 14.08’ from 43rd Ave SE. Drawing L-3 (Sheet 3 of Conceptual Landscape Plan dated 8/12/2022) shows the building setback line to be 14’ from 5th St SE and 14’ from 43rd Ave SE. This is not compliant with the 16-foot setback requirement stated in the first review comment. 20.31.027 Site plan design principles.(2)(a) stipulates ‘A pedestrian-oriented plaza space in front of the building at least eight feet deep running the full width of the building. This area shall be covered by awnings covering at least six feet of the plaza space.’. Please show how this standard is being met.

Other/Miscellaneous

3. First Review Comment: Per PMC 20.31.026(15), each upper floor dwelling unit requires a minimum of 10-foot by 8-foot private open space. Clearly indicate the private open space for each dwelling unit on site plans and provide a narrative describing how the private open space requirements are being met. Second Review Comment: Please submit a floor plan for each level that shows how this standard is being met.

Other/Miscellaneous

4. First Review Comment: The City GIS shows existing trees located within the development footprint which are not denoted on the site plans, preliminary landscape plans, or other documents. To ensure compliance with Vegetation Management Standards regarding significant tree protection, the planting plan shall denote all existing trees with Diameter-at-Breast Height (DBH) and indicate if the tree is to be removed or retained. If your site includes any significant trees, then you must include a tree risk assessment completed by a certified arborist and provide the critical root protection zone for any retained significant trees on the grading plan. Second Review Comment: Updated landscape plan shows significant trees that will be retained and significant trees that will be removed with development. Please submit a tree risk assessment completed by a certified arborist and provide critical protection zone for any retained significant trees on the grading plan.

Other/Miscellaneous

5. First Review Comment: Per PMC 25.58.005(2), the perimeter of all sites shall be landscaped the full depth of the required setback or 12 feet, which ever less; however, not less than 6 feet. The following landscape buffers are currently being encroached by off-street parking/paving: d. The Lot B western side yard requires a minimum 6-foot Type III landscape buffer. Second Review Comment: Updated landscape plan does not show landscape buffer on western side yard for Lot B.

Other/Miscellaneous

6. First Review Comment: Per PMC 25.58.005(2)(a)(ii), all retaining walls shall be setback from any rear or side yard a minimum of 6-feet, and the maximum retaining wall height within 30 feet of side and rear lot lines is 6 feet and shall include a Type I visual barrier landscape buffer. The proposed retaining walls are within 6 feet of lot lines and do not include a Type I visual barrier landscape buffer. Revise plans as necessary. Please note the proposed retaining walls are structures subject to wetland buffer building setback requirements detailed below. Second Review Comment: The revised civil plans show ‘Type III’ land scape buffers. Per the standard listed above ‘A Type I visual barrier landscape buffer shall be provided in front of all retaining walls, in accordance with the city’s vegetation management standards (VMS) manual.’

See Document Markup

Parking lot island cannot contain civil utilities, relocate. Island must be 15 feet wide min. [planning, sheet C2.2]

See Document Markup

Does not meet 16 ft min setback [planning, sheet C2.2]

See Document Markup

Does not meet 16 ft min setback [planning, sheet C2.2]

Other/Miscellaneous

See DRT comment letter and Redline markups for more information