Lee's Summit

After reading the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit for this project, it does not appear that the proposed plans will comply with the terms of the permit. For instance, the typical section view for the reconstructed Maybrook Creek show a 12' +/- channel with a floodplain shelf. We are measuring the channel width and showing a width of 20 to 25 feet for the bottom of the channel. To reiterate our concern, the City is of the opinion that the proposed wide channel will never overtop as intended and the floodplain shelf will not serve its intended use. Finally, there would be a conflict with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit.

Sheet 25 of 31 shows the Grade Control Detail (i.e., Rock Cross Vane) keyed into the bank a minimum of 4 feet at the top of bank. It is our experience that this needs to be a minimum of one half the stream width or 10 feet, whichever is greater.

The various plan views of the Grade Control Detail (i.e., Rock Cross Vane) do not reflect the detail. The plan view merely shows their location without the keyed-in location. The City is concerned that a contractor will neglect to install these critical elements.

There are four instances where the proposed storm sewer is shown discharging (i.e., daylighting) onto rip rap. The first instance is located at the end of the 116 feet of 24" HDPE. Is there a swale planned for the remainder of this discharge channel? The other instances are the discharge locations for the HDPE along the east side of the project and near the stream bank. Are swales proposed for these discharges? Finally, it appears that the northernmost discharge location for the 36" HDPE will be discharging at a ninety degree angle to the creek and with no rip rap or erosion control along the bank. What will be done in that location to limit bank erosion?

Sheet 9 of 31 shows a Typical Permanent Stream Channel Section which appears to contradict the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit because it is considerably wider than shown on the U.S. Army Corps permit. The permit shows a 12' bottom width on the channel.

The revised stormwater report dated August 30, 2011 still does not clearly summarize what is being proposed at the site. The pre-developed (i.e., existing) peak flow rates for the 2, 10, and 100 year events versus the proposed peak flow rates from the site are not presented in an easy-to-read fashion. The narrative portion of the report again directs the reader to Appendix B, but it would be difficult for a person without knowledge of this particular software to evaluate the data. The City is asking for a narrative description of the existing peak flow rates for the 2, 10, and 100 year events versus the proposed peak flow rates for the 2, 10, and 100 year events. We are also asking for the Engineer's opinion on the effect to downstream properties (i.e., water quality, peak flow rates, flooding potential less than or greater than existing, etc.). Again, there are significant downstream issues concerning flooding potential and water quality which need to be discussed in a "summary report". We would be receptive to an addendum to the report.

As indicated in our previous comment letter, there are sections of the sanitary sewer which are greater than 15 feet in depth as measured from the ground surface to the top of pipe. The areas where the sanitary sewer exceeds the 15 foot depth rule are in the vicinity of the Wilshire Drive/Meadowview Drive intersection and extend well beyond these limits. If there are future utility problems with the sewer in these locations, the entire street would need to be reconstructed due to the 22 foot depth at the City's expense. At this time, the City cannot support a waiver to this requirement since it appears that adequate sewer service can be provided without the excessive depth.

The water line profile requested by the City in our last comment letter was not submitted. This will be required.

The City is highly recommending a separate water line plan view since it is not clear what is existing versus what is proposed. If this is not possible, then clearly show what is being proposed using appropriate shading, notes, or other means as deemed appropriate.

Sheet 13 of 31 shows a stub-off of Wilshire Drive to the south. The City is requesting that the stub-off be eliminated by extending a line to the west centered on the curb line of Meadowview Drive. This is being requested since the City is unsure how the future connection will be made, and it is possible that it will be removed and replaced with a different width and/or geometry.

Appropriate MUTCD end of roadway markers should be called out on the plans on the west end of Meadowview Drive.

A sidewalk will be required along the south side of Meadowview Drive and will need to be shown on the plans.

Signs (R1-1 and street names) should be called out at the northeast corner of Meadowview Drive and Manhatten Drive.

Sign R1-1 should be called out at the northwest corner of Meadowview Drive and Manhatten Drive.

Sheet 15 of 31: The font size is too small to read.

Will the proposed triple box culvert include handrails? Is guardrail being proposed along Meadowview Drive?

Please label the station number where the lateral is connected to the sanitary sewer main.

Please remove the 5 foot stub out for future connection on the southermost manhole. The City of Lee's Summit does not allow for future stub-offs (i.e., future connections must be core drilled).

Please provide the capacity of sedimentation basin #3. The capacity may be a stand-alone (i.e., email, etc.) document.

Sheet 24 contains Drawing ESC-19, Sediment Fence Drop Inlet Protection. Drawing ESC-19 may represent an ineffective use of silt fence. Deletion of Drawing ESC-19 from the plans is recommended. If this is acceptable to the Engineer, the City would be agreeable to marking an "X" through the drawing with the reviewers initials.

Sheet 12 of 31 still shows the manhole rim approximately 9 inches above finish grade. Please revise the drawing to show the rim to be flush with the finish grade.

Sheet 14 of 31 shows fire hydrants too far behind the back of curb. Please revise the plan sheet to show the locations of these fire hydrants to within 2 feet behind the back of curb.

It does not appear that the sanitary sewer stub locations are shown on the plans. Please revise accordingly.

Final approval of the plans shall be contingent upon a modification to the United States Army Corps of Engineers permit.

Sheet 12 of 31 (Sanitary Sewer Profiles) shows a manhole at station 1+80. The rim elevation appears to be nearly a foot above finish grade. Please revise the drawing to show the manhole flush with the finish grade.

Due to the depth, please specify SDR 21 sanitary sewer pipe for the run between manhole A and manhole B, and manhole B and manhole D.

Supplemental Sheet 1: Please add a fire hydrant to the end of the line where the "cap" is shown (southwest corner of the intersection of Meadowview Drive and Wilshire Drive).

Supplemental Sheet S1: The water line is shown reversed (i.e., flip-flopped) from what is needed. Please show the water lines within utility easements fronting the road, with fire hydrants shown in the green space between the sidewalk and the street.

Supplemental Sheet S1: It may be necessary to move the sanitary sewer manhole slightly to accomodate the water line at station 9+58.

Supplemental Sheet S1: The water line is proposed to be laid on top of the triple box culvert. There is not sufficient cover below the proposed water line to make this practical. Please re-route the water line around the triple box culvert to the north with no more than 45 degree bends (i.e., if a 90 degree bend is needed, please show two 45 degree bends). Please show the water line no more than 15 feet from the toe wall of the triple box culvert or wing wall of the triple box culvert.

Supplemental Sheet S1: Please show appropriate drainage easements for the triple box cuvert to facilitate future maintenance. In general, we will require a 12 foot easement on each side of the box (both sides of the roadway) and extending 10 feet beyond the toe wall.

Supplemental Sheet S1: Please label all general utility easements.

Supplemental Sheet S1: Please specifiy ductile iron pipe for the stream crossing extending a minimum of ten feet beyond the low flow stream bank. The ductile iron pipe must be installed a minimum of 42" below the flowline of the stream.

Supplemental Sheet S1: Please specify a water valve with straddle blocks on each side of the stream bank for the stream crossing.

Supplemental Sheet S1: Please specify an additional fire hydrant along Meadowview Drive roughly in the vicinity of station 2+50.

Sheet 13 and 14: Sidewalk ramps shown at Meadowview and Wilshire are shown as Type B ramps. These should be Type A since there is no sidewalk on the west side of Wilshire Drive to receive them.

An ADA-accessible sidewalk ramp is shown on the north side of Meadowview Drive at the intersection of Manhattan Drive. Since there is no receiving ramp on the east side of Manhattan Drive, this ramp needs to be changed to a Type A ramp directed toward the south side of Meadowview Drive.

Sanitary sewer stub-offs (i.e., private laterals) need to be shown on the plans.

Traffic Correction

Remove the proposed Stop Sign shown at the NE corner of Wilshire Drive and Meadowview Drive. Add Street Name signs on a standard sign post on this corner.

Traffic Correction

Remove the proposed Stop Sign and post from the NW corner of Wilshire Drive and Meadowview Drive.

Traffic Correction

Prove the guard rail along Meadowview Drive is necessary. Unnecessary guard rail is less safe, being an obstruction within the clear zone, and maintenance expense. It does not appear to be required based on the 25 mph speed limit and curb and gutter road section, since the unrecoverable slope and open box is so far from the travel lane (at least 10-12 feet including C&G). The pedestrian protection fence is needed.

Plan set should be no larger than 22" by 34".

Provide a note on Sheet 1 which states that all construction shall be in accordance with the City of Lee’s Summit Design and Construction Manual, City Ordinance No. 5813.

Provide a note on Sheet 1 which states that the contractor shall contact the City of Lee’s Summit Public Works Inspections at (816) 969-1826 within 48 hours of commencement of construction.

Provide a note on Sheet 1 which states that the contractor shall contact the City of Lee’s Summit Public Works Right of Way Inspector at (816) 969-1838 48 hours prior to any construction within right of way. These activities may require a permit.

A sealed Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs should accompany your final submittal copies. Public Works’ review and inspection fee is based on that cost. The following items, both materials and installation, should be included in the itemized estimate • Any water line larger than 2” in diameter, valves, hydrants, and backflow preventer with vault, if outside the building • All storm water piping 6” or larger, structures, and detention/retention facilities • All grading for detention/retention ponds • All sanitary sewer manholes and piping between manholes, including private mains • The connection of the building sewer stub to the public main • All public infrastructure, both onsite and offsite • All private street construction, excluding parking lots, drive approaches and sidewalks • All erosion control devices

There are several instances where the proposed stream channel alignment is shown to conflict with the sanitary sewer line running generally north/south. This can be mitigated by moving the proposed alignment slightly to minimize the amount of sanitary sewer line which will lie beneath the stream banks. For instance, the first bend on the south end of the alignment could be moved slightly to the east so the sanitary sewer does not lie beneath the stream bank. The bend where the existing manhole is located could possibly be moved to the west to so the existing sanitary line lying beneath the stream bank is minimized. This would also remove the manhole from the stream bank which is not allowed (see specific comment concerning this issue). Finally, the bend located near FES 10 might be moved to the east so the existing sanitary sewer line does not lie beneath the new stream bank.

Grade Control within the new channel is called out on several Sheets, but there is no specific detail concerning Grade Control. Is it going to be temporary or permanent?

Grade Control is called out on several Sheets, but there is no specific detail concerning Grade Control. Is it going to be temporary or permanent?

The existing sanitary sewer manhole located near the end of the new cul-de-sac is shown within the limits of the new stream bank alignment. This is not allowed. Please see comment concerning movement of the alignment to minimize the amount of sanitary sewer line which lies beneath the new stream bank.

The existing sanitary sewer manhole located near the end of the new cul-de-sac is shown within the limits of the new stream bank alignment. This is not allowed. Please see comment concerning movement of the geometric alignment to minimize the amount of sanitary sewer line which lies beneath the new stream bank.

The note on Sheet 1 discusses that "the final planting design for the stream restoration area will be design/build..." When will this plan be made available?

The note on Sheet 1 discusses that "the contractor shall design/build the bridge structure..." The City cannot approve of the street plans without the full design being made available for the bridge. Is this to be a reinforced box culvert? This new bridge structure must also be shown to not create any backwater effect which raises the 100 year water surface elevation behind (i.e., upstream) of the structure.

Sheet 7 of 29 shows a 10 foot utility easement for the sanitary sewer. Is this mislabeled? It scales to 20 feet.

Manhole A and B will be greater than 15 feet in depth from the top of the lid to the top of the pipe. In addition, it appears that most of the proposed sanitary sewer will be greater than 15 feet in depth which is not allowed.

The "Storm Water Report" dated April 22, 2011 appears to consist of appendices without any explanation or conculsions. This report will need to provide an explanation for the purpose of the report, a discussion of the current retention and how the dismantling of the current retention pond will not have a negative impact on downstream properties, and any other significant conclusions which are relevant to the dismantling of the retention pond.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) will need to provide their approval of the proposed sanitary sewer plan following concurrence from the city.

An ADA ramp detail will need to be provided showing key elevations of the proposed ramp. It appears there will be one (1) ADA ramp at Hagan Road and Meadowview Drive. Please see the standard APWA detail for specific elevations needed.

A water line plan and profile will need to be provided. It appears that a plan view was provided, but not a profile view.

Provide a note which states that the retention basin will be drained over a period of 48 hours to minimize downstream impacts, and that under no circumstances will draining begin during wet weather.

Sanitary sewer laterals (i.e., private stub offs) did not appear to be included on the sanitary sewer plan. These locations should be clearly marked, and the location of the wye connection shown.

All construction within the jurisdictional waters of the United States will need a permit prior to any activity within the limits of the stream. This will include a Section 404 permit from the United States Corps of Engineers, a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), and their approval of the mitigation plan.

Traffic Correction

The engineering plans and plat require significant revision to coordinate with the design of Strother Road. Strother Road alignment, ROW, access and lot lines to the project will be impacted. Hagan Road will align near the western property line of the property, consequently at least two of the proposed streets and potentially the reserved ROW for street connectivity will be impacted (may not requrire collector standard - less ROW). The proposed Hagan Road location is incompatible with current plans (and should not be named Hagan Road in the plat).