Lee's Summit

Please show the location of proposed lot lines on the plans, and label them.

This review is based on the preliminary lot line layout entitled "Parking and Property Exhibit" (undated) provided by the applicant. This exhibit includes 9 lots. If lot lines change, then these comments may change.

Sanitary sewer Line F appears to run parallel to an existing sanitary sewer line which is already installed along NW Ward Rd. It would appear that than an extension of the sanitary sewer from City manhole #22-098 towards the east would be more appropriate. It would appear there is sufficient depth at City manhole #22-098 to serve the lot to the east.

Sanitary sewer Line E appears to be a parallel line which is redundant. What is the reasoning behind the installation of this parallel line? The City does not want to maintain sanitary sewer lines which are redundant and unnecessary.

What is the linear feature (i.e., shown in a darkened-gray lineweight) between sanitary sewer Line E and Line C?

Sheet 3 of 11: A note is provided concerning the Aquila sanitary service. Will details be provided on the connection to Aquila? It does not appear this was provided. Please be aware that any connecton between Aquila and the public system should be made via a wye connection rather than a direct-connect to a manhole.

It would appear the northwest to southeast leg of Line C is unnecessary. It would appear that Line F can be extended to serve this sole lot along NW Ward Rd. If Line F cannot be extended in this fashion, then a private easment and private sanitary service may be appropriate to serve this sole lot along NW Ward Rd.

Sheet 3 of 11: Line B should be designed as a private sanitary sewer. The on-site portion of Line A may be considered public contingent upon the two lots that are served by Line A are platted in accordance with the exhibit provided by the applicant.

Sheet 3 of 11: Is there another existing City manhole northeast of City manhole #22-027? It would appear City manhole #22-026 is located immediately to the northeast of City manhole #22-027.

Sheet 4 of 11: It would appear that insufficient depth is shown near station 11+25. This would appear to be located in a drainage area. What measures are proposed to provide for sufficient protection of the sanitary sewer pipe, such as ductile iron, concrete encasement, etc.?

Sheet 4 of 11: Please show the outgoing pipe at existing City manhole #23-002, along with outgoing flowline elevations. Please be aware of the requirement pertaining to the smaller sewer joining a larger sewer (i.e., when a smaller sewer joins a large one, the invert of the smaller sewer should be raised sufficiently to maintain the same energy gradient. An approximate method for accomplishing this is to place the 0.8 depth point of both sewers at the same elevation).

Sheet 4 of 11: Manhole A3 should be designed with a minimum of 0.5 foot drop due to the high deflection angle.

Sheet 4 of 11: Manhole A4 should be designed with a minimum drop of 0.4 feet due to the high deflection angle. An allowance was made to the normal 0.5 foot requirement.

Sheet 5 of 11: Substandard pipe slope is shown between manhole A7 and A6. A minimum of 0.60%, with a higher value preferred, is required.

Sheet 5 of 11: Manhole A5 should be designed with a minimum drop of 0.5 feet due to the high deflection angle.

Sheet 6 of 11: The profile view does not appear to show any manholes. Please see previous comment, however, concerning the private versus public line.

Sheet 6 of 11: Manholes A5 and B1 should be designed with a minimum 0.5 foot drop due to the high deflection angle. Please see the previous comment, however, concerning the private versus public line.

Sheet 7 of 11: Substandard pipe slope is shown at two (2) locations. The minimum pipe slope for a public line is 0.60%, with a larger slope preferred. Please see previous comment, however, concerning public versus private sewer line.

Sheet 7 of 11: Please label the existing City manhole number on Line C.

Sheet 7 of 11: Manhole C6 should be designed with a minimum drop of 0.4 feet due to the high deflection angle.

Sheet 10 of 11: Please see previous comment concerning the need for this line, and the extension of the existing sanitary sewer near the intersection of NW Blue Pkwy., and Ward Rd.

Sheet 10 of 11: Manhole F2 appears to be too shallow. The minimum depth of cover is 3.5 feet. Only 2.5 feet is provided. Please see previous comment concerning the need for this new sanitary sewer line.

General Comment: Where concrete encasement is specified, it should be clearly specified and defined (i.e., if "RCE" is shown, then define it and reference the City standard detail SAN-7).

Sheet 10 of 11: A DIP crossing is labeled, but the actual location of the pipe is not shown.

Are any private laterals proposed as part of this project? If so, please show their location.