Lee's Summit

Sheet C.205 scale seems to be incorrect and includes other non-design related issues. The sheet refers to ADA ramp details (none are shown). The sheet should also note the signs at the intersection of Kessler & Village Park Dr. These comments could be addressed with as-built plans.

The previous comments related to Kessler Dr. and the intersection of Kessler Dr. at Village Park Dr. have not been addressed. Sheet C205 still has errors in the dimensioning of lanes (pavement marking) and notes for sign location at the intersection. The typical section is correct with 40’ back of curb to back of curb dimension for Kessler Dr., but the dimension also notes 3-12’ lanes without the correct dimension of 2’ curb and gutter notations; which may be confusing.

The road improvements shown along View High Drive are not consistent with the PDP conditions of approval. Examples include the southbound left turn lane should be 300 feet in lenght plus taper and there should be a northbound right turn lane (200' plus taper) at Kessler.

KCMO approval needed for the road improvements along View High Dr.

The lane markings along Kessler, the associated dimension plan labels and the typical section are inconsistent.

Plan labels for the signing need to be relocated with the planned sign locations.

Off-Site road improvement plans were not included to review.

Stop/Street Name Signs should be located on Village Park Dr instead of Kessler Dr at the intersection of Village Park Dr and Kessler Dr.

The intersection detail sheet is still missing pavement marking information (e.g. left-turn arrows) and there are dimensioning errors.

The typical section of Kessler Drive still does not accommodate a commercial collector three lane section (three 12' lanes); evident from the intersection detail sheet dimensioning that shows a 12' lane from lane line to back of curb (effective 10' lane).

The erosion and sediment control plan is illegible at the half scale (i.e., the half size set will be illegible). Please increase the font size so the half size set is legible

Please see comment #22 in the previous applicant letter dated Nov. 15, 2016. The storm line appears to be outside the limits of the easement. Please increase the easement width in this area so the storm line is fully-contained within the easement, or change the geometry of the storm system as appropriate.

Macro Storm Water Drainage Study: The normal pool elevation did not appear to be mentioned in the report. It is assumed the normal pool elevation will be the flowline elevation of the outlet structure pipes, but should be clearly discussed in the report.

All Sheets Related to Stormwater Profiles and Hydraulic Grade Lines: Since it appears the 100 year water surface elevation within the retention basin is approximately 904 feet, why is the 100 year hydraulic grade line shown on the profile view at FES 1-1 at 900 feet? This appears to be a significant difference, and it would appear the tailwater elevation was not taken into account.

Please show the normal permanent pool elevation within the retention basin on Sheet C.200, Sheet C.201, and Sheet C.205.

Sheet C.205: It is unclear how the outlet structure OS-1 is to be installed. The detail is not labeled "OS-1", and two side by side rectangular boxes are shown with no pipe exiting the structure(s). A profile of the pipe(s) exiting the structure was also absent.

An emergency drawdown will be required for the retention basin. Please consider a system that avoids penetrations through the dam, such as a siphon system used in a previous installation.

Turf reinforcement mat would appear warranted for this project. The estimate included a minimal amount, but the plans do not appear to show where it is to be installed. Due to the scope of grading activities on this site, slopes, and potential for sediment runoff, please increase the amount of turf reinforcement, and provide notes showing the location for the turf reinforcement mat.

Please provide a revised Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs based on any additions or changes to the plans based on these comments.

If desired, the off-site traffic improvements discussed under the traffic comments may be submitted under a separate cover. If not, these plans should be included within this plan set.

Add stop signs and street name signs on Village Park Dr. at Kessler Dr., on Kessler Dr at View High Dr, and at Village Park Dr at View High Drive.

The typical section for Kessler Dr should have a 36 foot width between curbs so that a three lane configuration is accommodated throughout the commercial corridor. The section for Village Park Dr is okay given the right-in/right-out condition and transition to residential collector.

Typical sections should show a 4:1 slope, 3:1 may be okay in some locations depending on the adjacent road alignment, length of slope and other safety considerations (e.g. a 3:1 is not considered recoverable for an incident on the steep grade in combination with the curve on Kessler where the clear zone is extended beyond the curbs farther than normal).

Add pavement marking plan for Kessler Dr, especially the westbound left-turn lane at View High Dr. Pavement marking standards are available for reference.

Off-Site road improvement plans were not included to review.

Add centerline alignment information (horizontal radii, PC, PT, dimensions, etc.)

Add curb return and curve dimensions (radius information, PC, PT, etc).

Add signing and marking plans.

Off-Site Road Improvement Plans are needed for turn lanes along View High Drive.

Change references "Street B" to the proposed street name.

The typical street section does not conform to the standards set forth in the Design and Construction Manual. This is a commercial collector street, and as such, the pavement thickness and subgrade need to be updated on the typical section.

The typical street section shows sidewalk on both sides of the street, with a cross slope of 2% to 4%. The maximum slope of the sidewalk should be shown at 1.5%.

An erosion and sediment control plan, along with a temporary sediment basin, appeared to be missing from the plan set.

Sheet C.100: The lot numbering scheme does not match what is shown on the plat.

All Sheets: Please label the lot numbers.

A final stormwater detention report was not provided. Please provide a final stormwater detention report, keeping in mind that the calculations should also include the water quality element (i.e., 40 hour extended detention), and routing within the detention basin along with elevations of the elements within the outlet structure.

Underdrains should be specified and clearly shown at each sag location.

Sheet C.203: A temporary turnaround appears to be warranted at the end of Street B.

Sheet C.205: The scale appears to be incorrect on this sheet.

Sheet C.205: Is the basin a retention basin with a permanent pool, or is it a dry detention basin?

Sheet C.205: The design shown on this sheet cannot be checked at this time. A final stormwater detention report was not included in the submittal package.

Sheet C.205: Section views are shown of the outlet structure, but no other details are provided. Materials, steel reinforcement, manhold frame and lids, etc. should be clearly shown either on this sheet or elsewhere in the plans.

The water quality element of the stormwater detention system should be shown.

Sheet C.300: Proposed easements should be clearly labeled on this sheet, as well as other sheets in the submittal package.

Sheet C.300: P/S is shown without any definition in the plan set. Is this a parking setback? Where are the easements for the sanitary sewer along the east side of Lot 1?

It appears several off-site drainage easements are required for this project. This would include the public portion of the stormwater line discharging into the detention basin, and the stormwater line running north/south along the east side of Lot 1.

Sheet C.301: We are unable to review this sheet due to QA/QC issues. Field inlets are shown out of the ground, in "sump" conditions that contradict the profile view.

Sheet C.301: Storm Line 1 is shown discharging into the tract with an unacceptable method for energy dissipation. The 7.5' by 15' rip rapped area will be insufficient to manage the energy from a 60" HDPE pipe. Provide calculations of velocity and a revised design to manage the energy of this system.

All Sheets Related to Stormwater: The hydraulic grade line for the design storm must be shown on the profile view.

General Comment: Ensure that the proposed contours on the profile view of the stormwater system match what is shown on the grading plan and Master Drainage Plan.

Sheet C.302: Crowns do not appear to match at curb inlet 2-3.

Sheet C.302: Where are the easements near curb inlet 2-3? It appears the storm line is outside the limits of the easement.

An itemized and sealed Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs should accompany your final submittal drawings.