| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
03/23/2017
|
03/16/2017
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
03/07/2017
|
03/07/2017
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please be aware that final approval of the plans cannot be granted until the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit has been submitted.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #1 on the applicant letter dated Feb. 9, 2017. The typical section did not include a dimension for the one (1) foot minimum distance beyond the back of curb for placement of subgrade.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to the applicant letter dated Feb. 9, 2017. A note is provided on the profile view with the words "Proposed 8" Dia. PVC pipe", and is not really sufficient for calling-out the placement of an underdrain. Please revise the note, and reference the detail on Sheet C121. Ensure the note is specific that the underdrain be installed between the curb inlets.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to the applicant letter dated Feb. 9, 2017. There are various comments concerning the calculated 100 year water surface elevation, and these were provided in table format. A spot check, however, yielded the following issues with the MBOEs: 1) our calculations show the MBOE for the left side (as looking into the lot from the street) for Lot 678 should be closer to 945.9, 2) our calculations show the MBOE for the left side Lot 675 should be closer to 948.3, and 3) our calculations show the MBOE for the left side of Lot 674 should be closer to 951.0. These calculations are based on the table showing the 100 year water depth, and determining the elevation using the contours. The calculations did not use the proposed grades because the proposed grades do not appear to match the contours.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The proposed grades shown on the Master Drainage Plan do not appear to match the contours shown on the Master Drainage Plan. Please see above comment. This comment pertains to the lots discussed in the above comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
03/07/2017
|
03/01/2017
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
02/09/2017
|
02/09/2017
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C103 - Street Typical Sections: Please provide a dimension label showing the subgrade and subgrade stabilization will be extened one (1) foot beyond the back of curb.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C103: Please be aware of the new standards concerning the substitution of geogrid for flyash stabilization (if applicable). If substituting flyash stabilization with geogrid, the MoDOT Type 5 base aggregate layer should be increased to 10" thickness.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C103: The creek realignment will require a United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit. Has this permit been issued?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C103: The outfall of the storm sewer into the creek at E.S. 2-1 appears to be at a right angle to the stream flow. Please consider a layout which aligns the discharge in the same fashion as the other discharge points. Please see additional comments (below) which reference the Kansas City American Public Works Association (KCAPWA) Section 5605.6 "Discharge Outfalls" for design criteria.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C104: Please provide the contour interval on the grading plan, and please show additional elevations by labeling the the contours. As shown, there are very few contours labeled.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C104: Please see previous comment concerning the alignment of the discharge point at E.S. 2-1. This discharge point is shown at a right angle to flow within the realigned creek, and will likely lead to stream erosion, as well as maintenance issues with the pipe.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C107: It appears an underdrain is warranted at the sag location between curb inlet 1-3 and 1-4. Please call-out the location of this underdrain, and provide a reference to the standard detail in the back of the plan set.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C110: A extraneous manhole is shown (i.e., MH 2-4) which does not appear to be needed. This is extra infrastructure that the City does not desire What is the purpose of this manhole?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
General Comment: Please provide calculations (preferably within the plan set, but alternatively within a separate report) showing the energy dissipation measures meet Section 5605.6 and 5606.4, Kansas City American Public Works Association (KCAPWA) "Energy Dissipation". Other measures besides rip rap should be considered
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Stormwater: Are there any other overflow routes needed to manage the 1% storm event? Since the majority of the stormwater system was designed for the 10% event, it is requested that this be evaluated further.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C114 - Master Drainage Plan: What is the calculated 100 year water surface elevation within the stream that is adjacent to the lots on the south side of the development? The MBOEs should be a minimum of two (2) feet higher than this calculated elevation.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C114: Please show the calculated 100 year water surface elevation for the stream adjacent to the west lots.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C114: Please show the calculated 100 year water surface elevation within any emergency overlfow swale.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C114: Please label the "emergency overflow" as "emergency overflow swale".
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C114: Please indicate the contour interval, and please provide additional elevation call-outs on the contours.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Additional curb inlets and piping system appears warranted along River Trail Rd. Curb inlet 4-3 is greater than 400 feet from the intersection of Ladderback Dr. and River Trail Rd., which is not allowed by the Design and Construction Manual. It should be noted that the future connection to River Trail Rd. to the east will introduce additional stormwater along River Trail Rd., and it would appear the most logical location for the storm inlets and piping would be at the intersection of Ladderback Dr. and River Trail Rd. At a minimum, they should be extended to the east side of Ladderback Dr. to enable an easy connection to a future phase.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Based on the above comment, the stormwater analysis should be reviseed to include the additional drainage area. It appears a significant drainage area is missing from the calculations, and in particular, the drainage to the east of the Ladderback Dr./River Trail Rd. intersection.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It does not appear the drainage area upstream of Field Inlet 2-5 was included in the calculations? Are there any other off-site drainage areas which were omitted from the drainage calculations? Please provide an updated Sheet C112 which provides the additional off-site drainage areas.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C113: It is unclear what figures were used for the existing drainage areas from off-site areas. For instance, what is the drainage area upstream of Field Inlet 2-5?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C113: Curb Inlet 4-4 is shown with a drainage area of 0.88 acreas. The drainage area map on Sheet C112 shows 1.00 acre? Are there other drainage areas that need to be checked? Please be aware this was a "spot check".
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C113: Rainfall intensity data has changed in accordance with new Atlas 14 data. Please provide calculations using the new data. For instance, the rainfall intensity for the 1% event have changed upward by 20% based on the Atlas 14 data. This would apply to any calculations, including storm sewer calculations and 100 water water surface elevation calculations described in the previous comments.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C114: There appears to be insufficient slope in the rear yard of Lot 675. An absolute minimum of 2% is required, unless calculations show a larger slope is necessary.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C114: Please label the rear yard swale on the east side of Tract O, and the east side of Lots 674 and 675 as a "SWALE".
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C114: Please label the rear yard swale on the east side of Lots 676, 677, 678, 679, and 680 as "SWALE".
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C114: Is there a swale on the east side of Lot 681? It appears finish grading is not shown. If a swale is necessary, please label as "SWALE".
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please provide the 100 year water surface elevation within any designated "SWALE". The MBOE should be set at a minimum of two (2) feet higher than the 100 year water surface elevation. The calculations of the 100 year water surface elevation should take into account the new Atlas 14 data, which shows an approximate 20% increase in the 24 rainfall intensity.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C114: Please provide a note stating that interpolation of MBOEs may be used in cases where the upstream and downstream portion of a lot is adjacent to a swale or stream.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C114: It apppears there is insufficient slope on the east side of Lots 680 through 676. An absolute minimum 2.0% slope is required.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet C114; It appears the proposed contours within the swale between Lots 680 and 681 do not match what is called-out for corner elevations.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs appeared low for the following unit prices, based on similar projects with similar scope: 1) surface and base course asphaltic concrete.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs appeared to be missing the following items: 1) stream relocation, 2) MoDOT type 5 aggregate in the area one beneath the curb and one (1) foot beyond the back of curb, 3) subgrade stablization in the area beneath the curb and one (1) foot beyond the back of curb, 4) concrete sidewalks and ADA-ramps, regardless of whether they are built with the subdivision or later, 5) additional stormwater piping and structures to address the comments in the body of this letter, 6) toe walls, 7) additional energy dissipation measures at the end of pipe(s), 8) grading in accordance with the Master Drainage Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
02/09/2017
|
02/08/2017
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
|
