Lee's Summit

BUILDING ELEVATIONS. Provide 3 new copies of the building exterior elevations. Previously submitted copies have been used as markup copies.

DE Engineers Estimate

The Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Costs has been accepted for this project, and the Engineering Plan Review and Inspection Fee (which is calculated as 3% of the total infrastructure cost plus a water test inspection fee(s)), and the water tap and meter setup fee have been included. These must be paid prior to the issuance of an infrastructure permit and/or the final processing of a building permit. $41,543.61

Three (3) complete plan sets must be submitted in full-size, paper form prior to formal approval of the Final Development Plan.

An as-built Record Drawing shall be submitted and approved by the City for the modified detention basin, showing that the basin has been installed according to plan.

DE Contact Field Eng. Inspector

Contact Field Engineering Inspections at (816) 969-1200 at least 48 hours prior to the onset of construction.

DE Contact ROW Inspector

Prior to any activities within the right-of-way that are not directly associated with a specific infrastructure or building permit, a separate right-of-way permit may be required. Contact a Right-of-Way Inspector at (816) 969-1800 to obtain the required permit.

DE Future Repair Work

Please be aware that any future repair work to public infrastructure (e.g., water main repair, sanitary sewer repair, storm sewer repair, etc.) within public easements will not necessarily include the repair of pavement, curbing, landscaping, or other private improvements which are located within the easement.

DE C&O #12 Cut & Fill

Any cut and / or fill operations, which cause public infrastructure to exceed the maximum / minimum depths of cover shall be mitigated by relocating the infrastructure vertically and / or horizontally to meet the specifications contained within the City’s Design and Construction Manual.

Code Statement

All issues pertaining to life safety and property protection from the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to the safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations, shall be in accordance with the 2018 International Fire Code.

Fire Lanes

IFC 503.2.1 - Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm), exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (4115 mm) Action required- Use CG-2 curbs for the passenger side curbs at the reserved Parking gate island.

Prior comments were not addressed (non responsive), but those comments did not require plan changes and remain only as suggestions to improve traffic safety and operations on-site and better compliance with current AMC. The suggested changes should have no impact on the public transportation system.

Code Statement

All issues pertaining to life safety and property protection from the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to the safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations, shall be in accordance with the 2018 International Fire Code.

There is concern about the flat slope in the bottom of the detention basin. Even though call-outs of 2% slope are shown, they do not agree with the contour elevation call-outs. Calculations are provided using the "PONDs) software showing this may be feasible (i.e., to allow a flat-bottom detention basin), but please be aware that it will be a condition of approval of this Final Development Plan that all stormwater in the bottom of the detention basin be eliminated within the timeframe specified in the report. If it is shown that it is not eliminated within 72 hours as specified in the report, it is likely the project will not be granted Final Acceptance, and a re-design will be required.

As discussed above, 2% call-outs are shown on the grading plan shown on Sheet C6.2. However, this does not agree with the elevation call-outs on the contours for a majority of the basin bottom.

The bottom of the retaining wall elevation is shown at 992.0 throughout the entire basin, but this call-out does not agree with the 993 contour call-out shown in the southeast corner of the basin. According to the contour call-outs, the bottom of the wall should be higher than 993?

No information other than length and width of the "Bio Retention Area" was provided on Sheet C6.2 or L1.2 or L2.0. A thickness is required. The note "1" gravel 3" depth in lieu of mulch" is not sufficient, and we do not support this substitution. In addition, it is not a "mulch" mix. According to Sheet L2.0, the mixture is not mulch, but rather, a planting soil with a specific mixture of sand, silt, organic matter, etc. It should match what is shown in the stormwater report, which according to Appendix VII is 3.0 feet? Finally, please remove the overstrike error on this note. It is obscured by traffic arrows, and not legible.

Sheet C6.4: The outlet control structure has been redesigned. However, it now appears to show two (2) "goosenecks" with no corresponding detail concerning their construction (e.g., length, materials, elevation of the bottom of the gooseneck, etc.). Recommended that a separate detail be provided showing these design details.

Sheet C6.4: The outlet structure has now been redesigned. However, The plan view shows what appears to be a grated top, rather than a manhole frame and lid. Please reconcile this discrepancy.

Sheet C6.4: The lower gooseneck appears to be placed where it will affect the routing calculations (i.e., it appears to be installed just above the apron shown in the isometric view). However, without any elevation call-outs, or dimensions showing the distance between the bottom of the gooseneck and the top of the apron, it is impossible to determine what, if any, affect this constriction would have on the routing calculations. Please reconcile.

Sheet C6.4: The elevation call-out for the apron shown in the isometric view does not agree with the elevation call-out on the contour lines shown on the grading plan shown on Sheet C6.2. According to Sheet C6.2, the elevation is between 992 and 993. Sheet C6.4 calls-out an elevation of 991.0. Please reconcile.

Sheet C6.4: Two (2) 4 inch were added to outlet structure K2. However, no profile view was provided. Since this is an integral part of the dam, a profile view is required showing pipe material, slope, length, etc. As shown, there are no dimensions provided anywhere on the plans, nor any slope call-outs.

Sheet C6.4 "Pond Cross-Section": The 100 year nominal stage is shown at 999.6. Above this, there is a dashed line with an elevation call-out of 999.6 (i.e., it is exactly the same call-out). This does not make sense (i.e., how can the dashed line shown above the lower line be the same?).

Sheet C6.4 "Pond Cross-Section": It appears the top of the dam has been changed, and is now shown at 999.6. However, this does not agree with the grading plan shown on Sheet C6.2. Sheet C6.2 shows the elevation of the top of the dam being at least 1000 feet. In other words, it appears no significant changes were made to the grading plan on Sheet C6.2 since the last submittal.

Sheet C6.4: It appears the "Pond Cross-Section" top dimension has been changed. It is now shown extending past the top of the dam (i.e., the 4 foot width at the top of the dam call-out is shown extending past the top of the dam). It appears this is a drafting error?

Sheet C6.4 "Pond Cross-Sections": If the top of the dam is planned to be 999.6, why is there additional fill shown at an elevation of 1001.0 on the cross-section above this point? According to your design, it would appear this doesn't make sense. According to your drawings, the retaining wall is set at the higher elevation?

The "Drainage Design Summary" dated Apr. 10, 2019 appears to show the 100 year nominal water surface elevation at the top of the dam, which is not allowed. A minimum of 0.5 feet of freeboard is required from this nominal condition, and the top of the dam. It appears no freeboard was provided at all. We will not support any "waiver" or "design exception" to this rule. We had discussed reducing the freeboard requirement to perhaps 0.7 feet for the clogged condition/zero available storage, but not the freeboard between the nominal condition and the top of the dam.

Recommend that a thorough review of Sheet C6.4 be conducted. It appears that little effort was conducted to ensure the plans make sense both from a constructability standpoint, but also whether the design is supported by the calculations and statements provided in the stormwater report.

Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs: It appears the following unit prices were low basedd on previous estimates: 1) curb and gutter, 2) 8 inch PVC sanitary line, 3) sanitary manholes, 4) water lines (all). In addition, the estimate appeared to be missing the following items: 1) relocation of the existing backflow vaults, or new backflow vaults, 2) erosion and sediment control devices and measures, 3) final restoration, including seeding, sodding, fertilizer, mulch, and topsoil, 4) detention basin outlet structure, 5) 4 inch HDPE dam drainage line, 6) sand drain, 7) bioretention cell.

Incoming pipes to the detention basin are shown at or below the outgoing pipe elevation of 992.30. In the Lee's Summit area, infiltration is not an effective means for stormwater management, and will lead to mosquitoes. As we previously commented, 2.0% slope is required in all directions within the detention basin bottom. There can be no allowance for standing water after a storm event, as it will pond for weeks.

The pond outlet structure shown on Sheet C6.4 is missing the following design elements: 1) thickness of the walls, 2) steel reinforcement details, 3) step details for access, 4) zero slope in the bottom, leading to the formation of mosquito breeding issues, 5) details concerning the construction of the skimmer, including material to be used, method of attachment, comprehensive dimensions, and reasoning behind this particular design. Is the skimmer detail being utilized to offer anti-clogging protection to the orifices? If so, then a 16 inch stand-off from the outside of the structure will do little to prevent clogging?

The anti-clogging method appears to be lacking in terms of achieving the goal of preventing clogging of the orifices.

Specific slope call-outs are required in the bottom of the detention basin. The minimum is 2.0% in all directions. Soils in this area will not drain, and infiltration, although a possibility in other parts of the U.S., is not feasible in this area. Without a 2.0% slope in all directions, it has been our experience that the bottom of detention basins will hold water for an extended length of time, and will lead to mosquito issues.

Dimensions were missing on the bioretention cell. Without scaling in the field, how is this information going to be conveyed to the contractor and inspector? Please provide dimensions that are clear, or provide coordinates that can be used for staking the limits of the bioretention cell.

The call-out on Sheet C6.2 shows a "U-Type End Wall with Energy Dissipators", but there is no reference on the plan view on Sheet C6.2 where this is located. After finding the detail on Sheet C8.1, it is apparent this is a generic design detail, forcing the contractor and inspector to interpret this "table view" design in the field. Please be specific which particular design is being used. It is highly recommended that a specific design detail be prepared for this structure, so there is no confusion as to what was intended.

The call-out on Sheet C6.2 shows a "U-Type End Wall with Energy Dissipators", but there is no reference on the plan view on Sheet C6.2 where this is located. After finding the detail on Sheet C8.1, it is apparent this is a generic design detail, forcing the contractor and inspector to interpret this "table view" design in the field. Please be specific which particular design is being used. It is highly recommended that a specific design detail be prepared for this structure, so there is no confusion as to what was intended.

The call-out on Sheet C6.2 shows a "U-Type End Wall with Energy Dissipators", but there is no reference on the plan view on Sheet C6.2 where this is located. After finding the detail on Sheet C8.1, it is apparent this is a generic design detail, forcing the contractor and inspector to interpret this "table view" design in the field. Please be specific which particular design is being used. It is highly recommended that a specific design detail be prepared for this structure, so there is no confusion as to what was intended.

Consider addressing the traffic comments from 1/16/19 to improve safety on-site and better comply with PDP approval regarding driveway throat depth (AMC conditions) for the main entrance off Blue Parkway that will be diminished with the parking expansion.

Code Statement

All issues pertaining to life safety and property protection from the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to the safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations, shall be in accordance with the 2018 International Fire Code.

A profile view of the wall is now a requirement since 2018. The profile view should present the top of wall elevations at key locations, and bottom of wall elevations at key locations. A note should also be provided stating that an independent inspection be performed on all retaining walls.

Sheet C6.0: The overall grading plan shows what appears to be no slope in the bottom of the detention basin. A minimum of 2.0% slope is required in all directions.

Sheet C6.0: The contours within the detention basin are not legible. They contain strikeovers.

Sheet C6.0: Recommend a separate sheet for the detention basin grading. A separate as-built Record Drawing is required for this feature after construction, and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Substantial Completion.

Sheet C6.0: It appears the flowline of the pipe at the exit of the detention basin is higher than the surrounding ground elevation. This is also apparent from Sheet C6.2.

Sheet C6.4: The profile view shows a 24 inch RCP, but the plan view shows an 18 inch pipe.

Profile View Sheets for Stormwater: There appear to be numerous instances of storm pipes not matching the receiving pipe crown (i.e., in many cases, the receiving pipe crown is higher than the crown of the entry pipe). Why was this done? Standard practice is to match crowns, at a minimum.

All Profile Views of the Storm Lines: The hydraulic grade line for the design storm must be shown on the profile view.

Please label the existing public sanitary sewer manhole to the west of existing manhole U21. This is City manhole #68-221.

Please label the profile view of all sanitary sewers as "private".

Sheet C7.4: Several drafting "remnants" appear to be shown on the profile view of the 8 inch fire line. Please clean up as appropriate.

Sheet C7.4: C900 water line is not intended to be bent as shown in the two (2) locations on the profile view. The maximum deflection is 1 degree, and only within the joint itself. This equates to approximately 1200 feet of "radius", if using this technique. No deflection is allowed in the pipe, however. Please ensure the pipe meets these requirements for minimum "radius" of "bend".

Sheet C8.1: The curb and gutter detail is incorrect. The typical section view shows compacted subgrade over an aggregate base. Please see your previous asphaltic concrete pavement sections on Sheet C8.0 for the proper placement in regard to subgrade and aggregate base.

The lid for the sanitary sewer manhole did not appear to be included in the plans. It should be labeled as "SEWER".

Sheet C9.2: How will the backflow vault be drained? A specific detail must be shown concerning the drainage for this sump. It may include daylighting with a small pipe, connection to an inlet, or if neither are options, creation of an infiltration sump. Generally, we have seen this method used by constructing a 2 foot by 5 foot round hole, surrounded by permeable geofabric, and filled with clean crushed stone.

The bioretention soil mixture, and plan for its placement is vague and unbuildable if using the proposed plan. Specific design details are required. It is not the responsibility of the contractor or inspector to look up a table in a manual while on site. Specific information is required, including a section view, plan view showing dimensions, and all other normal information necessary to construct according to your design.

Sheet C6.2: What is a "U Type End Wall With Energy Dissipators"? Please be specific, and show the details concerning this feature.

Plans were too large. Final plan sets should be 24 by 36 inches.

The "Drainage Design Summary" dated Feb. 15, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the drainage study") references the old KCAPWA standards. The date of the most current KCAPWA Section 5600 is Feb. 16, 2011.

The drainage study states in Section 2.0 that the peak flow rates will be used as a criteria for peak attentuation, but no mention of extended detention or other volumetric controls are mentioned in this section. Since the water quality is part of the design, shouldn't this be mentioned in Section 2,0 of the report?

Please see Section 5608.6 of the Design and Construction Manual. The items listed in this section are the minimum required items to be included in a drainage study. While some of the information is presented in tablature format, there are no graphical formats presented in the appendix. Please ensure these items are provided for all three design storms.

Was a type II storm used? The appendix appears to show a type III storm. In accordance with the Design and Construction Manual, if using the SCS method, then a type II storm must be used in the City of Lee's Summit.

It appears the routing calculations use an 18 inch pipe, with no other orifices for control of stormwater releases. Will this single orifice be capable of managing all three storm events within the prescribed range of allowable discharges? If not, then a multiple orifice/weir arrangement will need to be provided.

Where is the emergency spillway?

Please show the nominal 100 year water surface elevation within the detention basin (i.e., assuming zero clogging and a fully-functioning outlet structure). Elevation should be shown graphically to the nearest tenth of a foot. An as-built Record Drawing will be required to ensure the basin is built to plan.

When designing the emergency spillway, please show the location of the 100 year water surface elevation within the spillway, assuming 100 clogged condition, and zero available storage within the basin. There should be a minimum of 1.0 feet of freeboard between the clogged condition 100 water surface elevation, and the lowest point of the dam top. In addition, the emergency spillway should designed with a crest elevation a minimum of 0.5 feet above the nominal 100 year water surface elevation.

What anti-clogging measures are being used to ensure the primary outlet structure does not clog? This is required as part of the Design and Construction Manual.

PLAN SIZE. The maximum plan size the Development Services Department accepts is 24" x 36".

BUILDING ELEVATIONS. Provide new copies of the building exterior elevations. Previously submitted copies have been used as markup copies.

Consider addressing the traffic comments from 1/16/19 to improve safety on-site. Suggest removing or limiting the parking shown along the drive aisle that provides access directly to the ER from Blue Parkway, especially the few parking spaces located within the driveway area between Blue Parkway and the parking lots. This is an area of increased potential for vehicle conflict involving entering/exiting traffic and parking manuevers.

Code Statement

All issues pertaining to life safety and property protection from the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to the safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations, shall be in accordance with the 2012 International Fire Code.

FDC

IFC 903.3.7 - Fire department connections. The location of fire department connections shall be approved by the fire code official. Connections shall be a 4 inch Storz type fitting and located within 100 feet of a fire hydrant, or as approved by the code official. Recommendation:Ref: C7.2 - If you move the hydrant ((U10) to the planned location of the FDC (U9), then the FDC could be placed on the building and the fire department would be able to use the hydrant and supply the FDC without blocking the fire lane. It would also be a cost savings. The horn strobe would then be located over the FDC along with the Knox Box.

Please refer to the comment #3 contained in the applicant letter dated Jan. 17, 2018. A gate valve prior to the backflow vault was requested, and was shown. However, an extraneous and undesired valve was shown outside the meter vault for the domestic line, which was not shown on the last submittal. Please remove this valve.

Please refer to comment #7 contained in the applicant letter dated Jan. 17, 2018. Sheet C9.0 shows a curb and gutter detail with the aggregate base course and geogrid/chemically stablized subgrade a minimum of 1 foot beyond the back of curb, but it is not in the correct location. It should be located as an extension to the aggregrate subgrade and geogrid/chemically stabilized subgrade. Please call for details if there is any misunderstanding on this issue.

Please refer to comment #2 contained in the applicant letter dated Jan. 17, 2018. The report states in Section 4.2 that a "...retaining wall is proposed on the east and south to maintain the required pond volume." The report goes on to state that "...storage volume has been increased." Which of these conditions will exist after construction (i.e., will it be increased, or will it remain the same?). How much difference will be provided in terms of storage volume?

Please refer to comment #1 contained in the applicant letter dated Jan. 17, 2018. A 24" RCP is being proposed to replace a 15" pipe. The report states this was done to comply with the 1 foot minimum freeboard requirement. It would appear this was done to increase the release of stormwater from the pond to decrease the maximum water surface elevation. This action raises a significant question, "was the stormwater report prepared in such a way that a valid methodology was used in its preparation?" We have concerns, since increasing pipe sizes obviously is a significant change to an existing detention basin. The following concerns should be addressed: 1) why was a curve number of 76 used for the pre-development site, when a curve number of 74 was used in the weighted curve number for the post-development (see Section 4.2 of the report), 2) why are the appendices arranged in such a way that it is difficult to interpret (e.g., the post-developed condition for Pond A appears to be over 44 cfs for the 100 year event in one of the appendix, which is significantly higher than the allowable release rate), 3) why was there no consideration given to the construction of a more modern and effective multi-stage structure, with an emergency overflow weir system at the top?

Code Statement

All issues pertaining to life safety and property protection from the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to the safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations, shall be in accordance with the 2012 International Fire Code.

Fire Lanes

IFC 503.2.1 - Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm), exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (4115 mm). D105.1 Where required. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet (9144 mm), approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. D105.2 Width. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. Action required: Correct fire lane width. There is still only 24 feet between parking spaces.

Recommend removing the proposed parking along the east side of the eastern driveway (ER Access Drive). At a minimum, remove the 10 southern spaces that diminish the minimum required driveway throat depth defined in the Access Management Code that protects the driveway function and efficiency in relation to Blue Parkway and parking circulation. Parking activity along this driveway may negatively impede critical traffic going to the ER as originally designed.

The minimum driveway throat depth required in the Access Management Code along the western driveway between the parking and Blue Parkway has been diminished below standards in consideration of the proposed parking and median break along the main driveway (western driveway). Some additional driveway separation may be provided if the first 2-3 parking spaces on the north and south side of the new lot nearest the driveway are removed to further the parking manuever/conflict from the driveway activity and intersection of Blue Parkway. Maintaining the driveway throat depth for the engress movement, or east side of the driveway, is more important in this situation than the west side of the driveway since vehicles can queue in the parking lot rather than queue on the street/driveway.

The "Drainage Design Summary" dated Dec. 28, 2017 does not appear to show the 24" RCP being used in the routing calculations. In addition, there is concern that the existing 18" pipe is being replaced with a 24" pipe, with no explanation given in the report.

Is the storage volume being increased? It is not clear from the above report.

Sheet C7.1: The inset for the area near the backflow vault should be revised to show an external gate valve prior to the vault. Even though the standard detail shows this valve, the inset should also show the location of this valve. The limits of the easement should end at this valve.

Sheet C7.2: A tee is called-out as "U12b" along the private fire line. It does not appear that a tee is needed at this location.

Sheet C7.4: A minimum of 18" of clearance is required between any storm line, and the fire line. It appears this rule is violated in several locations as shown on the profile view.

Sheet C8.0: The pavement design does not comply with the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Article 12 "Parking". In particular, either geogrid or chemical stabilized subgrade (typically flyash) is required. Compacted subgrade, although required in all instances, does not substitute for the chemically stabilized subgrade or geogrid alternatives.

Sheet C9.0: Curb and gutter details were provided, but a detail must also be provided showing the extension of aggregate base course and chemically stablized or geogrid subgrade a minimum of 1 foot beyond the back of curb.

Sheet C9.1: Our previous comment letter requested that the storm lid detail be shown as blank, since these are private lids. However, the City detail was completely removed. We still need the detail; however, the words "City of Lee's Summit" should be removed. The lid can either be blank, or include the word "STORM", or "SANITARY", but should not include the words "City of Lee's Summit". It is acceptable to "cross-out" the phrases that are not needed if this is easier for the resubmittal.

It appears the Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs was missing the following items: 1) geogrid or chemical subgrade stabilization, including the area one (1) foot beyond the back of curb, 2) aggregate subgrade one (1) foot beyond the back of curb, 3) base course asphaltic concrete pavement, 4) grading within the detention basin to provide the necessary storage volume, 5) erosion and sediment control measures and devices, 6) final restoration, including sodding, seeding, topsoil, mulch, fertilizer, 7) fire line bends, 8) additional gate valves per the comment letter.

All Sheets: Please label the existing hospital building.

Pavement Design: The pavement design does not follow the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Article 12, "Parking", in terms of pavement thickness, aggregate thickness, and subgrade stabilization or geogrid. In addition, there appears to be confusion concerning "light duty asphalt" and "heavy duty asphalt". The UDO does not differentiate between drive aisles and parking stalls. Heavy duty asphalt is required where trucks, delivery vehicles, or emergency vehicles are accessing the parking lot. Normal asphalt thickness is required in all other instances, and should be specified as 1.5 inch surface course over 4 inch base course, over a 6 inch aggregate base, over geogrid or flyash stabilized subgrade. The only difference between "heavy duty asphalt" is the base course of asphalt should be 5 inches rather than 4 inches, with all other aspects of the design remaining the same. If a geotechnical report is used to aid in the design of the pavement, then it must show an equal or better design than shown in the UDO.

Grading appears to be shown encroaching within the existing detention basin, and the "Drainage Design Summary" dated Sept. 1, 2017 does not appear to address this issue, other than the discussion of a retaining wall and handrail. Will there be sufficient storage volume after grading and installation of the retaining wall?

Sheet C6.1: Please call-out the elevations of the contours. Will the grading near the public water line create a situation where the depth of cover is less than 42 inches or greater than 7 feet?

Profile views of the storm drainage system were not shown in the plans. Please provide the profile views for all pipes greater than 6 inches diameter, along with the hydraulic grade line for the design storm.

Sheet C7.0: Please clean-up this sheet. It is difficult to determine what is proposed. The linework appears to have been drawn in haste.

Sheet C7.0: A 3" domestic water service line is shown, but it is unclear where it is connected to the public water main.

Sheet C7.0: A new private sanitary sewer service is shown, but the existing private service which serves the main hospital building does not appear to have been shown.

All Utility Sheets: Please label all private sanitary sewer service lines and manholes, private water mains and fire lines, and private storm sewers.

Sheet C7.1: Tapping sleeves are not allowed for the water line connection. These must be cut-in tees.

Sheet C7.1: The "utility plan inset" shows what is presumably a backflow vault?

Sheet C7.1: The backflow vault should be closer to the public main. In general, it should be shown within ten (10) feet of the public main, outside of any public easement. A gate valve must be shown prior to the backflow vault.

Sheet C7.1: A new private fire hydrant is shown as U10. This will require a separate backflow vault.

Sheet C7.1: The new 3" water line is shown connected to what appears to be the backflow vault. A separate connection to the public water main is required, along with a specially-designed water meter vault.

Profile views of the private sanitary lines were not provided.

Sheet C7.2: The same comments apply to the "utility plan inset" shown on this sheet. A separate connection to the public water main is required, and the backflow vault and backflow assembly should be closer to the public water main.

Sheet C8.0: The pavement detail does not comply with the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Article 12, "Parking".

Sheet C9.0: CG-1 curb and gutter is required, so please provide a specific reference to CG-1.

Curb and Gutter Section: A curb and gutter section should be provided showing the extension of aggregate base, geogrid or subgrade stabilization a minimum of one (1) foot beyond the back of curb.

Sheet C9.1: The "storm" lid should be blank since this is a private lid.

A profile view of the fire line appeared to be missing.

An itemized and sealed Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs should accompany your final submittal drawings. The Engineering Plan Review and Inspection Fee is based on this estimate, and calculated at 3% of the total, plus a water testing observation fee.

Please be aware the retaining wall must be designed and sealed by an engineer registered in the State of Missouri. Please submit the design to Codes.

SITE DATA TABLES. To provide an accurate accounting for the medical center site as a whole, add the following information to the tables on Sheet C0.0: - Impervious coverage. List both the existing total impervious coverage and the new total impervious coverage. - Building square footage. List the existing total building square footage and the new total building square footage. - Parking. The "total" line at the bottom of the Provided Parking table should read 753 standard parking spaces and 25 ADA parking spaces.

DRIVE AISLE WIDTHS. The minimum parking lot drive aisle widths for two-way traffic is 24' of actual pavement (i.e. exclusive of curb-and-gutters). The areas where the aisles are flanked by islands and other curbed areas show 24' wide aisles measured to the back-of-curb. Revise by pulling the curbed areas back in order to provide 24' of actual pavement width.

ADA PARKING SPACE WIDTH. The ADA spaces on the south side of the proposed MOB are shown as 8' wide. To meet City requirements, the spaces shall be a minimum 9' in width. Revise the detail on Sheet C8.0 and the site plan on Sheet C5.2.

DETAIL SHEET (C8.0). - Pavement details. Neither the asphalt nor concrete pavement details shown meet the minimum design requirements for the City. Please refer to Article 12, Section 12.120.F of the City's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for the minimum design requirements. - Accessible parking sign. 1) The accessible parking sign to be mounted at the head of every ADA space shall be sign type R7-8 (white background, green border/text and blue wheelchair symbol) as identified in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 2) The detail incorrectly shows a minimum mounting height of 60". To meet ordinance requirements, signs shall be mounted no lower than 36" and no higher than 60" above finished grade.

LANDSCAPE PLAN. - To meet ordinance requirements, all deciduous trees (shade or ornamental) shall be a minimum 3" caliper at the time of planting. The Kousa Dogwood listed on the Plant Schedule on Sheet L1.0 is listed as 2" caliper. Revise. - The new parking areas along the SE Blue Pkwy frontage are required to be screened from view using evergreen shrubs planted at a ratio of 12 shrubs per 40 linear feet of parking lot frontage. Please provide the calculations to verify that this screening requirement is met.

LIGHTING. - Are any wallpacks proposed for the office building? If so, please show them on the building elevations to the extent possible. Wall-mounted lighting shall comply with the standards of Article 7, Section 7.270 of the UDO. - Provide manufacturer specifications for all proposed wallpacks and pole light fixtures for review and approval. Parking lot pole fixtures shall comply with the standards of Section 7.250 of the UDO. - Provide a photometric plan for the project area in accordance with Section 7.230 of the UDO.

ROOF-TOP EQUIPMENT. Is any roof-top mechanical equipment (exclusive of the elevator penthouse) proposed on the building? If so, please show it on the roof plan. Any roof-top mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from view by raising the building parapets to a height at least equal to the height of the units being screened.

Review the parking lot design, particularly the proposed lot expansion west of the primary driveway along Blue Parkway that has an aisle limited in access to right-in/right-out at the driveway. Consider improvements in traffic circulation so that traffic does not have to leave the property/use Blue Parkway when circulating to a parking space. Several other parking spaces that encroach the driveway areas may be relocated.

Code Statement

All issues pertaining to life safety and property protection from the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to the safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations, shall be in accordance with the 2012 International Fire Code. For information only.

Knox Locks

IFC 506.1 -Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving or fire-fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The key box shall be of an approved type listed in accordance with UL 1037, and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official.506.1.1 Locks.An approved lock shall be installed on gates or similar barriers when required by the fire code official. Action required: A Knox switch shall be provided on the physcian parking lot gates and a Knox box shall be provided for the building.

Fire Lanes

IFC 503.2.1 - Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm), exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (4115 mm). D105.1 Where required. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet (9144 mm), approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. D105.2 Width. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. Action required: Correct fire lane width.

FDC

IFC 903.3.7- Fire department connections. The location of fire department connections shall be approved by the fire code official. Connections shall be a 4 inch Storz type fitting and located within 100 feet of a fire hydrant, or as approved by the code official. Action required: The parking space in front of the FDC shall be blocked out and posted No Parking, or relocate the FDC to an accessible island next to parking and within 100 feet of a fire hydrant.

Misc.

The replacement water main and fire hydrants shall be in place prior to building construction.