| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
09/10/2018
|
08/31/2018
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
09/10/2018
|
08/31/2018
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
08/21/2018
|
08/21/2018
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Remove (turn off layer) showing arrows on the TTC Plan (Phase 1) that should not be on the thru lane, other right turn arrows illustrated on Demo Sheet, Pavement note on plans sheets inconsistent with typical section, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
08/21/2018
|
08/21/2018
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
07/31/2018
|
08/02/2018
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
Typical section that provides the pavement design for Pryor Road widening and shoulder should be provided in the plans. The Typical Section shown for Pryor Road includes no detail regarding pavement design and has several other errors or omitted information (e.g. ROW width, lane width, saw cut location, etc.).
Regarding pavement design for Pryor Road widening and shoulder replacement, consider solicitation of as-built plans for Pryor Road or Geotech investigation.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A temporary traffic control plan should be included. The standard details in the plans are applicable to some specification and standards, but do not show what is likely a shoulder closure for work activity. Pryor Road shall not be closed in either direction of travel.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
07/31/2018
|
07/31/2018
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Pleaser refer to comment #13 of the previous applicant letter dated June 25, 2018. We see the sediment basin, but it does not appear that any details are provided on its construction, including skimmers, flowline elevations of the skimmer and pipe, etc. on Sheet 7 of 38. The erosion and sediment control plan should include these details. Finally, shouldn't this be included in Phase 1 of the work schedule shown on Sheet 7 of 38?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The City-issued floodplain permit application should be developed at this time. Please provide all necessary forms and plans, along with a cover letter and short discussion of the work to be completed. A floodplain permit shall be required prior to approval of these plans. Please forward to Gene Williams in Development Services, and we will facilitate approval from the Floodplain Administrator.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 22: Railings are called-out for the new box culvert on River Run Dr. Is there a reason for installing these railings? At this time, we do not feel that railings are warranted. The point of interest is far enough away from any potential walking surface?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It appears the ADA-accessible ramp and ADA-accessible route across River Run Dr. was missing at the intersection of Pryor Rd. and River Run Dr. Please follow the requirements for the other ADA-accessible ramps and ADA-accessible routes.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
06/21/2018
|
06/22/2018
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
City standard signing details should be included in the plans.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Typical section that provides the pavement design for Pryor Road widening should be provided in the plans. Typical sections should show 4:1 slopes not 3:1 slopes.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
06/21/2018
|
06/21/2018
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan: We had requested that the hatch pattern within the floodplain be defined. Although the response to comments states this is the limit of the 100 year floodplain, there is no indication of this on the Master Drainage Plan, and the cross-hatched pattern has now been removed.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan: There appears to be a line within the floodplain (i.e., wide line width) with no definition. What does this line represent? What is the purpose of showing this line? Please be aware that a legend must be provided. Without it, there is no way to determine what these lines represent.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan: The cross-hatch pattern appears to have been omitted from this version of the Master Drainage Plan. Although not specifically required to be a cross-hatched pattern like the previous submittal, the 100 year floodplain, as it currently exists, should be shown. Notes should be provided stating that this area shall be revised per a LOMR-F issued by FEMA, along with the new limits of the 100 year floodplain. As conditioned in the Preliminary Plat process, all lots were to have been removed from the 100 year floodplain. It is important that this be shown in some way, with a clear indication of where these new floodplain limits will exist.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan: Base flood elevations are called out for each lot, but is this really appropriate? This will trigger the requirement that an elevation certificate be submitted for each lot abutting the floodplain, and this is not the intent. Again, all lots must be outside of the revised floodplain following issuance of the LOMR-F from FEMA. The base flood elevations should be shown along a cross-section of the creek, rather than at the corner of the lot.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan: The MBOEs shown on the table do not appear to make sense in terms of providing "good lot grading practice" in the back of the lots abutting the creek during preparaton of plot plans during the building permit phase. A minimum of 2.0% grade is required from the low opening to the rear of all lots. It does not appear this was taken into account when calculating the MBOE for each lot abutting the creek. For instance, Lot 4 shows an MBOE of 959.6. The rear lot corner elevations are 959.95 and 961.00. This makes no sense.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan: The MBOEs shown on the table may be further expanded if desired to a right MBOE and a left MBOE, as looking into the lot from the street. Regardless of whether this alternative is desired, the location of the 100 year water surface elevation for lots adjoining the swale must be shown on both corners of the lot. This is due to the slope within the swale, and subsequent changing of the 100 year water surface elevation within the swale as measured from the upstream side, to the downstream side. Please be aware that if using only one MBOE, the most conservative (i.e., the highest 100 year water surface elevation along the lot) must be used to determine the MBOE for the lot.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan: The emergency overflow swale does not appear to be a swale, but rather, an area where a berm is located, with no grading associated with a swale. A swale must be shown, along with appropriate contours showing a swale rather than a berm, and cross-sections must be shown, along with design flows, slopes, etc.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan - For General Information Purposes Only: Please be aware that MBOEs shall be required for each lot during subsequent phases of this development (i.e., Phase 2 and beyond), rather than as deemed necessary by the design engineer. The City is now enforcing this existing requirement for all lots within subdivisions going forward. The design engineer is responsible for ensuring that the MBOE given for each lot is appropriate for the estimated building placement in the future, basement type, finish grades, good lot grading practice during development of the plot plan, etc.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Storm Drainage Study dated June 6, 2018: It appears the box culvert beneath SW River Run Dr. was designed for the 10 year event. The City of Lee's Summit's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), "Overlay Districts - Floodplain" requirements contain the following requirements: "...until a floodway is designated, no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development, including fill, shall be permitted within any numbered A zone or AE zone on the FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the City." It appears, therefore, the box is incorrectly sized. It appears the 100 year event shall increase the base flood elevation upstream of the box culvert by more than one (1) foot. The statement within the stormwater report dated June 6, 2018 "...the point of primary concern is at the property boundary where no rise in the 100 year water surface is allowed", although partially correct, is not completely valid. It should also be noted that if a floodway is established for a particular point, then a No-Rise study and No-Rise Certificate would be required, which is in excess of that which is required for this particular situation. In other words, it appears the wrong logic was used to determine what size storm event would be appropriate for this RCB. It appears the 100 year event should have been utilized in the calculations. This comment was provided in the previous comment letter, and it is unclear why this was ignored.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Stormwater Study dated June 6, 2018: Please see previous comment concerning the RCB. The 100 year (i.e., the 1% annual chance event) should have been modeled. Without the 100 year event being modeled, there is no way to determine what the upstream effect of the culvert will have on existing base flood elevations. Please see previous comment letter for specific comments related to these requirements.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Stormwater Study dated June 6, 2018: The conclusions and recommendations section of the report lacks a discussion of the RCB box culvert at SW River Run Dr.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: What kind of turf reinforcement mat is being proposed? What are the area dimensions, horizontal dimensions, etc.? Please be specific concerning the placement and material type for these areas.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 7 of 29: We still do not see a call-out or label showing the location of the sediment basin. Other deficiencies concerning the sediment basin include: 1) lack of the location of the stand pipe, 2) elevaton call-outs for the stand pipe within the sediment basin, 3) design details concerning the stand pipe and any associated stone in front of the stand pipe, 4) all other design elements necessary for an inspector or contractor to be able to install and inspect, and 5) a discussion within the body of the stormwater report which provides justification for the elimination of an emergency overflow spillway.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 5: The grading within the emergency overflow swale does not show a swale, but rather, a berm. As an emergency overflow swale, this must be installed as a swale. Contours should show a swale. Typical section(s) view(s) must be provided, along with slope call-outs, design flows, dimensions, etc.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 5: Grading Plan: The bottom of the water quality basin appears to be flat. A 2% minimum slope must be provided in all directions to facilitate drainage. Standing, stagnant water is considered a nuisance, and will lead to mosquitoes and public health concerns. It is also required by the Design and Construction Manual.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The inlet pipes to the water quality basin appear to be very close to the outlet. It is unclear why this was done, since normal procedure is to place the outlet pipe as far as practical from the inlet pipes. In other words, it does not appear this is an appropriate design for a 40 hour extended detention water quality basin. A new design appears warranted.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It does not appear that a sediment forebay was shown within the 40 hour extended detention basin. A method to drain the sediment forebay should be shown, so to avoid standing water greater than 40 hours. The sediment forebay should be designed to allow a suitable location to clean out the basin (i.e., sediment) on a regular basis. There are examples of an appropriate sediment forebay contained within the MARC manual for installation of sediment forebays, and they should be installed near the inlets (i.e., the incoming pipes draining into the basin), with sufficient depressions and underdrains.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 9: Biodegradable log ditch checks are shown, but the plan sheet does not appear to show their location. Please show the location of these features.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 20: The ADA-accessible ramp detail shown in the upper left hand corner should be labeled as "Terrace" rather than "Dr.".
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 20: There are at least three (3) instances where the longitudanal slope is greater than allowed by Section 5304.8. The design slope should be no greater than 7.5%.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 20: Cross-sectional views in accordance with Section 5304.8 were not provided for the ADA-accessible ramps. In accordance with Section 5304.8: "Cross sections of the ramp. Section A-A will be along the long axis of the ramp. Section B-B will be across the width of the ramp. Section C-C will along the curb opening of the ramp."
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 21: Rip rap is shown at the end of storm line A. No dimensions, rip rap type, thickness, etc. is shown on the plan view. Please be aware that we are not going to allow a table to take the place of a graphical representation of the rip rap on the plans. Table lookups in the field are not acceptable either from the inspection standpoint, or the construction standpoint.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 5, Grading Plan: No existing elevation call-outs are evident. Please show elevations of the contours in key locations. Ensure there enough elevation call-outs within the FEMA floodplain.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 5, Grading Plan: Where is the existing 1% annual chance floodplain? This should be clearly shown on the grading plan. We are estimating that the base flood elevation for the 1% annual chance storm in the area adjacent to the RCB beneath SW River Run Dr. is approximately 960.0. The final stormwater study must: 1) demonstrate that the installation of a box culvert and beneath SW River Run Dr. and associated grading will not increase the existing base flood elevation by more than 1.00 feet anywhere on the site, and 2) the installation of the box culvert and associated grading activities will not increase the existing base flood elevation off-site by more than 0.00 feet.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please be aware that a City-issued floodplain permit application must ultimately be submitted to the City, along with all supporting documention, reports, plans, and model runs. The City Engineer is the designated floodplain adminstrator for the City of Lee's Summit, and must sign the floodplain permit prior to any grading, development, construction, or other development activities as defined by the floodplain ordinance, within the floodplain.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 22, Box Culvert at SW River Run Dr.: The box culvert must be designed to HL-93 standards. Please provide notes on the plans stating the box culvert will be designed to these standards.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 22, Box Culvert at SW River Run Dr.: It is the City's belief that the box culvert is undersized. It is only designed for the 10 year event, and as such, headwater depth for the 100 year event will most likely cause an increase in the existing base flood elevation greater than 1.00 feet, a direct violation of the City of Lee's Summit floodplain ordinance. Please be aware that if a floodway was associated with this box culvert, a No-Rise analysis and certificiate would be required showing 0.00 feet rise in the base flood elevation, which is even more stringent than the 1.00 requirement.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 22, Box Culvert at SW River Run Dr.: A note must be added that the City shall also review the shop drawing prior to approval of the pre-cast structure(s).
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 23: Specifc design details for the rip rap must be shown in graphical format on this sheet. A table is not sufficient. Please see previous comments related to specific requirements for rip rap detailing on the plan sheets.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 25: Please see previous comments related to design details for the rip rap at the end of pipe.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 26 and Sheet 27, 40 Hour Extended Detention Basin: The following deficiencies were noted in the design details: 1) lack of any detail showing how the standpipe will be constructed (need a larger detail showing how this will be constructed), 2) lack of a method used to prevent clogging of this standpipe (rock piled up against the standpipe will not be effective in providing anti-clogging of this standpipe in our opinion), 3) lack of elevations of the orifices on the standpipe presented in a clear manner, so that the inspector and contractor can readily interpret in the field, 4) notes concerning the connection of the trash rack onto the outlet structure, including any additional information needed such as connection method, bolts, tie bars, or whatever else is necessary to provide a secure connection point.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Stormwater Report Comment: It is unclear from the report what the purpose of the open topped outlet structure serves. Is this intended to act as an emergency spillway, in the event that the primary outlet orifices (i.e., the smaller orifices for 40 hour extended detention) are clogged? We agree this is a good idea, but it was our understanding that due to the nature of the grading for the basin being largely below existing grade, a true emergency spillway as described in Section 5600 would not be required. A thorough discussion of these issues should be included in the report, including the purpose of this open-topped weir.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 26, Detention Pond Details: Grading within the bottom of the 40 hour extended detention basin must be a minimum of 2% in all directions. Please see previous comments related to this issue.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It was our understanding that a flume was going to be constructed near the intersection of Pryor Rd. and SW River Run, to direct stormwater which cannot enter the curb inlet. Is this still
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A typical section view must be provided for the off-site traffic improvements. Notes are not sufficient. Please use the existing typical sections provided elsewhere in the plans as a guide. Appropriate stationing must be shown, along with all other information necessary to construct and inspect.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 10: Off-Site Traffic Improvements at Pryor and SW River Run Dr.: A grading plan is required for the ditches to the east of the widening project. Notes are not sufficient. A minimum 2.0% slope is required in the longitudinal direction. Side slopes must meet City standards from the edge of the shoulder, to the bottom of the ditch.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please add a note to the ADA ramp plan stating that all ADA-accessible ramps shall be installed with the subdivision improvements.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please show, in a clear manner, where sidewalk will be installed along all common area tracts, and along the School District property.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan and Grading Plan: In addition to the floodway fringe, show the location of the floodway. Ensure no grading, fill, or other prohibited activity is taking place within the limits of the floodway. Our initial review shows there may be encroachment into the floodway, based on an overlay of the FEMA maps. No fill or development of any kind can take place within the limits of the floodway, unless a study and No-Rise certification is prepared, and approved by the City.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
05/10/2018
|
05/11/2018
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Include all City's standard details for signing and marking. All marking symbols, stop lines, crosswalk lines, diagonal lines shall be preformed thermoplastic in conformance with City specifications. All longitudinal markings shall be high-build paint in conformance with City specifications.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The Pryor Layout and Pryor Marking/Signing Plan appears to be missing some line work from the drawings.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
There should be a typical section for Pryor Road widening that details the pavement design.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The Pryor Road improvements should detail the saw cut with dimensions and avoid sharp angles in paving (typically a minimum 2' wide cut).
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The left-turn lane entry taper shall be 150' in lenght with 150' reverse curve radii. The 150' straight taper for the right-turn lane is okay.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The 24" Diagonal Lines shall be spaced at 45' in compliance with the Standard Details.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The end of the striped median opposite the left-turn lane should be properly terminated with a double yellow semi-circle rather than open ended. Show the marking and radius dimension, center reference notations on the plans.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Street signing should indicate the names of street for each street name sign (both streets shall have a street name sign at each intersection per standard detail; four total street name signs typical application for each intersection on square steel post).
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The Object marker signs should indicate four signs evenly spaced at the end of road "typical end of road sign treatment".
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
General horizontal alignment control detail is missing for all alignments, including Pryor Road (e.g. Control Points, Benchmarks, N/E, Bearings, Radii, etc.).
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Do not use "Only" symbols, revise plan per standard detail.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The southbound lane shift taper along Pryor after the intersection appears short of the minimum required for 45 mph. The approach lane shift for southbound north of the intersection appears okay.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The sidewalk(s) approaching Pryor Road should be tied to the paved shoulder similar to other intersections along Pryor Road with paved shoulder/sidewalk.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sidewalk along the north side of River Run should be extended through the collector transition across Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 as a more logical termination of pedestrian accommodation.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The transition from CG-1 to CG-2 should be noted on the plans rather an agreed upon location. Recommend the transition occur over a specified distance somewhere near Station 8+00 as a more logical change after the full collector width has been completely narrowed to local street.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
05/10/2018
|
05/09/2018
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan: What does the hatch pattern symbology represent? Is this the extent of the 100 year FEMA floodplain? If so, the grading plan on Sheet 5 of 29 does not show explicit contours called-out (i.e., no elevations are given) for grading within the floodplain. These contours must be explicitly called-out.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan: Elevations of the 100 year base flood elevation appear to be missing. The Master Drainage Plan must explicitly call-out the 100 year base flood elevation along select intervals within the floodplain.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan: The scale shown is 1 inch equals 70 feet. This is not a normal engineering scale, and must be changed.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan: Finish grade elevations at the northwest corner of Lot 1 appear to show the 100 year water surface elevation will encroach upon Lot 1. We are assuming the 100 year water surface elevation at this point is equal to the base flood elevation of the floodplain at this point. If this is the case, this contradicts your statement that all of the lots will be removed from the FEMA floodplain by a CLOMR-F.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan: What is the design flow within the swale?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan: What is the 100 year water surface elevaton within the water quality basin? It is neither shown, or called-out in terms of elevation. Please be aware that simply assuming that a 100 year storm event will create a rise in the floodplain equal to the base flood elevation is not necessarily correct. The basin should be evaluated in terms of the 100 year water surface elevaton, adequate emergency spillway design features instituted in accordance with Section 5600 of the Design and Construction Manual, and a minimum separation of 20 feet from the 100 year water surface elevation, and any property line.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The stormwater report discussed that the outlet structure of the water quality basin would be served by a single 24 inch pipe. We do not believe this pipe is sufficiently large to manage a localized 100 year storm event, assuming 100% clogging of the primary outlet works (i.e., all the orifices other than the emergency spillway) and zero available storage. Simply assuming that the water quality basin will be inundated during all 100 year storm events is not realistic. It is entirely possible that a local event would cause the basin to overtop and fail, while the stream is below the 100 year base flood elevation.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Was the MARC manual consulted for designing the water quality orifices and computing the water quality volume? It does not appear this was done.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The HY-8 analysis does not appear to show the design storm. This must be shown and discussed in the report and plans.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
How was the peak flow determined for the HY-8 analysis? The only information presented in the report is a summary. Calculations must be provided. Any backwater effects upstream of the culvert may present off-site flooding issues, and any increase in the 100 year water surface elevations must be analyzed to determine their effect on upstream property owners. In other words, the base flood elevation on off-site properties cannot exceed existing conditions, and any increase on the project site cannot exceed 1 foot.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 7 of 29: The symbol shown in the legend for silt fence still does not match what is shown in the plans. This must be corrected.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 7 of 29: A final restoration plan is briefly mentioned in the notes, with no mention of the removal of inlet protection, silt fence, etc.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 7 of 29: Turf reinforced mats are briefly discussed, and we agree there are instances where this should be incorporated into the design. However, there is no such design, location, dimensions, material call-outs specifying where and when this will be installed.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 7 of 29: The note concerning sediment traps states that "...sediment traps to be removed". This contradicts your statement that the sediment trap will be cleaned out and converted into the water quality basin. This must be explicit in terms of what, where, when, and how. Finally, the sediment trap must be clearly labeled on this sheet.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Typical Section Views for Streets: Base course should be specified as Type 5. Surface course should be called-out as Type 5 or Type 6.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Typical Section Views for Streets: It appears there is a segment of River Run Dr. which is a Residential Collector. Show the stationing to and from for the portion which is a Residential Collector, as well as the stationing for the Residential Local.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The width of the Residential Collector is shown as 33 feet. Where was this width obtained?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Is another field inlet warranted at the northeast corner of Lot 28? It appears there may be drainage issues due to the upstream drainage to this point. The response to comments stated that it is not necessary, but it would appear there is more drainage area than 2.14 acres as stated, upstream of this swale?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Despite requests to provide design calculations for rip rap, they were not provided. In addition, it appears there are instances where inlet control, and hence, supercritical flow will occur in the pipe, and special energy dissipation measures provided at the end of pipe. Rip rap would appear to be inadequate in these instances.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Underdrains are called out, but no specific detail is mentioned on the plans. Standard drafting methods would indicate that a specific design detail be referenced on the plan view, along with the sheet number or other method which clearly shows which detail is being utilized for the underdrain.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 13 of 29: An overstrike error is evident on the profile view.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
ADA-Accessible Ramp Detail Sheets: Why are side tapers shown? They appear to serve no purpose other than create additional maintenance issues for the City. Please remove. If there are any questions concerning this item, please refer to the standard details located on the website showing ADA-accessible ramps. These generic details show how ADA-accessible ramps should be constructed in the City of Lee's Summit. However, specific design details must be presented for each ramp rather than using these generic details.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please see the bullet point items included in Section 5304.8 of the Design and Construction Manual. ADA-accessible ramp designs should be presented in the plans with the minimum required information presented in Section 5304.8.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It appears that many of the ADA-accessible ramps should be modeled on the Type B Sidewalk/Shared Use Ramp shown on the City of Lee's Summit website, while others should be modeled on the Type A Sidewalk/Shared Use Ramp shown on the City of Lee's Summit website. The ADA ramp details shown in the plans do not conform to either of these standard ADA ramps in use within the City.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please ensure the locatons of tactile warning strips be shown and dimensioned on the ADA ramp details.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 19 of 29: The hydraulic grade line was not shown, nor the design storm for the new box culvert.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 19 of 29: No details were provided for the new box culvert other than a simple schematic.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Many of the storm lines are shown with hydraulic grade lines extending above the top of the pipe. Why was this design selected for a 10 year event? Standard practice in the City of Lee's Summit is to design these storm lines with a minimum of the 10 year event below the top of the pipe. This design appears substandard.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 22 of 29: FES-G1 is shown abruptly dropping off into the water quality basin, with inadequate energy dissipation. This pipe will likely flow supercritical at all times, and standard energy dissipation measures such as rip rap are likely inadequate.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A separate sheet must be presented for the detention basin and outlet structure. It must shown the detailed grading plan within the basin. It must show the location of the outlet structure. It must show where the trash guard will be placed. It must show the materials of construction for the outlet structure, including steel reinforcement. In short, it must show how, where, when, and what is being constructed.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
As previously discussed, we do not feel that the 24 inch exit pipe is sufficient to manage a 100 year storm event, assuming 100% clogging of the primary outlet works. It is not clear whether the open top weir is adequately sized for the 100 year event. It is not clear whether 1 foot of freeboard is maintained between the 100 year water surface elevation, assuming 100% clogging of the outlet structure, and the top of the dam.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please review Section 5600 for specific design requirements for detention basins. It appears there is confusion on this issue in terms of emergency spillway design, freeboard requirements, and calculation of the water quality volume and design of the orifice system to provide 40 hour extended detention.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
No further review shall be peformed on the water quality basin until revised plans have been submitted. It is likely that the fundamental design will change.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 29 of 29: Please include only those underdrains being used on the project. Ensure the plan view references the correct detail.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 27 of 29: The KCMMB concrete should extend a minimum of the top of the cone section of the manhole. As shown, the concrete is shown on top of fill. Also, the asphalt type is incorrect. It should read as Type 5 or 6 for surface course. Finally, the asphalt base course should be 5.5 inches since these manholes will be installed in the Residential Collector portion of the project.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Since the underground storm line system is designed for a 10 year event, where are the emergency overflow swales between lots? Shouldn't the swale designated on the Master Drainage Plan be designated as an emergency overflow swale? Shouldn't there be other emergency overflow swales designated and shown on the Master Drainage Plan between lots where the underground system is not capable of managing the 100 year event?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It appears an ADA-accessible route across SW River Run Rd. is shown where it should not exist (i.e., a grade change in the road is proposed to accommodate a 1.5% accessible route across the road). There is no stop control on SW River Run Rd. at this location. The route should follow street grade at this location (i.e., the street grade should remain constant at this location).
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A floodplain permit shall be required prior to approval of the plans.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Resubmittal and approval of the water line plans shall be required prior to approval of these plans.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Submittal of the off-site sanitary and off-site water line plans shall be required prior to approval of these plans.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A copy of any United States Army Corps of Engineers permit (if required) shall be required prior to approval of these plans.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It appears some form of drainage at the intersection of SW River Run Dr. and Pryor Rd. will need to be established, since the sag point occurs west of the inlet. Appropriate energy dissipation should be incorporated into the design.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
10/05/2017
|
10/05/2017
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Design plans for Pryor Road improvements lack detail, notes, dimensions, etc. The lane transition taper that is shown to begin near Station 16+00, ending near Station 20+00, should be moved to begin near Station 17+15 (south of the intersection) so that southbound traffic is not transitioning through the intersection.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Pavement markings along Pryor Road, including symbol type, arrow locations, termination of diagonals, etc., should be revised to match the City's standard details.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A separate signing plan is recommended for the subdivision. Stop signs with street name signs are shown in some locations, some locations only show stop signs. The end of road Object Marker installation should reflect the City standard and are not necessary on temp. cul-de-sacs.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Include the City's standard details for signing and marking.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Multiple vertical sag curves do not meet the minimum design criteria along River Run Drive.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Plan detail, including alignment stationing, is missing for the proposed subdivision streets.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Verify the intersection sight distance is adequate for streets, and especially the School Driveway, at each location along River Run Drive. It appears the vertical crest near Sta. 4+50 is limiting ISD.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sidewalk should be shown on the roadway plans.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
10/05/2017
|
10/05/2017
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
General Comment: The plans are incomplete in regard to several significant items, including the box culvert, the Master Drainage Plan, 40 hour extended detention basin details, erosion and sediment control, temporary cul-de-sac details, and ADA-accessible ramp details. It is for this reason that additional comments beyond the scope of this comment letter are likely, following resubmittal.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The project should include "Master Drainage Plan" somewhere in the title. Perhaps "Street, Stormwater, Master Drainage Plan, and Erosion and Sediment Control"?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 3 of 22: MoDOT Type 5 base standards have changed. A minimum of 10" MoDOT Type 5 base is required on residential local streets, when using geogrid. A minimum of 12" MoDOT Type 5 base is required for residential collector streets when using geogrid. The 6" MoDOT Type 5 base is allowed if subgrade stabilization is used in lieu of geogrid.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 3 of 22: Sidewalk cross-slope does not meet Section 5300 of the Design and Construction Manual. The design standard is 1.5% in the City of Lee's Summit. Please change the typical sections as appropriate.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Where is the design of the temporary cul-de-sac? A plan view is shown, with no details concerning the construction.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 4 of 22: Please clean-up the strikeover error in the title block.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 5 of 22: The Master Drainage Plan is missing most of the required items contained in Section 5600 of the Design and Construction Manual. Missing items include: 1) existing and finish elevations of all lot corners, 2) swale call-outs, 3) cross-section call-outs for swales, 4) basement type (i.e., standard, daylight, or walkout), 5) MBOE set a minimum of 2.0 feet above the 100 year water surface elevation, 6) contours labeled with elevations, 7) locations of all swales and channels, either natural or improved, along with design flows, typical sections, details, upstream and downstream elevations, and slope.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: Where are the sediment traps located, and where are the details concerning their construction?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A copy of the SWPPP should be provided.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 9 of 22: Silt fence is called-out in the legend with a symbol that is not shown on the plans. In addition, it does not appear there is sufficient silt fencing provided for this project.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 9 of 22: Rock check dams are called-out in the legend, but no such features are shown on the plans.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It was our understanding that a CLOMR-F would be sought for all lots affected by the 1% floodplain. Several lots are shown within the 1% floodplain, and the grading plan does not reflect these lots being taken out of the floodplain. This places a burden on individual homeowners to provide evidence that their individual structure is not within the floodplain, and if any portion of the lot is contained within the floodplain, the lowest finish floor elevation must be elevated a minimum of 2.00 feet higher than the 1% base flood elevation in order to comply with the City Floodplain Ordinance. What is the status of the CLOMR-F, and what do you propose in terms of timing?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
No details were provided for the box culvert on SW River Run Dr., therefore, no comments are provided as part of this review. Design calculations must be submitted for this culvert, and the culvert must be designed to HL93 standards.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
No details were provided for the detention basin (i.e., the 40 hour extended detention basin). As such, no comments are provided for the design.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
No details were provided for the temporary sediment trap/temporary sediment basin. As such, no comments are provided for the design.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A City-issued floodplain development permit is required for all work within the floodplain. A standard form is available on the City website, and should be accompanied by plans and calculations.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 7 of 24: Please correct the overstrike error in the title block.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 7 of 24: The Pryor Rd. improvement plans are insufficient in terms of detail. A plan view is provided with no typical pavement sections, dimensions, stationing that is missing, an elevation which has been crossed-out, etc.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 14 of 22: Ensure the intersection details reflect PROWAG in terms of providing ADA accessibility.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 7 of 22: There is another Sheet 7, but it is labeled Sheet 7 of 24. Please re-number this sheet, and correct the strikeover error in the title block.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 8 of 22: Please correct the strikeover error in the title block.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 11 of 22; No details or notes were provided for the temporary cul-de-sac.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 11 of 22: Please correct the strikeover errors in the title block.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 13 of 22: This sheet is entitled "Intersection Details", but ADA-accessible ramps are shown. Please rename this sheet to include the ADA-accessible ramp details.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 13 of 22: The details contained on this sheet do not comply with the minimum requirements contained in Section 5304.8 of the Design and Construction Manual. Please refer to this section, and provide information shown in the bullet points. Simply calling-out the elevations of sidewalk corners is not sufficient for the design of these features.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The above comment also pertains to Sheets 14 of 22, and 15 of 22.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 16 of 22: What are the plans for the ends of the flared end sections near Pryor Rd.? Is energy dissipation required? If so, please provide design calculations for the energy dissipation measures.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 16 of 22: The hydraulic grade line for the design storm must be provided on the profile view of all storm lines and structures.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 16 of 22: Storm Line B is shown "cut-off" in the plan view. No stationing or coordinates are provided, and no other details concerning Storm Line B (i.e., the box culvert) are provided.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
All Drainage Sheets Related to Collector Streets: HDPE pipe is not allowed beneath collector streets (i.e., at cross-pipe locations).
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
All Drainage Plan and Profile Sheets: The hydraulic grade line of the design storm should be provided for each pipe and structure.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
What is the 100 year water surface elevation within the 40 hour extended detention basin? Please call-out on the plans. Ensure this has been accounted in the hydraulic grade line calculations for the incoming storm lines.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It would appear an additional field inlet is warranted at the northeast corner of Lot 28.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
All Plan and Profile Sheets for Street Construction: Stationing is called-out in the profile view, but no stationing is shown on the plan view.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Underdrains are required at all sag locations on the roadway. Please show the locations of these underdrains, and provide the City standard detail for underdrain construction. These underdrains are generally installed between curb inlets at the sag location.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
General Comment Related to ADA-accessible Routes: Please ensure that intersections with or without stop control are constructed with an ADA-accessible route across the intersection, including turning space requirements, cross-slope requirements, width requirements, etc.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
General Comment Related to Master Drainage Plan: MBOEs should be specified for any lot adjacent to swales, natural drainage ways, or other features as deemed necessary by the engineer. The lots shown on the table should be expanded to reflect this requirement. In addition, the MBOE must be set a minimum of 2.00 feet above the 100 year water surface elevation.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
General Comment: It appears these plans are not complete, and it is likely that additional comments will be forthcoming based on this cursury review.
|
|
|
|
