Lee's Summit

Approval is contingent upon private sanitary sewer and public water line being designed and installed by others prior to approval of the Final Development Plan.

Approval is contingent upon the acquisition and exection/recording of all necessary off-site easements for drainage and sanitary sewer, as well as any needed temporary construction easements needed to perform the work.

Approval of this plan is contingent upon the engineer allowing the City to redline the plans on Sheet C9.0 to read "1% ANNUAL CHANCE HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE" rather than "HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE". This permission may be submitted via email. Alternatively, the engineer may submit new plan sheets for C9.0 showing this revision.

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) is $16,381.91. This fee must be paid prior to approval of the Final Development 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.

Approval is contingent upon the waiver request being granted for the fringe area to the northeast being allowed to exceed the allowable peak release rates specified in the Design and Construction Manual. Staff will recommend approval of this waiver to the City Engineer.

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.

Water meter size is not specified. To be reviewed at building permit plan review.

The "Micro Storm Water Drainage Study" dated Apr. 10, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the detention study) appears to contain discrepancies in the calculation of the drainage area for "Watershed B" on Exhibit 1 "Existing Conditions". Our analysis shows that at least two (2) points of interest (i.e., where sheet flow transitions to concentrated flow) exist for Watershed B (i.e., near the southwest corner of the property (possibly off-site), and another at the southeast corner of the property). In other words, it appears that "Watershed B" should be broken-up into two (2) watersheds (i.e., Watershed B and Watershed C?), and points of interest shown and labeled on the exhibits.

The detention study defines Watershed A as 0.69 acres, but it appears no point of interest was defined where sheet flow transitions to concentrated flow. Without a defined point of interest, it is not possible to assign a drainage area to Watershed A. It appears that a portion of Watershed A drains to a point that is off-site of the development. As such, a credit is allowed for the existing storm drainage to that point of interest when calculating the allowable release rate.

Since the watersheds were not defined with clearly-defined points of interest (i.e., where sheet flow transitions to concentrated flow), calculation of allowable release rates at those points of interest after development will not be justifiable.

It appears soil group B was used for Sharpsburg-Urban land complex with 2 to 5 percent slope. Shouldn't this be soil group D? The report would indicate this is soil group D?

Page 6 of the detention study states that "...the 20 foot wide grass lined weir to the east will act as the secondary emergency overflow for events in excess of the 100 year storm". Are you implying that the grated top and 15" RCP pipe is capable of managing the 100 year event, assuming 100% clogging of the primary outlet works (i.e., the perforated riser orifices)? This is a requirement of the Design and Construction Manual.

It is unclear from the report whether additional orifices or weirs were utilized in the routing calculations. The plans only call for the installation of a perforated riser, and therefore, it would appear this is constitutes the entire primary outlet works. According to the detention study, the grated top is the emergency spillway, and as such, and should have been designed to only manage the 100 year event assuming 100% clogging of the primary outlet works (i.e., the perforated riser). It is not intended to act as a component of the primary outlet works, unless a different emergency spillway system is selected.

A minimum of one (1) foot of freeboard is required in the detention basin, as measured from the highest water level (including calculations of 100% clogging of the primary outlet works), and the lowest point on the dam. It does not appear this is achieved.

The plans show the 100 year water surface elevation is 974.0. The rim elevation of the outlet structure is shown as 973.6, which is 0.4 feet lower than the 100 year water surface elevaton. If using the top of the outlet structure (i.e., the grated top) for the emergency spillway, the crest must be set at a minium of 0.5 feet higher than the 100 year water surface elevation.

It appears there is a lack of understanding concerning the requirements for an adequate emergency spillway. Please review Section 5608 (4) F for requirements. Given the proximity to residential dwellings adjacent to this detention basin, the consequences for making uninformed design decisions can be significant.

What is the 100 year water surface elevation within the detention basin assuming 100% clogging of the primary outlet works? Please see above comment concerning this issue.

Page 4 of the detention study under "Proposed Conditions" should discuss the primary outlet works (i.e., the system of perforated riser, and other orifices, weirs, etc.) included in the detention basin outlet structure. The appendices provide no such information, and according to the drawing on Sheet C9.0, the perforated riser is the only component of the primary outlet works, with the grated top comprising the emergency spillway (as stated elsewhere in the report). Is this really how the outlet structure was designed? Typically, the perforated riser is incorporated to manage the 40 hour extended detention requirement, with larger orifices or weirs to manage the larger storm events. Will the pond drain within 40 hours? If not, then additional orifices or weirs would appear prudent.

The waiver request should be revised following the submission of a revised detention study.

Sheet C4.0: It appears the dimensions are missing on the ADA-accessible ramps on the west commercial entrance. For instance, spot elevations are called-out, but it is not clear where these elevations are located in relation to the gutter line.

Commercial entrances still do not show KCMMB mix concrete. We see that KCMMB mix is specified for the parking lot, but not the commerical entrances/ADA accessible ramps.

Please see comment #9 of the previous applicant letter. A backflow vault and backflow assembly near the property line appears warranted due to the distance being greater than 50 feet from the building to the water main. The revised plan does not show a backflow vault.

A plan and profile of the proposed sanitary sewer connection was requested in the previous applicant letter. Internal discussions have lead to the decision that this line be private. The plan view on Sheet C5.0 only extends to the property line, and no profile view is shown. Please provide a plan and profile for the entire length of this private sanitary sewer service line.

Regarding the emergency spillway design, if an earthen spillway is being proposed for the emergency spillway, then there are certain design criteria that must be followed. These criteria are located in Section 5608 (4) F of the Design and Construction Manual. A calculation of the 100% clogged primary outlet works condition 100 year water surface elevation must be performed, and adequate freeboard provided within the emergency spillway. To quote the Design and Construction Manual, "...the emergency spillway shall be designed to pass the 1% storm with 1 foot of freeboard from the design stage to the top of the dam, assuming zero available storage in the basin and zero flow through the primary outlet". In other words, assuming 100% clogging of the primary outlet works and assuming zero available storage.

The grading plan still does not show labels for key contour elevations. It is difficult to determine the drainage flow patterns without elevation labels. It is not necessary to label all of the contours, but there must be a way to ascertain where a contour lies within a range of elevations. It is impossible given the lack of these labels.

The off-site grading shown on Sheet C9.0 shows what appears to be an additional earthen spillway, but the contours (unlabeled) do not appear to make sense. They are merely shown as a bold line, with no existing conour tie-in points. and it is difficult to determine the potential adverse impacts where it discharges towards the southeast portion of the site. Any details for an emergency spillway system must be clear, logical, and show how it will be constructed.

Do the rip rap calculations include the assumption that the pipe is flowing supercritical? It does not appear likely that the pipe will be flowing subcritical, and therefore, the velocity calculations will be much higher. At the slope shown, it appears the rip rap will not serve its intended purpose. It appears that additional measures should be explored for energy dissipation.

A table is shown on page 7 of the detention study. This table presents the results of several pipes (i.e., P-1, P-2, and P-3), with no explanation or diagram showing what they represent. Are these the pipes downstream of the detention basin? Where is the discussion within the report describing that the downstream connection point is capable of managing the 100 year event? What design storm was utilized in the preparation of this table?

Sheet C5.0: The "future sanitary sewer" service shown on the plans does not reference the standard detail for sanitary sewer services, nor is there a standard detail included in the details section of the plans. This must be included in the plans, since there are specific references to the placement of tracer wire from the main, to the tracer wire box. Please include the standard detail (located online), and show the location of the tracer wire box on the plan view.

Several standard details are included in the plans, but many are not being used on this project. Please eliminate extraneous details, such as: 1) air release assembly, 2) trenching plate detail, 3) trenching/patching detail. We will, however, require the inclusion of the private sanitary sewer service detail.

Sheet C9.0: A hydraulic grade line is shown, but no design storm is given. Please show the design storm. If unable to manage the 100 year event, then suitable overflow routes must be established.

Sheet C9.0: The placement of ladder rungs offset from the grated orifice on the top of the outlet structure will not allow access. They are too far away from the grated orifice centerline to be of use to a person.

Sheet C9.0: Sanitary line conflict has not been resolved. Plan and profile view of the private sanitary sewer must be provided.

Sheet C9.0: The entire sheet has serious QA/QC issues. For instance, the profile view for the storm line is labeled "Outlet Structure Profile". A 12" HDPE is called-out on the "Outlet Structure Section", contradicting the plan view showing a 15" RCP. Design storm for the hydraulic grade line representation is not shown. Area Inlet 4 is called-out on the section view as "Outlet Structure Section", which is contradictory and confusing. A note is provided on the "Outlet Structure Plan" stating "...half cup pipe with top cage", with no other design details, material call-outs, "cage" details, etc. Material call-outs are missing for the "Outlet Structure", nor is are any steel reinforcement details shown. Ladder shown in the section view does not appear in the plan view, showing where they are to be installed. Rip rap call-out on this sheet contradicts that which is shown elsewhere in the plans, and within the calculations. Bolt-down structure does not appear to be bolted down in the section view, but rather, a frame appears to be embedded within the top. The storm line should be clearly labeled as "PRIVATE".

Please show the location of the water meter. It should be located within an easement or right of way, outside the limits of sidewalk.

Off-site utility easements shall be required prior to approval of the FDP. This includes private sanitary, and private storm drainage system.

The end sections of the storm lines entering the detention basin do not appear to show the inclusion of a toe wall. In addition, why is the discharge point so close to the outlet structure? Normal engineering practice is to place the inlet as far as practical from the outlet structure, to allow for greater efficiency in the removal of the first flush, and hence, greater water quality.

Sheet C6.0: The temporary sediment basin lacks construction details and notes. For instance, wouldn't it be prudent to include notes stating "contractor to install detention basin outlet structure, piping, and perform rough grading of the detention basin" or similar language? From the plans shown, it is not clear when, what, and where things are to occur. Finally, where is the final restoration plan?

Sheet C9.0: The existing junction box which is being utilized for the tie-in does not appear to be drawn correctly. If the flow line (south) elevation is 948.40, then why is the bottom of the box shown at 953? Also, it appears the private storm line is coming into the existing box at a skewed angle. This is not allowed. It appears a more suitable route for the private line must be established if utilizing this existing junction box.

The Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs appeared low for the following items, based on similar projects with similar scope: 1) detention pond outlet structure. In additon, the following items appear to be missing: 1) MoDOT Type 5 aggregate base, including the area one (1) foot beyond the back of curb, 2) final restoration, including seeding, sodding, fertilizer, mulch, and topsoil, 3) backflow vault and backflow assembly. Please keep in mind that Development Services Engineering does not charge a fee for the review and inspection of water meter vaults, pipes 6 inches or less in diameter including fittings, landscaping, or interior sidewalks (i.e., sidewalks within the project, not within right of way).

Staff agrees and supports the modification request to allow for the existing fencing on the property line to satisfy the fencing requirement for the required high impact buffer. The vegetation for the low impact screening is still required and must be shown on the plans. See the table below for the required number plantings. Option A Option B Option C Shade Tree 10.8 5.4 7.2 Ornamental Tree 7.2 10.8 7.2 Evergreen Tree 10.8 10.8 7.2 Shrubs 10.8 10.8 27 Existing trees and/or shrubs that are to be retained to satisfy the these requirements shall meet the following standards and be identified on the plans. • Evergreen trees shall be at least six feet in height. • Deciduous trees shall be a minimum of a 2 inch caliper. • Trees shall be free from mechanical injuries, insect infestations and disease.

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. The location of the FDC on the building is typically shown on the site or utility plan.

Once the property is rezoned a high impact buffer will not be required along the south property line. However, due to the intensity of use of this property abutting residential a high impact buffer shall is required by the UDO. Existing vegetation may be used to satisfy this requirement as long as it meets the minimum standards as outlined in Article 14, Section 14.050 of the UDO. Please update the landscaping plan to reflect this requirement.

Thank you for submitting the manufacture’s specification sheets for the proposed lighting. Sheets for Voltaire Medium Architectural Flood Lights were submitted but there is no corresponding location labeled on the lighting plan. It appears these maybe intended for lighting around the proposed monument sign. Please update the plans to reflect the location of the proposed flood lighting.

Per previous City commit the sidewalk was required to be extended to the west property line. On sheets C2.0 & C3.0 it appears that this was completed, however it also appears that the line indicating the previous sidewalk’s limit remains on the plan sheets. Please remove this line and confirm the sidewalk has been extended to the property line.

The "Micro Storm Water Drainage Study" dated Mar. 21, 2018 is incomplete. As stated in the previous comment letter, this report appears to be a summary of findings and conclusions, missing several key exhibits and appendices to support the findings. In particular, the following items are missing: 1) elevation-area-volume curves for the detention facility, 2) inflow hydrographs for all storm events, 3) stage-discharge rating curves for each emergency spillway, primary outlet works, and combined outlets and overflows, 4) routing curves for all storm events with time plotted as the abscissa and the cumulative inflow volume, cumulative discharge, stage elevation, and cumulative storage plotted as the ordinate.

Without the above information, it is difficult to comment on the adequacy of the design.

Also missing from the stormwater report were soil maps showing the native soil present on the site, soil group to determine an appropriate curve number, time of concentration calculations and assumptions, supporting documentation concerning the design of the outlet structure (i.e., orifices, weirs, etc.), and rationale behind the use of a composite curve number shown in the report.

Page 7 Stormwater Study: Watershed 1 Proposed Peak Discharge Table appears suspect for the 10 and 100 year event for watershed B. Without supporting documentation described in the previous comments, however, it is difficult to determine whether these low peak discharge numbers are correct.

A waiver request is required for the undetained portion along the fringes. This waiver request should include a discussion of: 1) existing drainage area, and existing drainage patterns (i.e., sheet flow, concentrated flow to a point, etc.), 2) proposed drainage area after development, including a discussion of the proposed drainage patterns (i.e., sheet flow, concentrated flow, or a combination thereof, 3) pre-development peak flow rate versus post-development peak flow rate, 4) additional downstream concerns, including impacts to Sterling Hills subdivision to the southwest of the project, and 5) any additional BMPs or other engineered methods to mitigate water quality concerns. The waiver request should also include exhibits, calculations, and other quantifiable results justifying the necessity of the waiver.

Sheet C2.0: The previous applicant letter asked that construction along Shamrock Ave. to be performed by others be shown on the Final Development Plan. The note "City to Install..." should be changed to read "installed by others". This will clarify who is responsible for each aspect of the project along Shamrock Ave.

Sheet C2.0: A specific design for ADA-accessible ramps in the right of way must be submitted for those portions of the ramps constructed under this Final Development Plan. At a minimum, it would appear this pertains to the west commercial entrance. A plan and profile view should be provided, which conforms to the design standards set forth in Section 5300 of the Design and Construction Manual. As part of the review of the Final Development Plan, our group shall not review nor inspect the interior sidewalks for compliance, but rather, sidewalks within the right of way. If the commercial entrance to the east is being constructed with this Final Development Plan, then it must be constructed with a 5 foot route across the driveway, which is no more than 1.5% cross slope. Placing a note on the plans that "the City shall construct ADA ramps" is not sufficient, since the commercial entrance is part of this ADA-accessible ramp.

KCMMB concrete mix must be specified for all commercial entrances. In addition, please provide sufficient notes on who will be responsible for constructing these entrances. The note on the easternmost commercial entrance is confusing, since the entrance is integral to the ADA-accessible ramp.

Sheet C2.0: A backflow vault and backflow assembly is warranted near the property line. This is required due to the distance being greater than 50 feet to the building, as measured from the water line. A gate valve must also be installed prior to the backflow vault, within an easement or right of way. The vault should be completely contained on the private side, outside of any easement or right of way.

Sheet C4.0: An ADA Access Grading Detail is provided in the lower right hand corner of the drawing, but it is unclear where this is being constructed. Again, the Engineering Group is only interested in the design details for ADA-accessible ramps within right of way. Specific design criteria and required submittals within the drawings are outlined in Section 5300 of the Design and Construction Manual. No "field design" of these features are allowed.

Where are the plans for the off-site sanitary sewer? A plan and profile view is required.

Detention Basin Issues: We do not see 2% slope at the bottom of the basin. Without elevations called-out on the grading plan, however, it is difficult to determine. Please call-out the elevations of all contours shown on the grading plan, not only in the vicinity of the detention basin, but all other areas. It is difficult to determine whether adequate drainage is being provided.

The 100 year water surface elevation is still not shown within the detention basin. Please show the location, in graphic form, the outline of the 100 year water surface elevation within the detention basin, along with the elevation of the 100 year water surface. Finally, provide a dimension showing the 20 foot rule has been satisfied.

Sheet C4.0: The stormwater report did not discuss the emergency spillway. It appears from the grading plan that an earthen emergency spillway is being proposed, with the overflow path directed toward homeowners within Sterling Hills subdivision. This does not appear acceptable.

Where are the profile views of the stormwater structures and lines greater than 6 inches in diameter? It appears there are several of these lines missing from the plan set.

Rip rap calculations are still not shown on the plans. Although the response letter provided sizing information, calculations were not provided. Although not specifically required, the City recommends showing the calculations on the plans. If not, then a separate design memorandum should be provided showing the calculations, or the calculations could be shown within the stormwater report.

Where are the calculations showing the downstream storm drain system is capable of managing the 100 year event, or if not, capable of providing a suitable overflow route for the 100 year event? It does not appear this has been addressed anywhere in the plans, stormwater report, or design memorandum. Again, the City recommends this information be provided in tabluature format within the plans.

Sheet C5.0, and Other Sheets: Various linetypes are shown, with no identification concerning what they represent. The previous comment letter requested these features be identified, but the response directed the City to a demolition and existing condition sheet, and therefore, we still do not know what these linetypes represent.

Sheet C6.0: The previous applicant letter asked why the detention basin was not being used for a temporary sediment basin. The response appeared to miss the point of the question (i.e., the response discussed 40 hour extended detention, which has no pertinence to a temporary sediment basin). It is the opinion of the City that this basin should be utilized as a temporary sediment basin, with an appropritate design shown on the plans for a temporary sediment basin. Without this feature, it is unclear how the proposed erosion and sediment control plan will mitigate the off-site transfer of sediment to the receiving storm sewer system.

The previous applicant letter requested that standard details be provided within the plans. We were given 8 1/2 by 11 copies of these standard drawings, but they must be shown within the plans.

A curb and gutter detail must be provided, showing not only the curb and gutter, but also the aggregate subgrade extending a minimum of 1 foot beyond the back of curb.

Sheet C9.0: It is our opinion that the detention basin outlet structure shown on this sheet is inadequate to serve its intended purpose. Small orifices are shown, with no provision for clogging upstream of these orifices, and no design calculations are evident within the stormwater report to support the placement of these orifices. In addition, other questions remain, such as whether the top grated inlet is intended as an emergency spillway, or whether the grass-lined swale shown on the grading plan will act as the emergency spillway. Finally, the report does not appear to support the use of a 12" RCP as the emergency overflow route.

The hydraulic grade line for the design storm should be shown on the profile view of the stormwater plans. If the system is not capable of managing the 100 year event, then a suitable overflow route must be established and shown for the 100 year event. Please be aware that a suitable overflow route for the 100 year event should not be assumed to be a downstream lot within the Sterling Hills subdivision.

Sheet C9.0: The placement of the manhole frame and cover will make it impossible to access the structure, since there is no offset on the lid. Please correct.

Sheet C9.0: A potential sanitary sewer line conflict is shown in profile, with no additional information concerning the location of this potential conflict.

Sheet C9.0: Is the "Outlet Structure" also AI-1? If so, then clearly show it on the plans. The profile view does not correspond to the call-out in the plan or section views.

It is unclear at this time whether the temporary sanitary sewer extension to the southeast will be public or private. As such, easement call-outs will need to be evaluated at a later date.

Although the sediment forebay is not specifically required, the design for a sediment forebay should be considered and discussed in the stormwater report. If it is not utilized in the design, it should specify why it is not being utilized.

A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be required prior to approval of the Final Development Plan.

Please see comments #36, #37, and #38 of the previous applicant letter. None of the standard details were included within the plans. Submission of separate standard details on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper is not sufficient to meet this requirement.

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

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. Action required: Show the location of the FDC on the building.

The "Micro Storm Water Drainage Study" dated Jan. 16, 2018 (hereinafter referred to the Detention Study) appears to show the allowable release rate for the 2 year storm event will be exceeded.

The Detention Study discusses the undetained portion on the western portion of the site "...maintains the original drainage pattern of the watershed." What was the original drainage area before grading? What is the proposed drainage area after grading and re-routing stormwater to the various facilities? If it can be shown the the original drainage area's allowable release rate is not exceeded by the modified drainage area, then it would be acceptable to allow this portion to flow undetained. Without supporting documentation, however, it is difficult to determine. Please clarify.

It does not appear that any pipe sizing, orifice sizing, or weir sizing was provided in the Detention Study. In addition, it does not appear any elevation or location information was provided showing the geometry of the detention basin outlet structure, and how it relates to the stormwater report. In other words, it appears the Detention Study is a summary of findings rather than contain all the necessary information. Please provide this information within the revised Detention Study.

The Detention Study discusses the dry detention pond having 3:1 side slopes. Section 5600 of the Design and Construction Manual requires that one fourth of the perimeter of the detention basin include side slopes no greater than 5:1.

The Final Development Plan appears to be incomplete in terms of the required infrastructure necessary to complete this project. As such, this review will be cursury in nature.

Has a Minor Plat or Final Plat been submitted for this project?

It appears there are discrepancies in the City street plans versus that what is shown in the Final Development Plan. Curb elevations do not reconcile, curb return radii do not reconcile, and from the Final Development Plan, it appears these features will be installed as part of the Final Development Plan. Please make it clear who will be installing the various features shown near the road, including ADA-accessible ramps, commercial entrances, sidewalk, etc.

Sheet C2.0: Rip rap is shown within the detention basin, with no corresponding calculations showing how the area was calculated. In addition, it does not appear any dimensions, including width, length, depth, and rip rap size, was provided anywhere within the plans.

Sheet C2.0: A "water service" is shown crossing the unnamed road to the north. Who is this serving, and why is it shown? The City does not allow the installation of domestic water lines when no business or residence is being served.

Sheet C2.0: There is a note referring to "Sheet C7.0 for more utility information". Sheet C7.0 appears to be a landscaping plan, not a utility sheet. There are at least two (2) instances where this mistake is made.

Sheet C2.0: There is a note in the northwest portion of the project concerning the placement of a fire hydrant. It is not clear where the fire hydrant is being placed, and it is not clear by whom the fire hydrant is being placed.

All Sheets: What are the dashed lines near the edge of the property? Are these easements? Are they building lines? Please label these dashed lines, and make them different linetype if they represent different features.

Sheet C4.0 Grading Plan: There are numerous issues with this sheet, including the call-out of what appears to be insufficient slope. Normally, 2.0% slope is required in a grassed-area. It appears this is not achieved in several areas of the site.

Sheet C4.0 Grading Plan: No contours are evident in the area between the two (2) commercial entrances, and in the vicinity of the field inlets. Please show the grading in this area, and please show how the area will be graded to drain towards the field inlets. Please show the field inlets on this sheet since this provides a necessary frame of reference for the grading plan.

A sanitary sewer service is shown extending to the north. There is no sanitary sewer line to the north.

Sheet C4.0 Grading Plan: The detention basin does not appear to meet the 20 foot rule. The 100 year water surface elevation should be a minimum of 20 feet from the property line.

Sheet C4.0 Grading Plan: Where are the limits of the 100 year water surface elevation within the detention basin? What is the 100 year water surface elevation within the basin? Without this information shown graphically on the plans, it is difficult to determine whether the 20 foot rule is met.

Sheet C4.0 Grading Plan: The bottom of the detention basin shows insufficient slope. A 2% minimum slope must be provided within the detention basin.

Sheet C4.0 Grading Plan: Where is the required sediment forebay? A sediment forebay is required to conform the the MARC manual for the 90% mean annual event, in order to facilitate sediment removal on a period basis.

Sheet C4.0 Grading Plan: There does not appear to be any side slopes with 5:1 or less slope around the detention basin. The Design and Construction Manual requires a minimum of 1/4 of the perimeter be at 5:1 slope or less.

Sheet C4.0 Grading Plan: Straw bales are referenced in the notes. The City of Lee's Summit does not allow straw bales for erosion and sediment control.

Sheet C4.0 Grading Plan: The notes call out the maximum cross-slope of sidewalks being 2%. The maximum design cross-slope in the City of Lee's Summit is 1.5%, not 2%.

A separate storm sewer sheet must be provided, showing the plan and profile view of all storm lines greater than 6 inches diameter.

Sheet C5.0 Utility Plan: Where is the off-site stormwater system exiting the detention basin? It was not shown. A plan and profile is required for this private stormwater feature.

Sheet C5.0 Utility Plan: Where is the off-site "temporary" sanitary sewer? The plan shows a connection to the north, and there is currently no sewer existing at this location.

Sheet C5.0 Utility Plan: Profile view for all storm linies greater than 6" must be provided, preferably with a separate plan view for each.

Sheet C5.0: No further review of this sheet will be completed. The utility plan is incomplete, and the above review comments should be considered cursury in nature.

Sheet C5.0: Note 10 is incorrect. Sanitary sewer mains must be at least ten (10) feet from any storm sewer. This requirement was changed by the MDNR.

Sheet C5.0: Note 5 is incorrect. The maximum time period is eight (8) hours for a disconnect of water service to occur, and this is contingent upon the work being performed at night.

A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be required prior to formal approval of the plans. Two (2) copies are required.

Sheet C6.0: The trench and backfill method for silt fence installation is not allowed in the City of Lee's Summit. All silt fence installation shall be performed using machine-laid methods.

Sheet C6.0: Will the detention basin be utilitized as a sediment basin or trap? If not, why?

Sheet C6.0: Why is silt fence shown around the detention basin? It does not appear to serve any purpose, other than directing water around the perimeter and toward the residences to the south.

Sheet C6.0: No further review of this sheet is being performed. It appears incomplete and does not appear to meet its intended purpose of limiting off-site migration of sediment to adjoining properties and storm sewers.

No design details were provided for the detention basin outlet structure. Please be aware that all aspects of dry detention basin design must be addressed, including sizing of weirs, orifices, anti-clogging measures, construction of the outlet structure, sizing of orifices or perforated risers for water quality events, etc. The design must also show the method of construction of the

If any ADA-accessible ramps are installed as part of this project, then a specific design is required which conforms to the minimum information and design criteria listed in Section 5304 of the Design and Construction Manual. The City no longer allows for design of these features in the field. Please be aware of the City's requirements in terms of cross-slope (i.e., no more than 1.5%), and ADA-accessible ramp slope (i.e., no more than 7.5%). These design parameters are more stringent than PROWAG, and must be included in the design of ADA-accessible ramps and ADA-accessible routes.

A concrete curb and gutter detail was missing. CG-1 curb and gutter is required. The curb and gutter detail must show that the aggregate base and compaction of native subgrade extends a minimum of one (1) foot beyond the back of curb. If asphaltic concrete is used, which does not appear to be the case, please see the Unified Development Ordinance, Article 12 "Parking" for specific requirements concerning pavement thickness, aggregate base, and subgrade stabilization or geogrid.

Details were not provided for sanitary sewer cleanouts, water meters, sanitary sewer wye connections, manhole frame and lids for stormwater facilities with the word "STORM", manhole frame and lid details for sanitary facilities with the word "SEWER", water valves, water valve boxes, trenching and backfill detail for storm lines, sanitary sewer lines, or water lines, or trench checks for sanitary sewer lines.

A permanent off-site easement shall be required for the temporary sanitary sewer line to be installed to the southeast. This shall be required prior to approval of the Final Development Plan.

A permanent off-site easement shall be required for any off-site stormwater lines installed to the east of the detention basin. It is anticipated this line shall be a private storm line, contained within a private drainage easement. This easement shall be required prior to approval of the Final Development Plan.

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.

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: Show the location of the FDC on the building.

Please show the proposed 5’ sidewalk extended to the west property line.

Please label the width and depth of all proposed parking stalls, including the width and depth of ADA stalls and required isles.

Please label the locations of all oil and/or gas wells within the subject property. If none are present please add a note to the plans stating so and cite the source of your information.

Is any roof top mechanical equipment being proposed? Is any ground mounted mechanical equipment (aside from the transformer and generator) being proposed? If so please show the location on the plans along with the screening method to be used.

Please note that all vegetation proposed for screening must be at a minimum the same height of the mechanical equipment to be screened at the time of planting.

The subject property and adjacent properties are currently zoned RP-3. This is a residential zoning. Per the UDO requirements all parking lots (including drive isles) must be set back a minimum of 20’ to any residential use or district. The proposed parking on the east side of the project is showing a 0’ shared drive isle. As it is currently zoned this is not allowed. If the subject property and adjacent property were to be rezoned to a commercial zoning district the proposed layout could be approved.

Sheet C8.0 shows 6’ to the bottom of the proposed ADA sign. Per UDO requirements the bottom of the sign shall be 3’-5’ above the ground. Please update the plans accordingly.

Please label the color and material to be use for the trash enclosure gate.

Please provide the manufacture’s specification sheets for all proposed lighting to be used.

A final plat must be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of any building permit.

Please provide a completed ownership affidavit form. Mike Weisenborn 02/28/2018 3:26 PM - I have provided an affidavit to JKV for completion.

A high impact buffer is going to be required along the south and west property lines due to the residential zoning and uses.

Please label the monument sign height.