Lee's Summit

DE C&O #01 Eng Plans – FDP/PDP

All required engineering plans and studies, including water lines, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streets and erosion and sediment control shall be submitted along with the final development plan. All public infrastructure must be substantially complete, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy.

DE C&O #03 Eng & Insp Fees

All Engineering Plan Review and Inspection Fees shall be paid prior to approval of the associated engineering plans and prior to the issuance of any infrastructure permits or the start of construction (excluding land disturbance permit).

DE C&O #06 Land Disturbance

A Land Disturbance Permit shall be obtained from the City if ground breaking will take place prior to the issuance of an infrastructure permit, building permit, or prior to the approval of the Final Development Plan / Engineering Plans.

DE C&O #07 Easements

All permanent off-site drainage easements or agreements, in a form acceptable to the City, shall be executed and recorded with the Jackson County Recorder of Deeds prior to the approval of the final development plan.

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.

The west underground detention basin and the southwest underground detention basin shall be constructed during the first phase of the development, and prior to any other construction activities on the project site.

The northern underground detention basin shall be constructed when Lot 5 is developed.

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. Final hydrant and FDC placement will be determined on FDP.

The plan must include a southbound right turn lane along Douglas at each of the two proposed driveways serving the development. These turn lanes are also associated with each respective FDP projects on Lot 1 and Lot 5. These turn lanes are in compliance with the Access Management Code and consistent with the Traffic Study recommendations. Each turn lane shall be 150' in storage length with a 150' taper.

The detention study states that the entire site detention system will comply with all requirements of Section 5600 of the Design and Construction Manual. This is not an accurate statement, since at least three (3) design waivers will be required which waive certain aspects of the release rates at the various points of interest. These waivers were not discussed in the report. A revised detention study must be submitted which discusses these waivers, including any undetained portions of stormwater which exceed the allowables.

In the previous applicant letter, we had asked that a separate utility sheet be prepared. None was provided in the resubmittal.

In the previous applicant letter, we had asked that a private easement be shown for the interior water line. A public easement was shown.

Grading along the northeast portion of the project will alter the drainage flow patterns onto adjacent property, which may have an adverse impact on this property owner. In the previous applicant letter, we asked for a gradinig plan which showed elevations, since it was not possible to gain a clear understanding of what was being proposed in this area. Following the inclusion of elevation labels, it is clear that the drainage flow patterns are being affected in a potentially adverse way.

In the previous applicant letter, we had asked that sidewalk be shown along Victoria Dr., and it appears that none was provided. There is an outline of what appears to be a sidewalk, but no labeling. In addition, existing non-compliant 4 foot sidewalk is shown along Douglas St., with no explanation on upgrades (i.e., minimum 5 feet). There are additional lines showing what appear to be a sidewalk along Douglas St., adjacent to the pavement, with no indication of width, or whether this sidewalk will be replaced. If adjacent to pavement, a minimum of 6 feet width is required.

In the previous comment letter, we had asked the question of whether the sanitary sewers would meet the depth requirements (i.e., no more than 15 feet of cover). The applicant failed to respond.

In the previous applicant letter, we had asked the a question concerning the connection of the west detention basin outfall to a private system owned by a separate entity. Although the applicant did not provide a written response, the plans show the same configuration (i.e., a storm line discharge is shown with a questionable connection point to the northwest of the project). It is unclear what adverse effects may occur by taking what was sheet flow, to a concentrated flow situation, or whether this discharge point will be connected to an existing private underground system. If daylighting at this location, it appears this will create an adverse situation for the adjacent property owner, since what was draining via sheet flow, will now be concentrated point flow.

In the previous applicant letter, we had asked the applicant to ensure that all retaining walls are outside the limits of any public easements. It appears the north retaining wall is partially contained within a public utility easement.

It is still unclear where the northeast detention basin will discharge. The PDP shows a detention basin with no apparent point of discharge. We had asked the applicant the question of whether as-builts or actual field measurements were consulted to determine whether the basins could be constructed as shown, but received no response. We are assuming the northeast detention basin will connect to the existing City system along Douglas St., but without a response, and without this shown on the plans, it can only be speculated.

It is not clear from the revised detention study how or where the emergency spillway will function. The emergency spillway must be designed assuming 100% clogging of the primary outlet works. Please see Section 5600 of the Design and Construction Manual for specific references to emergency spillway design.

In regard to the above comment, it is not clear whether the receiving system can manage the 100 year storm event assuming a 100% clogging event (i.e., assuming 100% clogging of the primary outlet works). If utilizing the existing curb inlets, junction boxes, etc., they may not have the capacity to manage the 100 year event. They are required to provide an emergency overflow spillway which is capable of managing the 100 year storm event, and if connected to a system which is unable to manage the 100 year storm event, then it will require a re-design. We see no evidence that this condition was evaluated in the detention study.

The detention study used 40% void space to calculate a portion of the available storage. We do not agree with this figure. This assumes all interstitial water within the voids is mobile. Surface tension lowers this number considerably, and it would appear that 40% cannot be used in the calculation of available storage.

The detention study appears to show the available storage for the northeast basin, the west basin, and the southwest basin which contradict that which is shown on the plans.

A "response to comments letter" is required for the resubmittal. The letter should address each comment, and the response by the applicant.

Please reconcile the land area numbers. The legal description says it is 4.2124 acres +/-, I realize a chunk of this is right-of-way so I tried just adding the 3 lots we are dealing with (1.24+0.92+0.81=2.97 acres). But, when I add the square feet for the sites (42,014.4+40,075.2+35,283.6=117,373.2; which, if you divide by 43,560 is 2.69). Please check these numbers to let me know what is off where.

Revise the number of trees provided for street frontage along NE Douglas Street to reflect the true number shown on the plan.

Reconcile differences on the Landscape Plan between the 5' height requested on the modifications request and the 6' shown on the planting table. In addition, label landscaping on the plan so staff can easily discern where the various species are located (it is difficult to determine the difference between the BSW and the JCSP on the plan).

Add a request for modification to the required 3' caliper to allow 2' caliper for the ornamental trees.

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 hydrants and FDC's on FDP.

The Traffic Impact Study was received 3/16/18. A review has not yet been completed. Generally, the overall plan is subject to the TIS review, but no obvious issues have been identified. The North and South driveways along Douglas require right-turn lanes in compliance with the Access Management Code and as recommended in the TIS. These turn lanes may already be included in the associated FDP for the Storage and Hotel developments, but may be repeated in the event either or both of those developments lag the remaining portion of the PDP.

The "Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan" dated Mar. 1, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the Stormwater Report) appears to contain several inconsistencies and discrepancies. Please see Table 3-3a. Our calculations for the allowable release rates at the three (3) points of interest do not match what is shown on this table. They do not appear to match EX-1.0 using simple multiplication of the existing drainage areas, times the allowable release rate per acre.

The Stormwater Study provides calculations for the existing runoff. Is this relevant to the report? Since the City is only interested in the allowable release rates as specified in Section 5600 of the Design and Construction Manual, the existing runoff calculations appear irrelevant.

The time of concentration values shown on EX-1.0 of the Stormwater Study do not appear to make sense. In addition, why are the pre-developed time of concentration values shown? These would appear irrelevant since the Section 5600 of the Design and Construction Manual specifies a "flat" release rate per acre.

PR01.0: A curve number of 90 is assigned across the entire post-developed area. Isn't this curve number low? It would appear the curve number should be higher for a commercially-developed area.

A separate utility plan sheet should be submitted for the proposed utility extensions (i.e., water, stormwater, and sewer).

The private water main that is shown as private, should also be shown with a private easement. Automatic water meters will be required to serve each lot.

The sanitary sewer running north and south is shown as a public line. This public line should be moved slightly, so it follows the pavement as close as possible. In other words, the City does not want to maintain a sanitary line which is beneath landscaped areas. It is easier to maintain a sanitary sewer beneath pavement in a commercial setting.

Please ensure that no retaining walls, lighting poles, monument signs, structures, private storm inlets, private detention, etc. are contained within the sanitary sewer easement described in the above comment. Please ensure a minimum of fifteen (15) feet separation between any building and a sanitary sewer.

Sheet C2.0: Please label the existing contour elevations. It is difficult to determine what is being changed in terms of grading.

If PCC is used for the pavement, then the typical section does not appear to meet the requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Article 12 "Parking". Please see the UDO Table 12-5 for specific requirements.

If AC is used for the pavement, please review the UDO Article 12 "Parking" Table 12-5. The detail shown in plans does not appear to comply with the standard design criteria.

Where are the public sidewalks (i.e., adjacent to right of way) for this project? It would appear sidewalk is required along Victoria Dr.?

Will the depths of the sanitary sewer (i.e., as measured to the top of pipe) be less than fifteen (15) feet? This is the maximum depth allowed.

The plans show the west detention basin will connect to a private stormwater system located on property owned by a different entity. Have easements been discussed with this entity?

How were the post-developed time of concentration values calculated? Please show how these were calculated.

PR-1.0: It appears the southwest drainage area in the post-developed condition is 3.1 acres. According to your analysis, the existing drainage area to the southwest is 2.4 acres. Please provide calculations showing that the allowable release rate (i.e., based on the existing drainage area to the southwest) is achieved, including the undetained drainage areas that are directed to the southwest.

PR-1.0: It appears the west drainage area in the post-developed condition is 1.1 acres. According to your analysis, the existing drainage area to the west is 2.9 acres. Please provide calculations showing that the allowable release rate (i.e., based on the existing drainage area to the west) is achieved, including the undetained drainage areas that are directed to the west.

PR-1.0: It appears the northeast drainage area in the post-developed condition is 2.1 acres. According to your analysis, the existing drainage area to the northeast is 1.8 acres. Please provide calculations showing that the allowable release rate (i.e., based on the existing drainage area to the northeast) is achieved, including the undetained drainage areas that are directed to the northeast.

Please ensure that backflow vaults for the water line are contained on private property and outside of public easements. They do not appear to comply with this requirement. They should be located on private property, within 6 to 10 feet of the easement, or 6 to 10 feet from the property line where an easement does not exist.

Please show the proposed location of all water meters to serve each lot. They should be located in an area which is accessible to Water Utilities staff.

Have all elevatons been checked to determine whether the underground detention system will function? Were as-builts consulted, or were actual field measurements obtained?

Please be aware that all public infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer) shall require the submittal of separate engineering plans (i.e., separate from the Final Development Plan). An MDNR permit does not appear to be required, based on a length less than 1000 feet.

Please provide a note on the plans stating that the sanitary sewer crossing at the southwest corner of the project shall be bored and cased in accordance with the Design and Construction Manual.

Will the existing ADA-accessible ramp at the corner of Douglas and Victoria comply with City standards described in the Design and Construction Manual? If not, this ramp must be re-designed and re-constructed.

Revise rezoning and development plan exhibits to match discussed revisions regarding not rezoning the hotel site.

Lot 2 is short 1 required parking space. Either add the missing parking spot or request a modification.

Provide the square feet for each lot as part of the site data on Sheet C1.0.

The minimum caliper for deciduous trees is 3 inches per Section 14.050.A.4 of the UDO. Either revise or request a modification to allow for 2.5 inches. If a modification is being requested Note #4 will need to be removed/revised.

The minimum height for evergreen trees is 8 feet per Section 14.050.A.5 of the UDO. Either revise or request a modification to allow for 6 feet. If a modification is being requested Note #4 will need to be removed/revised.

Confirm that a modification is being requested to the required number of street frontage trees along NE Douglas Street, and provide justification for the requested modification. In addition, has the height of the trees along NE Douglas Street been reviewed and approved by the overhead utilites. Staff searched for the Green Pillar Oak and Musashino Columnar Zelkova and found information stating they could obtain heights of 5-70 feet and 45 feet, respectively. It may be better to opt for move ornamental trees that do not grow as heigh under overhead utilites.

Why is the number being used for the open yard area calculations different (147,096 versus 305,355)? Both calculations should include the site area minus the building area, so this number should be the same.

All drive aisles shall be 24' width not including curb and gutter per Section 12.120.E.4 of the UDO.

Is a modification to the 20' requred parking setback still needed once the right-of-way change is accepted?

Add a note stating all lighting shall comply with the lighting standards contained within Article 7 of the UDO.

Misc.

No concerns with rezoning.

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 locations of the FDC on the buildings and the accessible fire hydrant within 100 feet.

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: Provide fire lane dimensions around the hotel.

Hazmat

IFC 105.6.20 - A Hazardous materials permit is required for the using, dispensing, transporting, handling, and/or storing of extremely hazardous substances. “Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS) Facilities” are defined as facilities subject to the provisions of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA TITLE III), Section 302, for storing, dispensing, using, or handling of listed chemicals in excess of their threshold planning quantities (TPQ). See amended Section 5001.4 of the 2012 International Fire Code.

Hydrants

IFC 507.5.1 - Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 300 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. Action required: Show existing hydrants on Douglas and Victoria. Provide a hydrant plan that meets Item #2.

Imposed Loads

IFC 503.2.3 - Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Action required: Indicate heavy duty asphalt areas.