| Review Type |
Outcome |
Est. Completion Date |
Completed |
|
Record Drawings Review
|
No Comments
|
11/29/2022
|
11/21/2022
|
|
|
Sue Pyles, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
No Comments
|
09/11/2018
|
09/11/2018
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
09/11/2018
|
09/11/2018
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
08/21/2018
|
08/20/2018
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 9 provides reference to Section E-E. It does not appear that Section E-E was labeled on the plan view?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
It is understood that detention shall not be required for this phase of the development, due to an off-site drainage agreement executed with the owner of the small 0.03 acre parcel located to the north of the project. As such, no comments are being provided for the 1:1 slope area, the detention basin, temporary sediment basin(s) or trap(s), or other aspects of the plans which will change due to the deletion of the detention basin.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
ADA-routes across certain intersections were added in this submittal, for unknown reasons (i.e., we had not requested ADA-routes across these intersections during previous comments). This includes the non stop-controlled intersections at Carson and Audubon, and Mackenzie and Thoreau. It is not desirable or needed at these interesections, since these intersections are designed to function without through-traffic stopping. If placed as shown, this introduces a noticeable and potentially dangerous dip in the road for motorists. The only requirement for these non stop-controlled crossings is that the cross-slope be less than or equal to 5.0%.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 16: The stop-controlled ADA-route across Carson (i.e., running east and west) should be the only ADA-accessible route subject to the 1.5% cross-slope requirement. As shown, this appears acceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
08/21/2018
|
08/16/2018
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
No Comments
|
07/27/2018
|
07/27/2018
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
07/27/2018
|
07/27/2018
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to the applicant letter dated May 15, 2018 (hereinafter referred to the previous applicant letter). Comment #3 requested that cross-sections be provided for swales at a maximum of 50 foot spacing, with additional cross-sections at structures such as field inlets and intersecting drainage systems. Generic details are not acceptable. This is stated in Section 5609.9 of the Design and Construction Manual.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #4 of the previous applicant letter. We had provided a comment that the table shown on Sheet 3 (now labeled as Sheet 9 in the revised plans) did not match what is shown on the grading plan. In addition, discrepancies exist on the generic swale detail. The generic swale detail shows a 1 foot depth swale with 3:1 sidewalls, but when transposing the bottom width and top width, we are calculating a 0.17 foot deep swale. Please see previous comment, however, since we will need to see cross-sections as required by Section 5609.9.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #10 of the previous applicant letter. Cross-sections are called-out on the Master Drainage Plan, but there are no associated labels stating "emergency overflow swale", or "swale", or "x.x% slope". Please provide appropriate call-outs for these items.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to the previous applicant letter. Comment #9 requested existing and proposed elevations at all lot corners. Existing elevations were provided, but no proposed contours were provided.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
The Master Drainage Plan appears to show MBOEs for Lots 1438 and 1439 which are too low in relation to the 100 year water surface elevation within the adjacent swale.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #12 of the previous applicant letter. We had noted that there will be drainage issues on the rear of Lots 1435 through 1438, unless an underground drainage system was installed. No modification was made to the drainage system, and we still believe that an additional field inlet is warranted along the rear of these lots, along with associated piping directed to the north. The City does not desire to see drainage swales used as the sole method of rear yard drainage if the upstream drainage area will be 2 acres or greater. It appears the upstream area is greater than 2 acres.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #13 of the previous applicant letter. Even though the design for the temporary detention basin is shown in the plans, we will need a detention/drainage study for this portion of the project.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #14 of the previous applicant letter. A retaining wall profile was requested, but it appears the new revised design has deleted the retaining wall. It now appears that 1:1 slopes are being proposed, which is not acceptable. The maximum slope is 3:1.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comments #19, 20, and 21 of the previous applicant letter. An ADA-accessible route with a cross-slope of no greater than 1.5% must be provided across Carson Dr. at the intersection of Carson Dr. and Thoreau Dr. The plans must clearly show how this will be accomplished, either on the intersection details, ADA-accessible ramp details, or both.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #20 of the previous applicant letter. Standard details for the ADA-accessible ramps should be removed as requested since this is a site-specific design, and the slope call-outs contradict the design criteria called-out on Table LS-5 of Section 5305 of the Design and Construction Manual. The purpose for these standard details are to facilitate their construction when no construction plans are available (i.e., retrofit projects, reconstruction projects, etc.). In other words, they do not pertain to this project, except to the extent that the general geometry shown on these diagrams should be followed when providing a site-specific design.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #21 of the previous comment letter. Our comment concerning side tapers appears to have been missed, since it appears side tapers are shown. There does not appear to be any need for side tapers on the ADA-accessible ramps, since grading appears to be the easiest method to provide the transition to the adjacent green space.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #20 of the previous applicant letter. On Sheet 15, cross-sections are called-out on the ADA-accessible ramp plan view, but the actual cross-sections are missing. Although the locations of the cross-sections comply with Section 5304.8 of the Design and Construction Manual, the actual cross-sections need to be provided.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #22 of the previous applicant letter. CMP end sections are not allowed, but are still shown and noted for structure 901 and 902. Please be aware that CMP, either aluminized or galvanized, is not allowed within the City of Lee's Summit.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #24 of the previous applicant letter. We had requested that aluminized CMP be removed as an option for storm pipe, but it is still noted on Sheet 17. Please see above comment concerning the prohibition of either galvanized or aluminized CMP within the City of Lee's Summit.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #25 of the previous applicant letter. We had requested that references to KCAPWA curb inlets, junction boxes, and grated inlets be removed, since the City of Lee's Summit has their own design standards (i.e., as shown on the standard details you have provided in the "details" section of the plans). However, Sheet 17 still references the KCAPWA standards for these features under "Material Notes". Please revise as appropriate.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #26 of the previous applicant letter. Storm Line 100 appears to be flowing in a supercritical fashion, and there is concern about the erosion at the discharge point. An even greater concern is the design of the temporary detention basin, with its rock-lined weir and 24 inch pipe bearing the brunt of the discharge. The Master Drainage Plan shows Line 100 discharging to a point just upstream of the 24 inch pipe draining the temporary detention basin, and the concern is that this area will undergo catastrophic erosion which would likely wash the rock-lined weir away during frequent storm events. It is our opinion that the rock-lined weir, forming a part of the temporary detention basin, and the placement of the 24 inch pipe, will experience severe erosion and failure during frequent storm events. We feel that a more robust design should be provided.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Additional Comments Concerning the Temporary Detention Basin: 1) the depth of cover over the 24 inch HDPE does not appear adequate in the vicinity of the upstream end to prevent floating out of the ground during frequent storm events, 2) the rock-lined overflow weir will likely fail during the first significant rainfall event due to the lack of any stilling basin on the downstream end, or other suitable method to dissipate the energy of this supercritical flow regime, 3) you are showing a notch within the earthen basin at a slope greater than 1:1, perhaps 0.8:1, which we believe is unrealistic and un-constructable, 4) larger plan views of the detention basin, weir, etc., should be provided which clearly show how this will be constructed (i.e., as shown, there is very little detail, and there is a lot of speculation on the part of a contractor or inspector on what is expected during construction of this feature).
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #28 of the previous applicant letter. We had requested calculations for the rip rap sizing, but we received a USDOT table for sizing rip rap. What consideration was given to discharge points where the flow was supercritical, and therefore, additional measures warranted?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #29 of the previous applicant letter. We had asked the question "...are there any swales that need to be designated as emergency overflow swales on the Master Drainage Plan?". Please label their location on the Master Drainage Plan.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #30 of the previous applicant letter. We had requested the design storm event for the stormwater table, and this was provided for the top portion of the table. However, the bottom portion was not provided. Finally, please remove the reference to Overland Park.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #32 of the previous applicant letter. We had asked whether a temporary sediment basin or temporary sediment trap was warranted for the site. It is clear where these traps are located, although it appears the temporary detention basin is being designed to act in this fashion. Provide clear notes on the plans showing the location(s) of these features. Provide calculations showing that the design meets the standards in terms of upstream drainage areas and required volumes. This can be provided within the plans, the separate storm drainage/detention study, or both.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refere to comment #34 of the previous applicant letter. The underdrain detail is provided in the details section, but their location(s) are not shown anywhere in the plan set? Please provide their location within the plan set. A note stating "install at the sag points" will not be considered sufficient detail for the plans.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #35 of the previous applicant letter. We had requested that City standard detail GEN-3A and GEN-3B be removed from the plan set, since a site-specific design is required. The standard details are still shown within the "details" portion of the plans. Please remove them.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #36 of the previous applicant letter. We had requested that an ADA-accessible route be provided across Carson Dr. where there is a stop-controlled (i.e., stop sign) intersection at Thoreau Dr. Please see previous comments concerning the requirements.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #37 of the previous applicant letter. We had stated that 1/4" per foot cross-slope on sidewalks is not correct. The City of Lee's Summit requires no more than 1.5% design slope as stated in Table LS-5, Section 5305 of the Design and Construction Manual. Sheet 22, "Residential Local/Access" typical section still shows 1/4 inch per foot. Please revise.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please refer to comment #39 of the previous comment letter. A SWWP shall be required prior to approval of the plans, or prior to a land disturbance permit being issued.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Concerning comment #40 of the previous applicant letter, please revise the Final Plat to include language concerning a geotechnical report on Lot 1451, due to fill being placed on this lot.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Other Comments: Provide (in bold) the limits of sidewalk construction for this project, along with appropriate labels and notation. This includes all sidewalk constructed adjacent to common area Tracts, and adjacent to unplatted property. This would appear to include: 1) the sidewalk to the west of Lot 1451, 2) the sidewalk between Lot 1448 and Lot 1345, and 3) the sidewalk west of Lot 1455, to the west end of NW Thoreau Dr.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Other Comments: The note on Sheet 16 concerning construction of sidewalks and ADA-accessible ramps is not entirely correct. All ADA-accessible ramps must be constructed along with all other subdivision improvements, since this is considered part of the street construction. Sidewalks, however, may be deferred to the individual homebuilder, provided that the sidewalk is not adjacent to a common area tract, or adjacent to unplatted land.
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic Review
|
Corrections
|
05/14/2018
|
05/14/2018
|
|
|
Michael Park
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Revise the vertical profile of Audubon Lane such that the minimum K value for the sag, 26, near Station 2+45 (future road extension) meets standards, whether shown on the planned improvement or future alignment.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Revise the vertical profile of Thoreau Drive such that the minimum K value for all sags, 26, are met including those near Station 0+55 (future road extension), Station 6+55, and Station 10+95 meets standards, whether shown on the planned improvement or future alignment. The minimum K value along residential streets shall not rely on continuous lighting for a lower K value.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Intersection Detail Sheets not complete; pending resubmittal for review.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Signing Plan - Stop signs at the intersection of Carson Dr. and Thoreau Drive should be on Carson Drive, not Thoreau Drive.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Signing Sheet - The Object Markers should be noted or detail amended to show quantity 4, not 3, and spacing (e.g. typical 4 evenly spaced object marker signs for end of road treatment).
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering Review
|
Corrections
|
05/14/2018
|
05/14/2018
|
|
|
Gene Williams, P.E.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 2: The north arrow appears mis-oriented. Also, wouldn't it be better to orient north so it matches the other plan sheets? As presented, it is very confusing to use in the field. We recommend Sheet 2 General Layout be re-oriented with north facing the top of the sheet, and the scale changed slightly to allow the General Layout to be shown on one sheet.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 2: The project location doesn't really convey any useful information. Wouldn't it be better to show some street references? Section, township and range information is of little use to the contractor or inspector.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 3: Cross-sections are required for swales of no more than 50 feet spacing, and additional cross-sections at structures, and intersecting drainage systems. A generic detail is not acceptable.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 3: The table showing the various design parameters of the 100 year overflow swales shows what appear to be bottom widths and top widths and side slopes with virtually no depth. If using the figures shown on this table, they do not appear to match the contour elevations. The contour elevations show a more pronounced and more "normal" swale. The dimensions shown on the table show what appear to be extremely shallow swales, based on the information provided.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 3: Note 2 on the lower left hand corner of the sheet states that "...individual plot plans may alter the constructed swales in elevation from the grading plan as long as the MBOE is adjusted". We do not agree with this statement. The swales shown on the Master Drainage Plan cannot be altered without specific application and approval by the City Engineer.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Master Drainage Plan Comment: The basement type (i.e., standard, daylight, or walkout) must be specified for each lot.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 3: There appear to be several drafting issues with this sheet. Proposed contours are not shown tying into existing contours. If showing a proposed contour tying into existing grade, it should terminate at the existing contour if the same elevation?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
General Comment on Sheet 3: Is the grading plan part of the Master Drainage Plan? While a separate grading plan is good, many of the required features of a Master Drainage Plan are shown on this sheet, such as MBOEs, drainage swales, etc. These items should be combined with the Master Drainage Plan.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 13: Master Drainage Plan: Existing and proposed elevations at lot corners must be shown.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 13: Please see previous comment concerning the requirements of a Master Drainage Plan. Drainage swales, cross-sections of drainage swales, design flows within drainage swales, overflow routes, 100 year water surface elevations, MBOEs, basement type, etc. must be shown on the Master Drainage Plan.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 3: Grading Plan: It may be better to remove the details for swales, MBOEs, and other features reserved for the Master Drainage Plan, and place them later within the plan set. Normally, the Master Drainage Plan consists of 2 to 3 sheets total, with all of the required information contained on these sheets.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 3: Grading Plan: What is the plan for drainage along the rear of Lots 1435 through 1438? It appears there may be issues without an engineered underground system.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A stormwater detention memorandum should be submitted which discusses the reasons why detention is not being proposed for this phase of the subdivision.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A profile view of the retaining wall is required.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Will the retaining wall be designed so stormwater is allowed to sheet flow over the top, or will the retaining wall be designed with a swale to divert stormwater? It appears stormwater will sheet flow over the top of the wall?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 4: Drafting issues exist on this sheet, where proposed contours tie into existing contours. It appears the majority of the proposed contours terminate beyond the existing contour?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 4: Will there be any turf reinforcement mat for the area northwest of Lot 1451? It appears this may be necessary to provide a stabilized slope.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Street Plan and Profile Views: There appear to be several sag locations where the k value is below the minimum value. Please review and adjust as necessary.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 9: Intersection Details: This sheet is incomplete and no further review is provided at this time.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
ADA-accessible ramp details are missing. Standard details should be removed, and site-specific plans must be provided. Ensure that all bullet point items contained in Section 5304.8 of the Design and Construction Manual are provided. In addition, refer to Table LS-5 contained in Section 5300 for specific design criteria for running slope, cross-slope, turning space, etc.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Ensure that no ADA-accessible ramp includes side tapers unless absolutely necessary. In most cases, side tapers can be eliminated completely, and grading can be performed or side curb installed. Please see the generic standard details shown on the City of Lee's Summit website for a guide to designing these ADA-accessible ramps.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 10: CMP end sections are called-out in the Storm Sewer Construction Notes. Why is CMP end sections called-out? HDPE should be called out for HDPE pipe.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 10: Please label all streets on the General Layout Sheet.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 10: Aluminized CMP is shown as an option. The Design and Construction Manual specifically prohibits the use of CMP, either aluminized or galvanized, for public infrastructure. Please revise.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 10: Material Notes refer to the KC APWA curb inlets, junction boxes, and grated inlets. The City of Lee's Summit has a different design detail for these features. The standard details shown elsewhere in the plan set show the City of Lee's Summit standard details, so this note is contradictory in nature. Please revise as appropriate.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 11: Storm Profiles: Line 100 is shown discharging in what appears to be supercritical flow conditions onto a very steep section of rip rap. This rip rap is not sufficient to dissipate the energy at this discharge point. Additional measures must be considered and evaluated since this will likely lead to severe erosion issues.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 11: Storm Profiles: Line 200 is shown in what appears to be supercritical flow discharging onto rip rap. We do not feel this energy dissipation method is sufficient to manage the energy at this discharge point.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Where are the calculations showing rip rap sizing, dimensions, etc.? The bigger question is "is rip rap appropriate for these locations".
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Storm Profile Views: It appears the underground storm system is only able to manage the 10 year event. The Design and Construction Manual requires these systems to be designed for the 100 year event, OR if the 100 year event cannot be managed, a suitable overflow route be established. Was the system evaluated in terms of suitable overflow routes? Are there any swales that need to be designated as "emergency overflow swales" on the Master Drainage Plan?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 13: Calculations are provided in table format, but no corresponding design event was shown. Please specify.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 13: Were the calculations shown on the table assuming steady uniform flow? Was there any consideration given to the velocity calculations for supercritical flow? Of particular importance is the pipe velocity calculation of 23.6 ft/sec for Line 201. This exceeds the maximum allowable, but the bigger question is whether this calculation is realistic. Was supercritical flow considered at this location, and other locations within the system?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: Is a sediment basin or sediment trap warranted?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 20: Standard Details: Which underdrain is being utilized, and where is it being utilized?
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 21: The underdrain detail contradicts previous standard details for underdrains.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 21: Standard Details: The "sidewalk and handicapped ramp details" contradict the City standard drawings for these features. In addition, standard details should be consulted, but not used, for this plan set because site-specific design drawings are required for each ADA-accessible ramp. Please use the generic standard details on the City of Lee's Summit website as a guide in preparing the site-specific design drawings for each ADA-accessible ramp.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
When designing the ADA-accessible ramp, provide an ADA-accessible route across all street crossings where there is stop control (i.e., stop sign in this instance). It appears at least one (1) must be provided at NW Thoreau and Carson Dr. (i.e., north/south crossing), where a minimum 5 foot wide crossing must be provided across the road, with no more than 1.5% cross slope. Please include all bullet point items contained in Section 5304.8 of the Design and Construction Manual when detailing these drawings.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Sheet 21: The typical sidewalk detail does not follow the Design and Construction Manual. Sidewalks must be designed for 1.5% cross slope, not a quarter inch per foot.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
Please re-title the plans to "Street, Stormwater, Master Drainage Plan, and Erosion and Sediment Control".
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required prior to final approval of these plans, or prior to a land disturbance permit being issued.
|
|
|
Corrective Action Required
A note must be provided on the Final Plat concerning the fill issue on Lot 1451. This note must state that a geotechnical report is required prior to issuance of a building permit for this lot, or equivalent language.
|
|
|
|
