Lee's Summit

Please refer to the applicant letter dated Aug. 7, 2018 (hereinafter referred to the previous comment letter). Comment #1 discussed a storm sewer easement serving the underground detention basin shown on Lot 1. The response to comments stated that the adjacent property owner was being approached for the outlet configuration onto their property. The comment, however, referred to the easement (i.e., SS/E shown on Sheet C2.0 in the northwest corner of the project). In order to ensure this storm line is not considered public, please label this easement as private.

Please refer to the previous applicant letter. Comment #8 requested calculations for rip rap sizing. Although calculations were provided, they do not match either the "Storm Sewer Construction Notes" shown on Sheet C 5.1, or the profile view shown on Sheet C 5.2.

In reference to the above comment, please provide a sheet number (i.e., C 5.1) when referencing the construction note for structure 600. As shown on Sheet C 5.2, the note on the profile view merely references "see structure 600 construction note", with no reference to the sheet number.

Sheet C 6.0: Only two (2) valves are desired at a tee. One valve should be placed on the main leg, and one valve on the fire line leg. This pertains to both connection points for the fire line, including the east side of Douglas St., and the north side of Victoria Dr.

Sheet C 6.0: An additional gate valve is required just prior to the backflow vault in the northeast portion of the project. This additional valve is needed, despite the fact that a valve is needed near the tee, on the east side of Douglas St. In other words, two (2) valves are required on a fire line leg when crossing a street (i.e., one valve on each side of the street).

Ensure that the additional valve described above is contained either in right of way or an easement. This valve is considered the end of the public water line.

Please refer to the previous applicant letter. Comment #23 requested a profile view of the fire line. Casing carrier pipe is shown beneath Douglas St., and is not needed or desired. Please eliminate the casing carrier pipe from the design.

In regard to the above comment, we did not see any indication of storm sewer or additional water line conflicts shown on the profile view. In particular, the private storm sewer within the development may conflict with the fire line, and there is a 16 inch transmission main along the west side of Douglas St. which does not appear to have been considered in the design. Has there been any potholing of the existing 16 inch line to verify its depth and horizontal location? Where is it in relation to the fire line, and why was it not shown on the profile view for the fire line?

Please refer to the previous applicant letter. Comment #22 requested a larger plan view, along with a profile view for the retaining wall. The response to comments letter stated that a specific design was forthcoming. However, we still need a concept plan showing, in plan and profile, the general configuration of the retaining wall to be constructed as part of these plans. All other comments contained in the previous applicant letter, including top of wall and bottom of wall call-outs, notes concerning separately-sealed drawings, etc., still remain in effect.

Please refer to the previous applicant letter. Comment #13 requested that the standard detail for the backflow vault be provided, but also, how the backflow vault will be drained. There are essentially three (3) options: 1) daylight with a pipe, 2) pipe to a stormwater inlet or box, or 3) construct a clean, crushed aggregate filled sump, lined with geotextile, perhaps 3 feet diameter by 5 feet depth.

Please refer to the previous applicant letter. Comment #24 asked that a site-specific design be provided for reconstruction of the ADA-accessible ramp at the intersection of Victoria Dr. and Douglas St., rather than a generic call-out stating "reconstruct as needed". The response to comments states that the ramp already complies with City standards, but it is unclear how this determination was made. If it complies with City standards, how will the new sidewalk be connected to this feature, yet still meet all spacing requirements from the edge of pavement, obstacles, grading, etc.? There are power poles, a utility box, and grade issues in this area, and it is unclear how the final product will meet City standards.

Include a pavement marking plan for the turn lane along Douglas. Plan should be consistent with the City's standards and specifications. Include City Standard Details for pavement markings and plan notes detailing materials: all symbols shall be preformed thermoplastic and all longitudinal lines shall be high build paint meeting specifications of the Design and Construction Manual.

The turn lane taper along Douglas should be designed as a straight line in lieu of the reverse curve. Turn lane taper should be 150' in length, but consider any impact to adjacent access that may be planned to the north (taper cannot encroach on adjacent access; no continuous right-turn lanes) in the event a shorter taper requires consideration.

The turn lane plans lack sufficient dimensions, offsets, reference points, location notes, alignment/NE/Control, PC, PT, etc. for pavement, sidewalk, curb, saw cut, etc.

Provide a typical section with pavement design information for the turn lane widening of Douglas.

Sheet C2.0: A public easement is shown for the storm line proceeding to the northwest corner of the site. As discussed previously, we do not want an easement dedicated to the City. This is a private storm line, to be maintained by a private entity(s).

Sheet C2.0: What agreements have been executed concerning the discharge of stormwater at the northwest corner of the site? It appears there will be considerable grading and storm line installation in this area.

Sheet C2.0: A note is provided stating "proposed turn lane improvements per separate plan...", but it appears that they are included in this plan set?

Sheet C3.0: Please call out the word "SWALE" on the north property line, along with the running slope where a swale is evident.

Sheet C3.0: Will Storm Line 600 discharge into an existing channel? Will there be any adverse impacts to adjoining property owners?

No details are provided for the Douglas Street turn lane improvements, other than a simple plan view on Sheet C3.2. The simple plan view calls out items such as "asphalt per City standards", "install Type A Ramp", "install Type B ramp", and show what appears to be an existing utility box in the middle of a proposed sidewalk. Plans for the Douglas Street turn lane should be detailed, and include dimensions, striping, elevation call-outs, site-specific ADA-accessible ramp details (i.e., generic call-outs are not sufficient), slopes, traffic control plan, and all other information necessary to show how the turn lane will be constructed.

Sheet C5.1: Structure 201 appears to be pointing to the incorrect feature.

Sheet C5.2: Where are the rip rap calculations?

Sheet C6.0: Isn't this a fire line plan? It might be a good idea to rename this sheet, since there are other utilities covered by separate plans.

Sheet C6.0: Please specify a cut-in tee, to eliminate the question of whether a saddle can be used.

Sheet C6.0: Please be aware that the placement of fire hydrants as shown on the plan may need to be changed when individual Final Development Plans are submitted for the various buildings. We cannot comment on the suitability of the arrangement shown, since no buildings are shown on the plan. Fire shall provide specific comments related to the placement of fire hydrants when individual Final Development Plans for the various lots are submitted to the City.

Sheet C6.0: All notes related to the sanitary sewer should include a specific note which references the user to the sanitary sewer plans. In particular, there is one note on Victoria Dr. related to boring and casing for the sanitary, but does not reference the separate plan set. Please be clear so there are no misunderstandings.

The City standard detail for the backflow vault was missing. Also, it is not clear how the sump will be drained on the backflow vault. Show how the sump will drain, either to an inlet, daylighting, or a gravel-filled sump of perhaps 3 feet wide by 5 foot depth, lined with geofabric?

Standard details for the fire hydrant assembly was missing.

Provide the location of all valves feeding the individual private fire hydrants. Ensure the locations of all fire hydrants is to scale, with sufficient room to install the valve as per the standard detail.

Sheet C7.0: Curb and gutter detail must show the engineered subgrade (i.e., the aggregate base, and chemically-stabilized subgrade or geogrid) extending a minimum of one (1) foot beyond the back of curb. The detail provided is for curb replacement, not new curb and gutter.

KCMMB concrete is required for the new entrance on Douglas. It should extend from the sawcut, to the right of way line (i.e., the new right of way line after vacation of right of way). Please show.

All Stormwater Profile Sheets: Please show the hydraulic grade line for the design storm.

Underground Detention Design: Is the underground detention system deep enough to prevent "floating"?

Sheet C7.2: Please remove the generic details. They should be consulted to provide a site-specific design for all ADA-accessible ramps within right of way, but should not be relied upon to construct an ADA-accessible ramp. A site-specific design is required for each ramp, which incorporates all the design elements contained within Section 5304.8 of the Design and Construction Manual. Please be aware that Section 5305, Table LS-5 and Table LS-6 provides specific design criteria which differ from the standard details.

Sheet C7.3: What is the purpose of a street signage plan? If not used, please remove.

Sheet C6.0: Modular block walls are called-out, without any profile view, larger-sized plan view, notes, etc. If constructing the modular block walls at this time, we will need to see a larger plan view, along with a profile view. Specific elevation call-outs should be given for the top of wall, and bottom of wall. If utilizing a separate design engineer to provide a design for the retaining walls, notes should be provided stating this is the case. Finally, a design, sealed by a design professional registered in the State of Missouri, must be provided prior to approval.

A separate profile view should be provided for the fire line loop. The reason for this requirement is to ensure there is adequate clearance between storm sewers, sanitary sewers, etc.

Is the current ADA-accessible ramp at the northwest corner of Victoria Dr. and Douglas St. compliant with City standards? The note on Sheet C2.0 states "reconstruct as needed". Please provide a site-specific design in accordance with Section 5302.8, and Table LS-5 and LS-6.

What is the condition of the existing ADA-accessible ramp at the existing shared entrance on Victoria Dr.? Will it need to be reconstructed? If so, a site-specific design is required in accordance with Section 5304.8 and Table LS-5 and LS-6.

Standard details should be provided for thrust blocks.