Lee's Summit

Hold for response from KM on elevation discrepancy explanation. May send A.S. to obtain elevation shots on behalf of City to verify or refute engineer's figures.

Manhole B6 is shown at 0.34 feet across the invert, as opposed to 0.50 feet designed. Original shots from 1st as-built submittal showed 0.30 feet of drop. Usual tolerance for drop across a 90 degree invert has been exceeded at this manhole.

Manhole D4 is shown at 0.09 feet across the invert, as opposed to 0.20 feet designed. Original shots from 1st as-built submittal showed 0.10 feet of drop. Usual tolerance for drop across a non-angled invert has been exceeded at this manhole.

The lateral table was altered from the original by designating tee connections rather than wyes. Notation states this revision was Sep. 8, 2020. Please provide City-stamped and signed plan sheet 7 of 11 ffrom Sep. 8, 2020. We are showing no such approval was granted by the City, nor requested by the City. Tees were not shown in the approved plan set, and the diagram at the bottom right hand corner of sheet 7 was also not included or approved.

Sheet 2 of 11, 3 of 10, an 4 of 10, and 5 of 10: Water lines are still shown with "jogs" that are not desired by Water Utilities. The locations of these "jogs" include: 1) Carter Rd. and Corbin Dr., 2) David Rd. and Corbin Dr., and 3) Corbin Dr. and Carter Rd. These locations were discussed during our meeting on Jan. 4, 2019. As we discussed during the meeting, there may be some leeway in the minimum cover requirements for the water lines to avoid storm sewers, with the installation of insulated doghouses over the water lines in selected locations for small lengths. Other alternatives include exploring different sanitary line placement geometry (i.e., perhaps on the opposite side of Corbin Dr.), and swapping with the location of the water line along Corbin Dr. In either case, the geometry that is shown is not desired by Water Utilities, and will create a parallel line, as well as increased maintenance in perpetuity.

There are still concerns about the parallel sanitary sewer line on the west side of Cobey Creek Dr. It would appear it is feasible to construct a sanitary sewer line to serve the southwest portion of the project by extending the sewer along Road D shown on the Preliminary Development Plan, and continuing beneath Gillette St., then proceeding west along Gillette St. The grading plan shown on the Preliminary Development Plan would seem to indicate this is feasible, and would eliminate the sanitary sewer line from manhole D5 to D4. The sanitary sewer line from H1 along Road D could be constructed during a future phase.

Please see the applicant letter dated Dec. 13, 2018. We had requested a frame and lid detail, but only the lid detail was provided.

Please see the applicant letter dated Dec. 13, 2018. A typical section view was provided for trenching and backfill, but the word "bedding" is used with no definition, and the word "backfill" is used without any definition.

Please see the supplemental email sent on Dec. 13, 2018. In the email, we had also requested that a detail be provided for a trench check. None was provided.

An Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs was missing.

Most of the comments are provided from the standpoint of the overall geometry shown on the General Utility Layout sheet 2 of 10. There are questions concerning the necessity of Sanitary Line D shown along Cobey Creek Dr., since the majority of Sanitary Line D appears to serve the future phase shown in the southwest corner of the Preliminary Development Plan, and nothing else. Was there any consideration to direct this sanitary sewer from the southwest corner of the area shown on the approved Preliminary Development Plan, to the future sanitary sewer along Road C (i.e., Corbin Dr. on the engineering plans) and/or Road D shown on the Preliminary Development Plan?

Please see above comment. The placement of the majority of sanitary sewer Line D along Cobey Creek Dr. appears to create a parallel sanitary sewer line, where no parallel sanitary sewer is needed or desired by the City.

Given the discussion above, it does not appear that Sanitary Sewer Line D serves anything, other than future subdivision phases. It is for this reason that Line D should be removed completely from the plans, with the exception of the segment from manhole D4 to D3. It appears that the other portion of future phases can be routed in alternative directions, such as Road D shown on the Preliminary Development Plan, or Corbin Dr. shown on these plans.

Sheet 2 of 10: The stub-off segment at the midpoint of Riley Way (i.e., at Melissa Dr.) should be removed. Stub-offs are not allowed. Manholes must be core-drilled for future extensions as specified in the Design and Construction Manual.

Sheet 2 of 10: The sanitary sewer segment between manhole F1 and D4 should be removed. This line should be installed during a future phase.

Sheet 2 of 10: The sanitary sewer segment between manhole C2 and C3 should be removed. This segment serves no purpose.

Sheet 2 of 10: It appears that a drafting "remnant" is shown in the rear of Lots 22 through 27. Sanitary sewer is not only prohibited in rear yards, but serves no purpose in the rear yard since sanitary sewer is available along the street frontage.

Sheet 3 of 10: The sanitary segment between B3 and B2 is shown at minimum slope, with no margin for error. Why was the minimum selected, when there appears to be the ability to lower manhole B1 to achieve a slope in the neighborhood of 0.40%.

Sheet 5 of 10: A prohibited stub-off is shown at manhole C3. Stub-offs are specifically prohibited in the City of Lee's Summit. Future connections must be core-drilled. In order to ensure a contractor will not order pre-fabricated manholes with these stub-offs, please provide a bold note stating that all future connections shall be core-drilled.

All Profile Sheets: Ensure all lines which are to be deleted, are also deleted from the profile view.

Sheet 6 of 10: Why is the segment between manhole D3 and D4 shown with minimum slope, with virtually no margin for error in installation? We recommend the downstream portion be adjusted to provide a better slope. In addition, please remove the section upstream of manhole D4 (see previous comments about the removal of this unneccesary sanitary sewer line segment, and realignment further east to serve the future southwest phase of the development).

Standard details were missing for the following items: 1) lateral connection and tracer wire standard detail, 2) manhole frame and lid, with the word "SEWER".

A typical section view for sanitary sewer trenching and backfill is required. MDNR will request it and reject the plans if it is missing.

Are shallow manholes being proposed on this project? If not, then please remove the standard detail for shallow manholes. Also,