Lee's Summit

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(s)), and the water tap and meter setup fee have been included. These must be paid prior to the issuance of an infrastructure permit and/or the final processing of a building permit. $9,369.50

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.

DE Future Repair Work

Please be aware that any future repair work to public infrastructure (e.g., water main repair, sanitary sewer repair, storm sewer repair, etc.) within public easements will not necessarily include the repair of pavement, curbing, landscaping, or other private improvements which are located within the easement.

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.

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. The 2018 International Fire Code will be in effect April 1, 2019. What is the use of the new addition?

The Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs was missing the following items: 1) concrete flume, 2) crused aggregate extending one (1) foot beyond the back of curb, 3) geogrid or chemically-stablized subgrade, including the area one (1) foot beyond the back of curb, 4) KCMMB commercial entrance, including all sawcuts, removals, etc., 5) 12 inch RCP as shown on plan and profile Sheet 5, 6) final restoration, including seeding, sodding, fertilizer, mulch, and topsoil.

The cost estimate for the outlet structure was extremely low (i.e., $1,000 unit cost).

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. The 2018 International Fire Code will be in effect April 1, 2019. What is the use of the new addition?

BUILDING ELEVATIONS. Box in the downspouts on the west (Hamblen Rd) facing side of the building in order to provide additional vertical architectural relief. Submit 3 copies of the revised elevations.

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING. The latest plan submittal now shows ground-mounted mechanical equipment located on both the east side of the building and the south side of the building. The plans call out screening to be provided by 8' tall vinyl fencing. Vinyl fencing as a screening option is not allowed. The UDO currently has two screening options for ground-mounted mechanical equipment: evergreen landscaping or masonry walls, both of which are required to be a minimum height at least equal to the height of the units being screened. Staff is currently taking a UDO amendment through the approval process that would expand the screening options to include structural steel tube framing clad with either a wood composite material or the same metal panel system as used on the associated building exterior. The proposed amendment received a recommendation for approval from the Planning Commission on May 9, 2019. The amendment is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on June 4, 2019, with expected ordinance approval on June 11, 2019. Staff cannot approve any of the newly proposed screening methods until after passage by Council. Staff is optimistic that the new screening options will not be approved. Also, is the 8' height of the screening correct? Any fence/screen over 6' in height is required to be engineered.

The "Final Storm Water Drainage Report" dated Mar. 29, 2019 (hereinafter referred to the stormwater report) contains the following discrepancies in the body of the report: 1) page 4 discusses a single 1 inch opening for 40 hour extended detention, but the plans shown on Sheet 8 show additional orifices on the face of the riser structure, 2) spillway design is discussed on page 5, but isn't this an emergency spillway?

The stormwater report lacks any mention of the controlling orifice and weir combination. The plans appear to show a four (4) sided riser structure, with four (4) openings at 989.30 feet. The plans also call for 2-3" orifice openings at 987.30. Please discuss all aspects of the control structure, including orifice/weir combinations, riser structure, and trash rack design. It should match what is shown in the revised plan.

The stormwater report includes the output of PondPack in the appendix. There are issues, however, with this information. For instance, a riser is presented on Page 28 of the appendix, described as a stand pipe of 24 inch diameter. No such stand pipe appears to exist on Sheet 8 of the plans. An elevation vs. flow curve is presented on page 29 of the appendix, showing a discharge well in excess of the allowable peak flow rate for the 100 year event (this curve shows approximately 25 cfs during the 100 year event). All pages past 28 of the appendix are questionable, because they reference the same 24 inch riser.

The MARC Manual does not allow a single orifice less than 4 inches in diameter. A single 1 inch orifice at the bottom of the outlet structure, therefore, as well as 2-3 inch orifices installed higher up the riser face does not appear to meet the MARC Manual. Normally, a perforated riser or V-notch weir is used in lieu of smaller sized orificed less than 4 inches diameter.

Where is the worksheet contained within the MARC Manual for sizing the water quality orifices?

Page 24 of the appendix shows a length of 57 feet for "Culvert-1". This does not appear to match what is shown on the plans.

The appendix contained within the stormwater report shows several instances of convergence errors for flow. Please explain.

Sheet 3: A flume is shown, with what appears to be a 2 foot drop to rip rap. Rip rap was not designed for this type of installation (i.e., a significant vertical drop). It is likely the retaining wall will be undermined, and experience failure within a short time period. Recommend a different method to convey stormwater in this area to the detention basin. Perhaps a concrete flume all the way to the bottom of the basin?

Sheet 5: There are instances where the slope in the bottom of the detention basin are considerably less than 2.0% slope. A minimum of 2.0% slope is required in the basin bottom, in all directions. This measurement would be to the flowline of the first orifice/weir in the revised detention basin outlet structure.

Sheet 5: The wrong sheet number reference is given for the outlet structure. Should this read "see sheet 8"?

Sheet 5: A fence may be required near the walking surface (i.e., the parking lot) where the retaining wall is within 10 feet.

Page 23 of the appendix contained within the stormwater report shows what appears to be discrepancies from the stage/storage/flow versus time curves shown previously. Please reconcile.

Private off-Site easements shall be required for: 1) the private drainage easement for the discharge of the detention basin, and 2) the private easement shown to the east of the new concrete parking lot. These shall be required prior to approval of the Final Development Plan.

An itemized and sealed Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs is required.

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. The 2018 International Fire Code will be in effect April 1, 2019. What is the use of the new addition?

BUILDING ELEVATIONS. No architectural building elevations have been submitted for review.

MECHANICAL UNIT SCREENING. The site plan shows new ground-mounted mechanical units on the east side of the building. No screening of said units is indicated. Ground-mounted mechanical units shall be fully screened from view using evergreen landscaping or masonry walls at least equal to the height of the mechanical units. The response letter indicates that no screening is proposed due to the mechanical equipment location relative to the adjacent streets, as well as the presence of a treed creek area. Screening is required to hide the view of the equipment from off the property, not solely from adjacent streets. Additionally, the equipment will be in view from the residences across the creek during the time of year that the trees drop their foliage. Only City Council has the authority to waive this ordinance requirement via a a prreliminary development plan application and associated public hearing process.

PARKING. - The parking information provided on Sheet 3 indicates that 62 are provided on the plan. However, only 60 striped spaces are shown. The original plan for Phase I of this development showed up to 4 striped parallel parking spaces provided on the east side of the existing parking lot, just north of the 6 striped perpendicular spaces. - FYI, staff will communicate separately with Mr. Dan Phillips to obtain additional clarification on the parking needs for the use.

ACCESS RESTRICTION. As part of this review, it was discovered that the plat for this property includes an access restriction note that does not allow for the proposed drive onto SE Hamblen Rd. This property will need to be re-platted via minor plat in order to remove the access restriction currently in place on the lot.

DRIVEWAY WIDTH. - The new driveway access onto SE Broadway Dr is labeled as 27' from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. A mininum 28' is required so as to provide the required 24' width of driveable pavement width (exclusive of curb and gutter). - The proposed north-south drive aisle for the new parking lot area on the south side of the site is shown as 25.5' from back-of-curb to the end of the striped parking space. A minimum 24' of pavement width (exclusive of curb-and-gutter) is required.

EASEMENT. Label the 15' U/E along the cul-de-sac bulb.

LANDSCAPING. The Landscape Plan shows the proposed deciduous trees as being 2" caliper. The minimum caliper size for deciduous trees is 3". Revise.

MECHANICAL UNIT SCREENING. The site plan shows new ground-mounted mechanical units on the east side of the building. No screening of said units is indicated. Ground-mounted mechanical units shall be fully screened from view using evergreen landscaping or masonry walls at least equal to the height of the mechanical units.

BUILDING ELEVATIONS. No architectural building elevations were submitted for review.

Parking proposed along the north side of the building should be angled to reinforce the one-way traffic pattern.

An amended plat (minor plat) should be submitted to remove the restriction of direct access proposed along Hamblen Road (Lot 292 Only). The proposed exit only driveway along Hamblen Road for Lot 292 is supported only due to the absence of required minimum area necessary for semi-tractor trailer circulation on-site, considering the necessary business/design vehicle accommodation, restrictive easements (e.g. sewer, stream buffer, storm water management, etc.), Access Management Code review, anticipated traffic volume upon said driveway, limited access (exit only), and other factors.

The plan was incomplete, and as such, this review is cursury in nature. For instance, a detailed grading plan showing any off-site grading was missing, the stormwater detention study was missing several key elements, profile views of the stormwater system were missing for pipes greater than 6 inches diameter, profile view of the proposed retaining walls, and several key elements of the plan were shown on the "Site Dimension Plan" sheet, with no other reference to these key features shown anywhere else within the plan set.

"Storm Water Drainage Report" dated Jan. 8, 2019 (hereinafter referred as "the detention study"): the following items were missing: 1) inflow hydrographs entering the basin, 2) an analysis of the composite curve number for the site, (i.e., only an exhibit showing a soil group was presented), 2) time of concentration analysis and calculation, 3) an existing condition drainage map with points of interest, (i.e., rather, a diagram showing an poorly-defined set of drainage areas, with no points of interest was shown), 4) a proposed drainage area map, with points of interest, 5) an analysis of the allowable release rate for the site, based on the existing condition drainage to the various points of interest or a point of interest, as applicable, 6) a coherent discussion within the body of the report which clearly shows the methodology used, the assumptions made, the calculations described, and a discussion of whether the detention basin will or will not comply with Section 5600 "Comprehensive Control Strategy" contained within the Design and Construction Manual, including any requested waivers to the Design and Construction Manual for any aspect of stormwater detention or detention basin design, 7) conclusion section of the report was missing, 8) drainage area calculations, 9) flows, 10) inlet sizing, 11) water quality calculations, 12) emergency spillway discussion, 13) emergency spillway design, and 14) calculation of the nominal condition 100 year water surface elevation in relation to the 0.5 foot freeboard requirement between it and the emergency spillway, and the 100% clogged/zero available storage condition 100 year water surface elevation in relation to the emergency spillway, including the 1.0 foot freeboard requirement between the top of the dam and the clogged condition water surface elevation.

The body of the detention study states in Section 7 "...see the attached for drainage area calculations, flows, pipe sizing, inlet sizing, and water quality calculations for Phase 2". We do not see any of these included within the report.

Section 5 of the detention study states that "...this new drainage system generates a 10 year flow of 4.45 cfs and a 100 year flow of 7.99 cfs pre-developed". What does this mean? Appears contradictory in nature. Do you mean to say "the existing flow to point xxx is xxx? Is the report attempting to describe the post-developed peak flow rates to the detention basin?

The detention study includes within the appendix a "Composite Outlet Structure Detailed Report: Composite Outlet Structure -1" on page 5 of 17. The printout includes a 24 inch riser within the calculations, even though this riser is connected to an 8 inch outlet pipe. It would appear there is a discrepancy since you cannot use the results of a 24 inch pipe when it is connected to an 8 inch pipe (i.e., the 8 inch pipe will govern?).

There appears to be no fall between the upstream end of the water quality opening and the downstream flowline. It appears this is shown as 985.5. How will this drain properly?

Please review the guidance that was previously provided to you concerning the preparation of an acceptable stormwater study. Although this is a small site in relative terms, it still must be prepared in a coherent and defendable manner, and as presented, would not meet these standards.

Sheet 3 of 8: Why are key elements of the Final Development Plan included on a "Site Dimension Plan"? Although this sheet is important, a separate plan sheet should be provided (i.e., perhaps "Overall Site Plan", or equivalent). Typical pavement sections, fire hydrants, curb openings, and retaining walls are shown, which would be more appropriate on an "Overall Site Plan".

Where are you proposing to place heavy-duty pavement (i.e., pavement for delivery traffic, emergency vehicles, and fire department)? Typical sections are provided, leaving the contractor and inspector with no further information on where the limits of the heavy-duty pavement ends/begins, or where the normal asphalt ends/begins.

A new fire hydrant is shown on Sheet 3 of 8. Where is the existing valve that we currently show as an existing feature? In addition, where is this new fire hydrant located in relation to the drainage swale? It cannot be located within the limits of the swale.

Sheet 3 of 9: A new fire hydrant is called-out, but no reference to a specific detail and sheet number is provided. Nor were any specific details for the fire hydrant called-out in the plans. These items must be provided.

Sheet 3 of 8: The new entrance must call-out "KCMMB concrete entrance, see detail xx on Sheet xx", or equivalent language. As presented, there are no references to any standard drawings on this sheet, with only an implied reference.

Various Sheets: A retaining wall is called-out in several locations, with no profile or section view of the final product. Although it is acceptable to submit engineering drawings for these features to be reviewed and approved at a later date, a rendering of all retaining walls is required. In addition, elevation call-outs must be provided for the top of the wall, the bottom of the wall, and distances from the top of the wall to any walking surface.

Sheet 3 of 8: A leader line with the words "270 feet retaining wall" is shown, but it is not clear where it is pointing. Arrowheads are obscured by a line around the detention basin.

Where are the downspouts being routed? A plan view showing the routing of these features is required, given the nature of detention basin, and its ability to capture stormwater on the site. Any downspouts routing that is not captured by the detention basin must be properly accounted in the revised detention study. And as always, any storm line greater than 6 inches in diameter must also include a profile view.

Grading Plan: It is not possible to provide detailed comments on the grading plan since no off-site existing contours were provided to show how the proposed grading will impact off-site properties, or how the grading will impact the creek. Provide sufficient elevation contours along the eastern edge of the project so City staff can provide an adequate review to determine if there are any negative off-site impacts, and also to determine if the design is adequate to address the discharge to the creek with minimal impact.

Grading Plan: There are numerous proposed elevation contours along the eastern edge of the project which are greater than 3:1 slope. This is not allowed by the Design and Construction Manual.

The discharge of the detention basin is shown over the existing public sanitary sewer. A profile view (i.e., requested in previous comments) is required to evaluate the impact of this proposed alignment.

Sheet 4 of 8 appears to show bypass discharge from the east side of the building, and discharging at a flared end section of a 12 inch RCP pipe. Why is this flow not being captured by the detention basin? Why was this not discussed in the report?

The grading plan appears to show zero slope in the bottom of the detention basin. A minimum 2.0% slope is required in all directions, preferably more slope. In addition to contours, a label is required with a slope call-out. The slope call-out should be shown to the nearest tenth of a decimal place.

Will the detention basin be surrounded by a retaining wall? If so, it appears a railing is necessary due to the proximity to walking surfaces (i.e., the parking area)? Please call-out the safety railing at all necessary locations, including the material to be used. If a vertical drop of 30 inches or more will exist at a horizontal distance of 10 feet or less, a safety railing is required.

Please provide labels showing the sizing of all public water and public sanitary sewer lines.

It is not possible at this time to evaluate the method used to daylight stormwater into the creek at the unlabeled flared end section to the northeast of the detention basin. Without contours showing the location of the creekbank, the creek, etc., no comments can be provided either on the location of the discharge point, or the method used for energy dissipation.

Calculations are required for all rip rap placement, if used. The plan view may reference a typical detail elsewhere in the plans, but the plan view must specify rip rap in normal terms. As shown, there are contradictions on what you are proposing (e.g., 6 inches of rip rap is specified at the end of the the unlabeled FES to the northeast of the detention basin, but the next line shows 12 inches thickness).

The rip rap design in the detention basin appears inadequate to manage the supercritical flow condition for this discharge. According to your flowline out and discharge point, it appears this pipe is being laid at 5% slope. The rip rap (i.e., no design provided, merely an outline of what is presumed to be rip rap) is shown on a 3:1 slope, and it is doubtful this will effectively manage the flow conditions at this discharge point. Again, calculations are required for all points of discharge, including any points where rip rap is not being proposed.

How will maintainence equipment access the detention basin? It appears no access is provided.

The emergency spillway mentioned elsewhere in these comments was missing.

No anti-clogging measures were provided for the 3 inch orifices, nor the top of the 24 inch riser pipe. In accordance with Section 5600 of the Design and Construction Manual, anti-clogging devices must be provided.

Was there any consideration to providing an anti-vortex device on the top of the 24 inch riser?

The outlet structure is not built to withstand vandalism. Other facilities have typically used a hardened structure using heavy-duty concrete, and it appears this particular design is lacking from a durability standpoint. Typical design criteria used by designers of these facilities always consider vandalism and the "attractive nuisance" aspect of this sort of design.

Sheet 6 of 8: What is meant by the note "Detention release was sized...to release the 100 year storm event over the proposed channel."? This statement should be clarified since the interpretation can mean any number of things, depending on how it is viewed by the reader. In other words, it does not make sense.

The "2' concrete flume" described on the dimension sheet is not defined anywhere else in the plan set. If used, it must be defined on the other sheets, where this particular feature is most relevant (i.e., it really belongs on a stormwater sheet, general layout sheet, grading sheet, etc.). The bigger question, however, is whether a two-foot concrete flume is appropriate. Flow will be supercritical as it makes its way to the detention basin, and severe erosion will likely result. It is also possible the retaining wall will fail if allowed to freely cascade over the retaining wall.

If used, where is the detail for the 2 foot concrete flume? Also, why is the detail not referenced on the plan view in accordance with generally-accepted drafting standards? Please see previous comment, however. We do not believe a 2 foot flume is appropriate to manage stormwater for this site.

Landscape Plan Sheet: The wrong location is shown on the title block.

Off-site private easements will be required prior to approval of this Final Development Plan.

An Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs should accompany your final submittal drawings.

A SWPPP is required prior to approval.

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. The 2018 International Fire Code will be in effect April 1, 2019. What is the use of the new addition?

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: Provide a Utility Plan for review. If the fire protection for the new addition is ging to be extended off of the existing riser, a second FDC is not required

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). Action required: The entrance to the fire lane shall be 20 feet.

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.

Fire Lanes - Marking

IFC 503.3 - Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words NO PARKING—FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. Action required: The choke points on the east fire lane shall be posted.

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: Move the proposed hydrant closer to the entrance.