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. $39,028.93.

MoDOT approval of the project is required prior to formal approval.

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 Contact Field Eng. Inspector

Contact Field Engineering Inspections at (816) 969-1200 at least 48 hours prior to the onset of construction.

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.

Please be aware that all of the comments presented in this letter were discussed in the last applicant letter dated Mar. 19, 2019. It appears there are issues related to an understanding of what is required by the City of Lee's Summit.

Sheet C5.4: Section 5304.8 of the Design and Construction Manual contains specific design requirements and details for all ADA-accessible ramps within right of way. This includes the northwest entrance to the property, and the southeast entrance. In particular, the following items were missing on the northwest entrance ramps: 1) cross-sections of the ramp, with Section A-A along the long axis of the ramp, Section B-B along the width of the ramp, and Section C-C along the curb opening of the ramp.

Sheet C5.4: The location of the tactile warning device on the north side of the ADA-accessible ramp is greater than 5.0 feet from the back of curb. This is not allowed by our Design and Construction Manual.

Sheet C5.4: The north side of the ADA-accessible ramp is shown with what appears to be an existing sidewalk section that is 3.0% cross-slope on the north side, and 0.22% on the south end of the panel. Is this a typographical error? It is doubtful that this particular panel is twisted in the fashion shown. It is more likely this particular sidewalk panel is at 3.0% on each side. As such, it must be removed and replaced, and a twist incorporated into the design to act as a "sacrificial panel" for future upgrades.

Sheet C5.4: It is not clear from this drawing what is being proposed, versus what is existing. Please be specific.

General Comment Concerning Missing ADA-Accessible Ramp Detail: It appears the detailed plan for the southeast ADA-accessible ramp was missing. In addition, a receiver ramp to the east was also missing. Please see the above comments related to the minimum design details that are required for this ADA-accessible ramp. These standards will also apply to this set of ADA-accessible ramps.

Sheet C8.0: The emergency spillway was not designed in accordance with the Design and Construction Manual. 1.0 feet of freeboard is required between the clogged condition/zero available storage condition, and the top of the dam. A minimum of 0.5 feet between the "nominal" (i.e., all primary outlet structures, orifices, and weirs are functioning normally) 100 year water surface elevation and the crest of the emergency spillway shall be provided. It appears this criteria was reversed during design.

The Geotechnical Engineering Report dated Jan. 7, 2019 and received by our Department on Apr. 3, 2019 provides recommendations for pavement pavement type, thickness, subgrade, and chemically-stabilized subgrade that differ substantially from what is shown in the plans. It appears the recommendations are in excess of what the City requires for a generic pavement design. However, the plans do not meet either: 1) the City standard design contained in the Unified Development Ordinance, or 2) the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report dated Jan. 7, 2019.

Sheet C10.0: Please update the typical section views for "Typical Subgrade Placement Under Curbs", "PCC Pavement Section", "Asphalt Pavement". Please be aware the City does not differentiate between parking stalls, and drive aisles as you have shown. They are both considered "drive aisles" for purposes of design.

The following questions relate to the "Final Stormwater Study" revised on Mar. 26, 2019. The "Pond Data" summary sheet on the second page of Appendix D shows what appears to be an "inactive" structure A. It is our understanding that "Structure A" is the outlet pipe for the system, and would therefore be 18 inches based on your plans. However, this column appears to have been deactivated for some reason. In addition, it is set to 15 inches rather than 18 inches. The concern is that the cross-sectional area of the area above the weir is well in excess (i.e., twice?) the area of the 18 inch pipe. Why was Structure A turned off in the settings? Where are the calculations of the discharge from the detention basin if this structure has been deactivated in the model?

Based on the above comments, it is likely a revised stormwater report is required.

Based on the comments related to the pavement design, it is likely that a revised cost estimate is required.

Utility Sheet: This sheet still shows "tapping the 12 inch line". Taps are only allowed for the 2 inch and lower water meter connections, not the fire line. A specific note is required stating this connection shall be a "cut-in tee".

Concrete-lined low flow channels are not allowed in the City of Lee's Summit. These low flow channels are shown throughout the bottom of the detention basin.

Sheet C1.3: The proposed ADA-accessible ramps are called-out, without any corresponding detail sheet. We do not allow field design of these features in the City of Lee's Summit. The standard drawings shown in the back of the plan set should be removed (these are intended for retrofits), and a site-specific design provided. All items listed in Section 5304.8 of the Design and Construction Manual must be included, including the requirement that three (3) cross-sections be provided along the ADA-accessible ramp, elevation call-outs, slope call-outs to the nearest tenth of a percent, dimensions, etc. Please be aware the City has adopted standards that exceed the PROWAG standard. Cross-slope is limited to 1.5%, and running slope of the ramp is limited to 7.5%.

Sheet C5.0: Specific slope call-outs are needed in the detention basin bottom. As shown, it appears there is less than 2.0% slope in certain portions of the detention basin. All portions of the basin must be at or greater than 2.0% slope. As previously discussed, concrete-lined low flow channels are not allowed in the City of Lee's Summit.

Sheet C5.4: Detail B shows what appears to be an ADA-accessible ramp detail. It is illegible, and appears to be missing the items listed in Section 5304.8 of the Design and Construction Manual.

Sheet C5.4: Detail C is provided with no corresponding reference as to where it is located. Please clean-up this sheet so it is clear what is being proposed, and where.

Sheet C5.5: Please see previous comments about clean-up. Detail f and Detail D are provided, with no frame of reference.

Sheet C6.0: A separate domestic water line tap is required. In addition, copper line is required from the main to the meter, as well as additional copper line from the meter and beyond. Please see the City standard detail you have provided elsewhere in the plan set for a detailed explanation of what is required for the domestic water service.

Sheet C6.0: A cut-in tee is required for the fire line. In addition, ensure the fire line and the domestic water is shown connecting to the 12 inch line, NOT the 20 inch transmission main. No taps or tees are allowed to connect to the 20 inch transmission main.

Sheet C5.0: A backflow vault is shown, with no provision for drainage. There are several options, but one option should be selected. Either daylighting, connection to a storm structure, or construction of an infiltration trench beneath the sump is sufficient. Typically, we have seen the installation of a 2 foot by 5 foot deep, fabric-lined and clean rock-filled infiltration trench as sufficient for drainage of the vault. Provide notes on the plan view, as well as notes on the standard detail showing how this will be drained.

Sheet C10.0: The typical section views of the asphaltic concrete pavement do not meet the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in terms of required thickness, base, or subgrade. Please be aware that any deviation from the UDO concerning alternate pavement design will require actual field sampling, and must not be based on assumed soil values.

Sheet C10.2: Please remove all references to standard details for ADA-accessible ramps. These are intended for retrofit projects, and not new projects. A site-specific design is required for each ADA-accessible ramp, and include the bullet point items included in Section 5304.8 of the Design and Construction Manual.

Sheet C10.2: Please add notes on the backflow vault showing how the sump will be drained.

Sheet C10.2: A typical section view of the curb and gutter, in relation to the pavement section, is required. It must show the aggregate base and geogrid/chemically-stabilized subgrade extending a minimum of 1 foot laterally from the back of curb. This helps prevent curb and gutter "rotation".

Sheet C10.3: Please remove all references to standard drawings showing ADA-accessible ramps. These are intended for retrofit projects, not new projects. A site-specific plan is required with the minimum information required under Section 5304.8 of the Design and Construction Manual.

Sheet C10.4: Please call-out the location of the trench check on the plan view for the sanitary sewer connection.

Utility Sheet: A cleanout is shown at the sanitary sewer connection point. Was this intended to be a call-out for a new wye connection? Please reference the City standard drawing on the plan view, to ensure the proper procedure is followed on this connection. Tracer wire is also required in accordance with the standard drawing.

Sheet C10.6: The number of orifices for the perforated riser does not appear to match what is shown in the stormwater report. Please check.

Sheet C10.6: The weir elevation does not appear to match what is shown in the stormwater report.

Sheet C10.6: The elevation of the first 1 inch orifice does not appear to match what is shown in the stormwater report.

MoDOT approval is required for all work within their right of way (i.e., Blue Pkwy.).

The new commercial entrance on Battery Dr. must be shown as an 8 inch thick KCMMB concrete mix, from the right of way line, to the sawcut. A clean joint must be provided at the interface.

The outlet structure is shown with a 18 inch pipe, discharging into an 18 inch pipe. Were calculations provided showing the receiving storm sewer is capable of managing these flows?

The "Final Stormwater Study" revised in Feb. 2019 contained the following discrepancies: 1) page 8 of the report describes a series of 6 - 1 inch holes for the perforated riser, but the plans show more than 6 holes, 2) page 8 and the appendix describes the weir being at 1008.75, but the plans show 1008.95, 3) page 9 shows the IE elevation of the WQv plate at 1007.0, but the plans show 1003.71, and the appendix shows 1006.5, 4) page 9 and the appendix shows the weir at 1008.75, but the plans show 1008.95, 5) the appendix shows 4 perforations rather than 6 as discussed in the report, 6) the appendix shows what appears to be 7 perforations rather than the 6 described elsewhere in the body of the report, and also appears to contradict what is shown on the plans.

It is likely that a revised stormwater study is required based on these apparent inconsistencies.

A SWPPP is required prior to approval of the plans.

An Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs is required prior to approval of the plans. This itemized estimate should only include the sitework for the project.

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 the location of the fire department connection (FDC) to the sprinkler system.

Please confirm the trash enclosure gate will be a steel frame with steal panels.

Comment #6 from the previous Applicant’s Letter, dated February 6, 2019, requested that the footprint of the future building and associated data be removed from the plan sheets. Sheet C1.0 is still showing this information. Please remove this information from the plans.

The proposed light pole in the northeastern most island is with 100’ of the residentially zoned district on the northeast property line and is limited to 15’. Additionally, as you adjoin a residential use the remaining lights height cannot exceed 20’. Sheets ES101 and ES102 show pole heights of 15’ and 20’ are being proposed to be mounted on a 2.5’ base. The height limitation includes the base. As proposed lights will exceed the maximum height allowed by the UDO. Please update the plans to comply with the UDO requirements.

Final Development Plan resubmittal was incomplete. Items missing were: 1) full size plan sets, 2) revised detention study addressing the comments contained within the Feb. 6, 2019 applicant letter, 3) construction details for the detention basin outlet struture which match the results shown in the revised stormwater detention study (i.e., a generic detail is not sufficient; specific call-outs are required for flowline elevations, etc.).

The Final Development Plan is incomplete from a site plan standpoint. As such, only cursury comments are being provided. A more thorough and detailed review shall be provided following submittal of a complete Final Development Plan package.

Missing Items Include (the following list is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of missing items): 1) detention basin outlet structure details, in accordance with Section 5600 of the Design and Construction Manual, including any anti-clossing measures, 2) emergency spillway design, including the required freeboard between the nominal 100 year water surface elevation, and the crest of the spillway, and the 100% clogged condition/zero available storage condition 100 year water surface elevation within the spillway, and the lowest point of the dam (i.e., 1.0 feet minimum), 3) plan and profile views of all storm drains, including pipe material, pipe slope, location, 4) typical section views of the pavement thickness and base, in accordance with the Unified Development Ordinance, 5) typical section view of curb and gutter sections, with additional details showing the extension of the subgrade a minimum of one (1) foot beyond the back of curb, 6) hydraulic grade line within all pipe sections, shown on the profile view, 7) lack of labels on key features, such as the backflow vault and backflow assembly, and water meter, 8) lack of a gate valve immediately prior to the backflow vault, 9) lack of a call-out for a cut-in tee for the new fire line, 10) lack of ADA-accessible ramp details in accordance with the minimum design information required by Section 5304 of the Design and Construction Manual (i.e., field design is not allowed, nor are "standard drawings" allowed to substitute for a site-specific design of these features), 11) lack of a dedicated grading plan, 12) lack of a dedicated erosion and sediment control plan, 13) lack of a SWPPP, 14) lack of specific details on the commercial entrance, including the required 8 inch KCMMB mix concrete from the right of way line, to the existing public pavement, 15) lack of a sidewalk detail, 16) lack of dimensions showing the limits of temporary construction easements, 17) lack of slope call-outs within the detention basin bottom showing a minimum slope of 2.0% in all directions, to the nearest tenth of a percent, 18) lack of information concerning the condition or suitability (i.e., does it meet current standards in terms of longitudinal slope, cross-slope, and tactile warning device) of the existing ADA-accessible ramp shown at the intersection of Blue Pkwy., and Battery Dr., 19) lack of a dedicated utility plan sheet, 20) lack of any specific detail concerning the sanitary sewer lateral, including materials, slope, required clean-outs, cut-in tee, and distance from the manhole, 21) lack of a water main plan, showing materials (C900 for fire protection line), diameter, 22) lack of standard details showing water meters, sanitary sewer connection with tracer box, backflow vault, including the method used to drain the required sump via daylighting or installation of an infiltration trench, curb and gutter, commercial entrances, sidewalk, inlets, and any other item necessary to complete the project, 23) lack of a grading plan in the vicinity of the new culvert on the southern commercial entrance, keeping in mind the maximum slopes allowable, and 24) lack of sufficient grading detail showing that the proposed southern public sidewalk will be constructable, and still meet the maximum slope requirements adjacent to the swale.

The southern monument sign is shown within MoDOT right of way. Has permission been granted for this action?

The new commercial entrance and culvert will require MoDOT approval.

The "Final Stormwater Study" (hereinafter referred to as "the stormwater study") dated Jan. 25, 2019 contains contradictory information. The "Methodology" section of this report states that the APWA "Comprehensive Control Strategy" was utilized, but elsewhere in the report, it appears the allowable release rate was based on the existing condition. The "Comprehensive Control Strategy" relies on a flat release rate per acre of drainage area, for the 2, 10, and 100 year events, not the existing condition drainage. Revisions to the report are required.

The stormwater study shows a total storage volume of 1.64 (assumed to be acre-ft, but not specifically defined in the report). The single-sheet civil plan set shows 1.2 acre feet.

The stormwater report shows there will be insufficient freeboard between the 100 year water surface elevation, and the top of the dam. In fact, there is no information provided on the emergency spillway design, nor are there any calculations showing the clogged condition/zero available storage condition compared to the top of the dam.

The report failed to provide calculations showing the allowable release rate.

Drainage area maps are provided within the stormwater study, however, the following comments are provided: 1) drainage "areas" are provided, but without any convergence to a concentrated flow condition, calculation of "area" is meaningless. The placement of the two (2) areas of interest (i.e., outfall A and outfall B) are not points associated with a convergence of flows, and therefore, how can you assign any drainage area to these points? Please review generally-accepted methods for producing a satisfactory stormwater study, because this report appears to be deficient in terms of a defendable report. It appears the sizing may be sufficient, but the final report fails to adequately present the results in a coherent manner.

Please be aware it may be necessary, and in all likelihood, will be necessary to extend the limits of the stormwater study to off-site drainage areas where the stormwater converges to a concentrated flow condition. Only then can you calculate a drainage area to a particular point of interest. By simple accounting, allowable release rate can then be adjusted up or down based on these off-site drainage areas, in relation to their existing condition runoff.

The stormwater study included sheet C8.0, which is illegible. In addition, also missing from the report were the minimum requirements set forth in Section 5608.6 of the Design and Construction Manual.

Appendix D of the stormwater report includes curves that are illegible. The y axix cannot be read.

The report must discuss and show calculations of the time of concentration. Only a brief mention of this critical portion of the report was provided, with no results shown.

There are numerous references to the 1 year event in the report. In other places, the 2 year event is described. Again, the Comprehensive Control Strategy requires calculation of the 2, 10, and 100 year event, not the 1 year event.

Calculations were not provided on the sizing of the water quality riser and/or orifice(s). Only a mention in the report that it was sized according to the BMP manual. Calculations must be shown and included in the report.

The 100 year water surface elevation is closer than 20 feet to the right of way line on one portion of the detention basin.

The geometry of the storm sewer in the northern portion of the project appears to be shown erroneously. We are showing the private line from Village Cooperative attached directly to the curb inlet on Battery Dr.

Has permission been granted from Village Cooperative to re-route the storm sewer as shown? Why are there no construction details and notes concerning this relocation. Again, the plans must be submitted in a complete fashion for the next submittal. Otherwise, they will be rejected.

It appears a single 2 inch orifice is being used to manage the 40 hour extended detention requirement for the water quality volume release. The BMP manual states that a single orifice value that is calculated less than 4 inches, should be changed to either a perforated riser, or a v-notched weir.

A sealed Engineer's Estimate of Probable Costs is required prior to approval of the plans. It may be advantageous to wait until after the next submittal and review comments, since these plans are incomplete.

Water meter may be oversized. Action required: Provide calculations to justify use of 2" water meter. (fyi - a 2" meter costs over $25,000)

Please label the dimensions of the ADA stalls and standard stalls nearest to the proposed building.

A note on C1.0 states ADA parking details are on C3.0. Sheet C3.0 was not included with this submittal. Please provide details for the ADA stalls, aisles and signage.

The proposed light pole in the northeastern most island is with 100’ of the residentially zoned district on the northeast property line and is limited to 15’. Additionally, as you adjoin a residential use the remaining lights height cannot exceed 20’. Please revise the plan sheets to comply with this UDO requirement. Please show pole details including the base.

Please provide the manufacturer’s spec sheets for the proposed rooftop equipment.

Sheet C1.0 show the location of a proposed monument sign however there are no details for this on sheet FDP4. Additionally the proposed location is not acceptable as it is located in the ROW. Please revise the location so that it is not in the ROW and provide details or remove it from the plan.

As no details are being provided for the future building expansion, please remove the proposed footprint from the site plan and remove the information from the site data table.

Please provide the details for the enclosure for the trash storage container.

Please provide details for the proposed drive and parking surfaces. Also, provide details for the proposed curbing.

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 the location of the fire department connection (FDC) to the sprinkler system.