Lee's Summit

DE C&O #01 Eng Plans – FP/PP

All required engineering plans and studies, including water lines, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streets and erosion and sediment control shall be submitted along with the final plat and approved prior to the approval of the final plat. All public infrastructure must be substantially complete, prior to the issuance of any building permits.

DE C&O #02 Master Drainage Plan

A Master Drainage Plan (MDP) shall be submitted and approved in accordance with the City’s Design and Construction Manual for all areas of the development, including all surrounding impacted areas, along with the engineering plans for the development. The MDP shall address drainage level of service issues on an individual lot basis.

DE C&O #03 Eng & Insp Fees

All Engineering Plan Review and Inspection Fees shall be paid prior to approval of the associated engineering plans and prior to the issuance of any infrastructure permits or the start of construction (excluding land disturbance permit).

DE C&O #04 Cert FA or Escrow

All subdivision-related public improvements must have a Certificate of Final Acceptance prior to approval of the final plat, unless security is provided in the manner set forth in the City's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). If security is provided, building permits may be issued upon issuance of a Certificate of Substantial Completion of the public infrastructure as outlined in Section 1000 of the City's Design and Construction Manual.

DE C&O #05 As-Graded MDP

The As-graded Master Drainage Plan shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Substantial Completion and prior to the issuance of any building permits for the development.

DE C&O #06 Land Disturbance

A Land Disturbance Permit shall be obtained from the City if ground breaking will take place prior to the issuance of an infrastructure permit, building permit, or prior to the approval of the Final Development Plan / Engineering Plans.

DE C&O #08 Changes to MDP

A restriction note shall be included on the final plat stating: “Individual lot owner(s) shall not change or obstruct the drainage flow paths on the lots, as shown on the Master Drainage Plan, unless specific application is made and approved by the City Engineer."

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.

Provide clarification within the House Characteristics that both attached and unattached garages shall not have street facing garage doors.

Provide elevations for the sides and rears of homes and garages.

Provide an elevation for the garages without the loft.

Provide a color palette for the structures.

Provide the building materials for the side and rear elevations.

Please resubmit by October 28th.

The "Macro Storm Water Drainage Study" dated Oct. 14, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the stormwater study) contains several typographical errors, run-on sentences, fragmentory sentences, erroneous figure citations, and illegible diagrams.

The stormwater study shows POI A, but our LIDAR information shows that a more local point of interest is located on the west side of Main St., immediately adjacent to the northeast corner of the development. Standard practice is to determine a point of interest at the most upstream portion of a drainage area. In this case, it would appear to be near the northeast corner of the site.

Point of Interest B-2 appears to be immediately adjacent to the "existing barn" shown at 8 NW Orchard St. According to the stormwater report, the release rates at this point of interest will increase by a factor of 65%+/-. We do not support this increase. Further, the allowable is exceeded at this point of interest.

The report states that post-development drainage patterns will not change. We disagree. Proposed contours appear to show the existing topography will change after development.

Page 3 of the report cites figure 2. No such figure was found within the report. Further, figure 2 would imply that figure 1 is also present. We saw no indication of figure 1 or figure 2 within the report.

Page 3 of the report states "...this area will be planted with Missouri Native plans that are.". What does this mean?

Page 3 of the report states "...the basin will drain through a 1-inch PVC pipe and infiltration, which is assumed to be low in this area." What does this mean?

Page 3 of the report states "...The Detention Basin will reduce the impervious area that is being directed to the downstream storm sewer system." We were under the impression these features were being installed to reduce the peak flow of stormwater from the site.

Page 3 of the report states "...the site has indications that the storm water backs up during higher intensity rain events...". What site is being referenced?

Page 5 of the report states "Area B-2...drainage patterns will remain the same and the area will drain across the parcel to the north..." We do not agree that the drainage patterns will remain the same. The proposed contours show a change in the drainage patterns. In addition, we do not agree it will "discharge to the north". This makes no sense.

Page 9: The report states "...due to the size of the development located within Area A there increase in the storm water runoff to the northwest is unable to be detained and is being requested to free release into the open ditch...". This sentence does not make sense.

Page 9 of the report states "...all storm events from Area A, will see a slightly increase the flow rates...". This sentence does not make sense. Please thoroughly check grammar, to ensure the report makes sense.

Page 9 of the report states "...the additional runoff will not create an issue to the downstream drainage area." This sentence does not make sense. The purpose of the report is to evaluate the effect, if any, on specific points of interest, one being the point just north of the existing barn at 8 NW Orchard. It is not a report to evaluate the effect on "downstream drainage areas."

The "Watershed Model Schematic" shown in the appendix is illegible. It was, therefore, not reviewed.

Stormwater Report Appendix: Some of the "detention pits" were shown in the outlet structure setup page with 2 inch culvert A, some with no culvert A, and some with 1 inch culvert A. The plan sheet shows a 1 inch pipe from each of these features, all daylighting. Please reconcile.

The Preliminary Development Plan layout sheets shows a 1 inch PVC pipe daylighting to the southwest from Lot 6. Our information indicates this may impact the adjacent lot to the west (i.e., at 8 NW Orchard).

The Preliminary Development Plan shows the same apparent impact to the "existing barn" from the discharge pipe from Lot 5.

A separate "existing condition drainage map" should be shown for area B-3 and B-2. The scale is not appropriate for an evaluation of the local drainage patterns across adjacent lots. We would suggest a separate existing drainage area map for B-3 and B-2, along with their respective points of interest (i.e., where sheet flow converges). In addition, a post-developed condition drainage area map should be prepared for drainage area B-2 and B-3, and new points of interest established where the drainage patterns have changed.

Page 6 of the stormwater report discusses "detention basins". Aren't these "detention pits" as referenced in other portions of the report? Please maintain consistency throughout the report.

Page 9 of the report states "...the storm water runoff has been calculation to be less than the APWA Allowable Release Rate." This sentence does not make sense.

Page 9 also references "individual onsite detention basins". Shouldn't this be "detention pits" in order to maintain consistency?

The stormwater report appeared to missing the following items: 1) method to calculate available storage volume within the detention pits, and any consideration to increase the storage volume to subtract-out the residual stormwater that cannot infiltrate into the subsurface, 2) discussion of anticipated infiltration rates, and its affect on the available storage of the detention pits, 3) post-developed drainage area map for B-2 and B-3, and 4) new points of interest for the post-developed condition.

The appendix is missing the hydrographs and routing calculations for the 2 year event.

Please perform a thorough QA/QC review of the revised stormwater report. There are numerous issues related to fragmentory sentences that do not make sense, run-on sentences, grammatical errors where the findings can be misinterpreted, and missing figures and illegible exhibits (e.g., see above comments).

Please submit an electronic copy of the legal description. Microsoft Word document or selectable text PDF are the preferred file formats. The legal description can be emailed to the planner's email address above.

Staff suggests the 5' sidewalk not be built at this time as this general area has no curbs and will be identified at a future time to be improved. In lieu of constructing the sidewalk. A fee for the cost of the sidewalk construction will be required prior to the release of occupancy for any of the units. Revise the note regarding escrow. Payment will be required in lieu of.

Staff would suggest accompanied documentation of the surrounding characteristics of the neighborhood to include photos. Staff would also like to know what the approximate building heights are in the surrounding neighborhood and for what is proposed.

Please provide the building height for the proposed homes. Please reference the UDO's definition of building height and note approximate building and detached garage heights. In regards to the requested modification for building height of the garage for Lot 3, please reference the building height as determined by the UDO definition.

Please complete a single-family residential compatibility form for this site and in relationship to the surrounding properties. Staff feels this can help to better understand the context of this proposal and how it fits within the neighborhood.

Revise the plan title and other areas (title blocks) to state Preliminary Development Plan.

The Surveyor's general notes section is referencing the wrong properties.

A final plat application will be required following preliminary development plan approvals.

Additional discussion regarding stormwater, creation of a tract and/CCR's can be discussed further at the applicant's meeting on Tuesday.

Revise the utility contacts on Sheet C.400 for MGE. Is Williams Pipeline necessary to be referenced for this plan?

Provide additional detail within the vicinity map.

Label all building/garage setbacks in relation to property lines. Are the garages attached to the principal structure? If so, how are they attached?

Provide a narrative response to the Preliminary Development Plan Criteria. A list of this criteria can be provided at the applicant's meeting.

Please note the recently amended UDO requirements for noticing property owners within 300' and the requirement for a neighborhood meeting to be conducted.

Provide elevation examples of detached garages and the detached garage with loft.

The RP-2 zoning district allows for a 20-foot front build-line. Do the footprints noted include any porches or other features?

The "Macro Storm Water Drainage Study" dated Sep. 13, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the stormwater study) was incomplete. No analysis was completed showing how the development will impact adjacent properties. In addition, Exhibit B (Drainage Area Map) was missing from the appendix.

No analysis of the drainage areas contained within the stormwater study were conducted due to the lack of a drainage area map (see comment above).

Results of the stormwater study appear to subtract the peak flows from the increased impervious areas on the lots. The note "Residential House flows are contained within the infiltration basin" does not appear valid, and furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by the term "Residential House flows".

Instances where "forcing" of the equations appear to have been utilized. For instance, page 6 of the report proposes a non-standard C value for the computations. We do not support such a change to the standard C values contained within the Design and Construction Manual.

A revised stormwater study is required. It must provide an analysis of the impact of the development, not only on the area well downstream of the development, but also the impacts to adjacent properties to the north, west, and southwest.

The City does not support waiving detention requirements on this development for the peak attentuation of stormwater.

The City does not agree with the conclusion that "...this project will not impact the existing condition".

Cover Sheet: Contours are shown, with no indication in the legend whether these are existing or proposed contours.

Cover Sheet: The note "no storm water detention is required per storm water study" is not supported by staff, nor the stormwater study.

If providing regional detention for the lots in this development, a Tract is recommended.

Sheet C.401 and C.402: The scale is not correct. Two scales are called-out, but neither appears correct. Although it would appear the scale might be 1 inch equals 30 feet, it appears closer to 1 inch equals 29 feet (i.e., a non-standard and unnacceptable scale).

Sheet C.402: A private lateral is shown at manhole A-2, directly at the manhole. A 4 foot minimum distance, as measured from the outside of the manhole, and the beginning of the wye (i.e., not the centerline of the wye) is required.

A Master Drainage Plan will be required for this development.