Lee's Summit

Misc.

Provide a name for the street in front of Lots 10-17.

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 #07 Easements

All permanent off-site easements, in a form acceptable to the City, shall be executed and recorded with the Jackson County Recorder of Deeds prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Substantial Completion or approval of the final plat. A certified copy shall be submitted to the City for verification.

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.

DE C&O #13 ADA Sidewalk Ramps

All ADA sidewalk ramps shall be constructed by the developer at the time the street is constructed.

DE C&O #14 Common Area Sidewalks

All sidewalks adjacent to a common area tract, unplatted land or any land where no structure is intended to be built, and is required, shall be constructed by the developer at the time the street is constructed.

REZONING. Submit an exhibit and legal description for the area that is being rezoned from R-1 to RP-3.

ARCHITECTURE. Submit drawings of all four sides of the proposed single-family residences. Label materials and color palette.

For proposed areas of parking along the public streets, the parking shall be located outside the right-of-way and tracts created along with easements proposed accordingly for the public sidewalk. The right-of-way in these areas would follow the proposed back of curb so that the parking is not within right-of-way.

The "Macro Storm Water Drainage Study" dated Oct. 11, 2019 (hereinafter referred to the stormwater report) contains Exhibit B - "Pre-Development Drainage Map". This exhibit shows "Existing Drainage Areas" which reference Exhibit A, but it is not clear why this information (i.e., Exhibit A) is being presented. The City is interested in the current conditions (i.e., existing conditions), along with the respective points of interest.

Page 3 of the stormwater report states that Exhibit B is color-coded in blue, but no such color-coding is evident from the document.

Page 3 of the report states that Rational Method hydrographs were used. However, it appears the SCS method was used. Please reconcile.

Page 3 of the stormwater report states that the "...Proposed and Future Conditions discharge data will be coompared." What does Future Conditions mean? No other reference to this condition is contained anywhere within the report.

Exhibit B shows Drainage Area 3. We do not believe point of interest #3 accurately depicts Drainage Area #3. Portions of Drainage Area 3 converge at different points. It would appear that additional points of interest exist, notably, along the swale within MoDOT right of way to the east of Drainage Area 3. In order to perform an adequate analysis, the drainage areas, and respective points of interest, must accurately reflect reality.

There are several references within the stormwater report which discuss allowable peak flow rates to points of interest which eventually drain toward the existing retention basin. It was our understanding that the criteria for the portion of the project draining to the existing detention basin to the west, would be based on the old criteria of pre-development versus post-development peak flow rates. This will affect the narrative of the report, along with Table 4.3, "APWA Allowable Release Rates", which appear to be based on the flat release rates.

Page 4 of the stormwater report state that "drainage areas D, E, and F will be allowed to free release from the site, as they are outside the areas of the storm sewer system, however, the flow rates from these areas will be reduced to not cause an impact to the adjacent downstream area." What basis, besides "not cause an impact" was utilized to make this conclusion? Standard practice is to perform an analysis at each point of interest, rather than make a subjective statement. As presented, no such objective conclusion can be reached.

Page 4 of the stormwater report states that "...Area D will be added to the release rate from the proposed detention facility to be compared to the APWA allowable release rates, to calculate the total release rate from that area." What "area" is being referred?

Page 4 of the stormwater report states that "...Areas E and F will be shown in comparison to the APWA allowable release rates to provide a comparison, however per previous discussion the release rates are not subject to the requirements..." . Please see previous comments related to these drainage areas.

Page 6 of the stormwater report requests a waiver to the 2 year release rate to point of interest #3. We do not support such a waiver.

Page 6 of the stormwater report presents Table 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7. A "Subarea" column is shown, but the column header is blank on all tables. Please correct.

Exhibit B of the stormwater report appears to be showing Point of Interest #2 which is not reflective of reality. Portions of Drainage Area 2 bypass Point of Interest #2. Please be aware that when setting up the existing condition model of the project, there will likely be off-site points of interest (i.e., where sheet flow transitions to concentrated flow). No such off-site points of interest were shown.

The Table of Contents shows a "Best Management Practices" section, but this does not appear to exist. Is 40 hour extended detention for the 90% mean annual event being proposed? If so, please discuss within the report.

Exhibit A within the stormwater report shows what appears to be a swale along the north side of the development. This swale appears to be shown extending along the majority of the north side of the development, and stormwater appears to be directed towards the west where it ultimately is conveyed to the existing detention basin. The Preliminary Grading Plan shown on Sheet C.200 does not show this swale.

The stormwater report lacked any discussion of the emergency spillway location, type, etc.

It appears the 100 year water surface elevation for the nominal condition was not shown on the Preliminary Development Plan. This should be shown graphically on the Preliminary Development Plan, along with dimensions from the nearest property line. Twenty (20) feet minimum is required.

Sheet C.200: It would appear that an underground stormwater conveyance system should be installed along the northern lots (i.e., rear yard of the lots). A long east/west swale does not appear appropriate for this distance.

Utility Plan: Please add a note to the existing water main along the north side of the project, "to be abandoned".

Utility Plan: Are the locations of sanitary sewer and water lines based on surveyed information? An existing sanitary sewer line is shown surrounding the existing home, south of Lot 11. Should this sanitary sewer line/manholes be removed?

The sanitary sewer along Sundown Dr. appears to be bucking the grade. It will likely be too deep, based on the grading plan. Was the existing manhole located near the northwest corner of the detention tract not considered? It would appear a portion of the project was intended to drain to this manhole.

Please label the sizing information for all existing water lines.

Sheet C.200: The grading plan in the vicinity of Lots 25 through 28 appear to show the construction of a rear yard underground storm drainage system, but it is shown on top of a berm rather than a swale.

Vacation of right of way will be required for the portion of Ralph Powell Rd. that is being incorporated into Lot 9.

Why is the storm line that exists to the north of Lot 23 not shown? Will this storm line be utilized for drainage of any portion of this subdivision? Is this line of sufficient size to handle the 100 year storm event?

An existing storm line is shown along the south side of Lots 10 through 13. Is this an error?

Please label and show all utility easements

Please show all proposed utilities in legend

The zoning area labeled as RP-1 is incorrect. Please change the zoning from RP-1 to R-1.

The east to west middle street does not have a name listed. Please give this street a name.

The common acre area on the north side of NE Sundown Drive is labeled at lot 18. Please change this to TRACT C.

Please submit a Vacation of Right of Way application ASAP. So you will only have to go through the public hearing process once instead of twice.

Misc.

Provide a name for the street in front of Lots 10-17.