Lee's Summit

The sanitary sewer analysis dated Oct. 13, 2020 is currently under review, and downstream upgrades to the system may be necessary prior to approving any phase of the project. Waivers are being sought to the Design and Construction Manual in terms of relaxation of the surcharging requirements, and these waivers will likely not be granted based on the above sanitary sewer analysis. Any upgrades to the downstream sanitary sewer lines shall be outlined in a Development Agreement covering this project.

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) Section 7.340. If security is provided, building permits may be issued upon issuance of a Certificate of Substantial Completion of the public infrastructure as outlined in Article 3, Division V, Sections 3.540 and 3.550 and Article 3, Division IV, Section 3.475 of the UDO, respectively.

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 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."

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 2018 International Fire Code.

Unit 55 is still shown too close to the sanitary sewer. As stated in the previous applicant letter, a minimum fifteen (15) feet of separation is required between any footing/building, and the outside of the sanitary sewer line.

Extension of the sanitary sewer to the two (2) parcels to the east was not shown, but rather, easements for their future construction. Physical extension of these segments may be required as a condition of approval of the Preliminary Development Plan, and/or may need to be shown on the revised Preliminary Development Plan.

The "Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study" dated Oct. 2, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the sanitary sewer study") discusses an alternative analysis using a weighted K value of 0.0049. This option is currently under review.

The sanitary sewer study provides a comparison between the hydraulic grade line under existing conditions and the hydraulic grade line for the proposed condition with the weighted k value and the normal k value. The proposed development increases the hydraulic grade line of the system by more than two feet and in many cases the surcharge elevation is within one foot of the manhole rim elevation, and in one instance within less than 4 inches, and overlfowing outside of the manhole rim for the normal k analysis. The City cannot accept the conclusion that the existing system can handle the additional flow without a negative impact on the existing users. The City has granted a waiver to Section 6500 Sanitary Sewers, 6501 Design Criteria, Item D.2.a when the applicant was able to demonstrate that the impact to downstream users was kept to within one foot of the existing hydraulic grade. Please revise the report to discuss ways to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the downstream system. Finally, a minimum 3.1 foot freeboard for private sanitary sewer services listed in the sanitary sewer study for the proposed condition may not be sufficient for this project. A minimum freeboard of 4.9 feet was listed using the modified K value method. It is unclear at the present time whether 4.9 feet is sufficient freeboard for this project.

The sanitary sewer analysis discusses a minimum freeboard of 5.2 feet in the "Waiver Request" portion of the report. This does not appear to match what is discussed elsewhere within the report (see above comment).

The sanitary sewer study did not include any conclusions concerning line segments to upsize with the development for ultimate conditions, to eliminate the need for upsizing at a future date. As indicated in the previous applicant letter, these upgrades to the size of the line would be part of an upsizing agreement. If none are needed for this project, then it should be discussed.

Two separate proposed condition sanitary sewer service stub tables are shown in the appendix. Is one of the tables using the K value of 0.006? If so, please label as appropriate.

Since the K value method was utilized for the sanitary sewer study, why was Fig. 6501-1 included in the appendix? This does not appear to serve any function, since it was not utilized in the calculations. If not used, please remove it.

The weighted K value table appears to utilize several K values which were not discussed in the report. These K values appear to range from 0.0049 to 0.0055. Why were multiple values used for the K values, and why was this not discussed within the body of the report?

The previous applicant letter requested the text of the sanitary sewer study be revised to include other downstream customers who may be affected. There are additional downstream customers other than those in Saddlebrook.

There was no discussion within the text of the sanitary sewer study concerning the potential for sanitary sewer overflows, as shown in the tables within the appendix for the proposed condition. It appears the study was focused only on the resultant hydraulic grade lines at the downstream homes. These issues at the manholes should be discussed in terms of where they are close to occuring, or are occuring, and the magnitude in terms of hydraulic grade line above or below the manhole rim. Both the standard k value method and the modified method should be discussed in terms of the resultant sanitary sewer overflows or "near" overflows, or in terms of the resultant surcharging which is in close proximity to the manhole rim.

It is recommended that a separate meeting be held to discuss these issues prior to moving forward with this application.

Approval is conditioned upon support and waivers granted by the City Engineer for the proposed design of roadway alignment/curve extended from Saddlebrook to Old 291 Hwy (frontage road), substandard "knuckle" at the turn and sidewalk omission. Design modifications required if not supported/waived by the City Engineer or a change to the design that provides a standard cul-de-sac in replacement of the existing temporary cul-de-sac.

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 2018 International Fire Code.

The Preliminary Development Plan shows considerable grading activities taking place within the stream buffer, which is not allowed. Please be aware that the City will not support any encroachment within the stream buffer, unless related to the road access to the southwest.

Units are shown directly adjacent to the stream buffer. What are the plans for construction of decks, patios, etc.? These would be prohibited within the limits of the stream buffer.

Sanitary sewer is shown nearly beneath unit 58. A minimum separation of fifteen (15) feet is required between the outside of the pipe, and the building overhang or deck.

The previous applicant letter requested a sanitary sewer extension to the plat boundary (i.e., to the east to serve both properties owned by Gadino Agrico, LLC, and Gadino Industries. No such extensions were shown. These extensions should be placed in logical areas, near low spots to serve these two (2) parcels.

The "Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study" (undated and unsealed) was neither dated or sealed.

The "Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study" (undated and unsealed) appears to have utilized a design flow rate of 0.018 cfs per acre for the entire project. This would appear to be based on ultimate drainage areas, but it is unclear from the text within the report how this was calculated. There is only a brief mention of the 0.018 cfs per acre figure, but no mention of drainage area(s). In addition, application of this constant, but changing the drainage area on the existing and proposed condition as evidenced by the drainage tables shown within the appendix, would not appear to be valid. It would appear that this constant of 0.018 cfs per acre would change, based on the scenario. Or at the very least, the ultimate drainage area could be utilized in conjunction with the 0.018 cfs per acre, but it would be obvious this would lead to the conclusion that the existing and proposed peak flow rates are too high to be managed by the downstream system. Please explain why this was done, because from the City's standpoint, the application of 0.018 cfs per acre design constant to a drainage area other than what is assigned by Figure 6501-1 does not make any sense.

“Presumed Minimum Basement Floor Elevations” were discussed within the report. It was our understanding that actual field measurements would be obtained. If no field measurements were obtained, why, and if not, then where was this information acquired for the “presumed” MBFE?

No conclusions were presented within the report concerning the need to upsize appropriate segments in the proposed sanitary sewer line to accommodate ultimate build-out conditions. There was a discussion about the receiving sanitary sewer being unable to meet any of the Design and Construction Manual requirements for ultimate build-out, but there were not specific conclusions discussed within the report which describes upsizing that may be necessary with the proposed development on the area controlled by the developer. If there are segments needing to be upsized now, then the City may enter into an upsizing agreement with the developer to perform the upsizing now, rather than later.

The text of the report describes the downstream subdivisions which may be negatively-impacted by the incorrect name. There are several subdivisions downstream of this project, and they should be discussed within the text by their actual names, including The Estates of Saddlebrook, Saddlebrook East, and Belmont Farms.

The exhibit showing the lot by lot analysis is very small and not drawn to an appropriate scale. It was drawn by simply overlaying the large overall map with the smaller area of analysis to the southeast. It only makes sense to show an exhibit for the area of interest which is scaled appropriately, and can be easily read.

Prior to submittal of any waiver request for sanitary sewer design exceptions, a revised sanitary sewer analysis is required.

Based on the comments above, it is the City's opinion that the lot-by-lot analysis of proposed condition freeboard is going to be considerable worse than shown. The City may not support any waiver for the calculated surcharing, without modifications to the downstream sanitary sewer system. This will be evaluated by City staff from Water Utilities and Development Engineering after the revised report has been submitted.

Approval is conditioned upon support and waivers granted by the City Engineer for the proposed design of roadway alignment/curve extended from Saddlebrook to Old 291 Hwy (frontage road), substandard "knuckle" at the turn and sidewalk omission. Design modifications required if not supported/waived by the City Engineer or a change to the design that provides a standard cul-de-sac in replacement of the existing temporary cul-de-sac.

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 2018 International Fire Code.

Misc.

Make the driveway to building 54 as wide as possible to allow emergency access.

BUILDING ELEVATIONS. The development plan description makes a general statement about how quality materials will be used on the homes, with the exception of horizontal or vertical vinyl and metal siding. The photos show the use of stucco, stone, brick and vertical siding of some sort. The material description for this project needs to provide a more definitive written list of the material and color palette to be used on the homes, rather making assumptions based on the unlabeled photos alone.

PHASING. The proposed phasing plan needs revision. Two points of access are required to serve the entirety of Phase 1 as currently shown because the number of dwelling units exceeds 50. A total of 66 dwelling units (16 4-plexes + 1 duplex) are shown within the limits of Phase 1. This was reduced from 92 dwelling units as shown on the initial submittal, but still needs to be reduced to no more than 50 dwelling units. The internal loop within Phase 1 doesn't count as a second point of access because it all bottlenecks to the single connection to the Old M-291 Hwy outer road.

LANDSCAPE PLAN. A calculation for the number of required street trees needs to be corrected from 5 to 34.

SIDEWALKS. - The City Traffic Engineer will provide direction whether staff is supportive of payment in lieu of construction for the sidewalk along the Old M-291 Hwy outer road. - Given the scale of the drawing, it isn't clear if the sidewalks wrapped around the front of the banks of head-in parking spaces along the right-of-way have been widened to at least 6' in order to account for vehicle overhang. The widths aren't labeled in those impacted areas. Add a note to the plans indicating that the sidewalks will be 6' in width.

RIGHT-OF-WAY. Where head-in parking spaces are provided along the public right-of-way, the right-of-way lines shall be adjusted so that the parking spaces are kept outside the public right-of-way. The response letter states that this was done, but the plans shows otherwise.

PROJECT DATA TABLE. Update the table to correctly show the distribution of twin villa and fourplex dwelling units for each phase. For example, the table shows 10 units in Phase 1, but the revised plan only has 1 duplex building (2 units) in Phase 1. Review and update the entire table as necessary.

BUILDING 54 ACCESS. Staff recommends that the drive that goes around Building 55 to access Building 54 in Phase 3 be widened to a minimum 20' in order to ensure that Fire apparatus can get to Building 54 for emergency response.

The extension or permanent cul-de-sac of Paddock Drive has several design alternatives. The proposed street extension with 90 degree turn in horizontal alignment does not meet design criteria as noted and should be discussed with the City Engineer considering Flood Plain constraints, no access conflicts and availablity of sight distance around the bend. If a waiver is supported by the City Engineer for the proposed design in lieu of a proper alignment or a cul-de-sac alternative, the turn in the roadway will require a warning sign with advisory speed that corresponds to the design speed. Other considerations such as narrow ROW and omission of sidewalk can also be discussed with the City Engineer. A permanent cul-de-sac seems to be the preferred and most cost effective solution considering there's an existing temp. cul-de-sac in place. Approval is conditioned upon support and/or waivers granted by the City Engineer for the proposed design, design modification if not supported/waived by the City Engineer or revision to a cul-de-sac that meets standard criteria.

An existing 10 inch water main is shown along the east edge of the development, on the east side of the creek. We are not showing any water main in this location. In addition, we are seeing no public water service provided to the parcel to the east of the development (i.e., the south parcel owned by Gadino Industries). Water service is shown to be extended to the plat boundary to the Gadino property north of this parcel, but not the southern property.

As discussed in the previous applicant letter, no provision for sanitary sewer service was provided to the properties to the east. There appear to be two (2) parcels which are not served by sanitary sewer. Both parcels are owned by Gadino Agrico LLC, and Gadino Industries respectively. Public extension to these two (2) parcels is required, and should be placed in a logical (i.e., low point) location.

The unsealed and unsigned sanitary sewer "letter report" dated May 11, 2020 appears to exclusively use Figure 6501-1 for calculation of wastewater design flows. It is our understanding this figure is to be used for larger watersheds greater than 100 acres, and the curve "breaks down" at lower drainage areas.

The sanitary sewer "letter report" mentions "Manden Lane". We are not showing any such street name in our system. The "letter report" also calls-out a manhole which does not exist (i.e., #64-00485

The exhibit contained within the "letter report" shows a sanitary sewer manhole which appears to be mislabeled. This manhole is labeled as #02-064, but our records indicate this is #02-065?

A spot-check of the "proposed condition" table included in the "letter report" shows that surcharging above the crown of the pipe will occur at the connection point (i.e., #62-048). This runs counter to the conclusions stated in the "letter report" under "Proposed Conditions" which state "...the east branch will continue to have a minimum of 0.16 excess capacity based on design parameters". Additional spot-checks indicate there are several segments of line which surcharge due to the proposed condition.

Define "overflow capacity". This is an undefined term used in the tables from the "letter report".

Define "surcharging". It appears the "letter report" defines "surcharging" as surcharging above the rim of the manhole. The City defines "surcharging" if the HGL exceeds the top of the pipe, and in many instances, surcharging according to City standards is evident throughout the Estates of Saddlebrook.

Any sanitary sewer study which shows surcharging above the crown of the pipe for the design storm event must also discuss and evaluate any potential backup into homes. None of this was discussed in the report. Any waivers necessary to allow for surcharging above the crown of the pipe must also be discussed within the body of the report.

An analysis of the future connection points for the sanitary sewer to serve the two parcels to the east should be analyzed in the sanitary sewer analysis. The analysis should focus on the areas draining to these connection points, and exclude those areas within the "ultimate conditions" which do not appear to drain to #62-048. For instance, you are showing the ultimate condition drainage area encompassing the entire area to the east of the project, when in fact it appears there is a ridge and a gentle ravine bisecting the properties to the east owned by Gadino LLC and Gadino Industries. It would appear there are portions of these drainage areas which are not properly accounted in the ultimate conditions.

The City requires a thorough sanitary sewer analysis for this project, not a "letter report". It must be sealed by a registered professional engineer. Conclusions contained within the body of the report must match what is shown in tables and exhibits.

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 2018 International Fire Code.

Misc.

Wellington Court already exists in the northwest portion of the city. Provide a new name.

Misc.

D106.1 Projects having more than 100 dwelling units.Multiple-family residential projects having more than 100dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separateand approved fire apparatus access roads. There are 140 units proposed off of one access (Napoleon and Neosho). Action required: As previously discussed Wellington Ct needs to connect to Neosho. This will provide the second access and meet the intent of being remotely spaced.

Dead Ends

IFC 503.2.5 - Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Action required: Provide a temporary cul-de-sac or approved turn around at the east end of Neosho.

Misc.

Make the driveway to building 54 as wide as possible to allow emergency access.

BUILDING ELEVATIONS. - Photographs of the proposed buildings were submitted in lieu of architectural elevations. Graphic representation of all sides of the proposed buildings are required to be submitted. Photographs showing only the fronts of the duplexes were provided; no photos of the sides or rear of the duplexes were provided. Photographs of all four sides of the fourplexes were provided. - A detailed narrative combining the photos with descriptions of all proposed exterior materials and color palettes shall be provided in support of the application.

PHASING. The proposed phasing plan needs revision. - The Phase 1 boundary shown on the plan cuts off access to about half of the area identified as Phase 1. - Two points of access are required to serve the entirety of Phase 1 as currently shown because the number of dwelling units exceeds 50. A total of 92 dwelling units are shown within the limits of Phase 1.

LANDSCAPE PLAN. A landscape plan shall be provided for the fourplex area in compliance with the requirements of UDO Article 8, Division III. The duplex area is not subject to the landscape requirements of the UDO.

SETBACKS. The proposed buildings shall be subject to the minimum setback requirements from the right-of-way, outer lot lines and building separation requirements of the RP-3 zoning district.

SIDEWALKS. - Sidewalks are required along the development's Old M-291 Hwy street frontage. - Wrap the 5' sidewalks around the front of the two banks of head-in parking spaces at the south end of the proposed southern street loop. - The 5' sidewalks wrapped around the front of the banks of head-in parking spaces along the right-of-way need to be widened to at least 6' in order to account for vehicle overhang that will reduce the sidewalks' functional width. - Sidewalks are required on both sides of all streets within the proposed development.

RIGHT-OF-WAY. Where head-in parking spaces are provided along the public right-of-way, the right-of-way lines shall be adjusted so that the parking spaces are kept outside the public right-of-way.

MONUMENTS SIGNS. Show any proposed entrance monument sign locations on the site plan for review. Monuments signs shall be subject to the size and height requirements for the RP-3 zoning district found under UDO Section 9.260. Provide a sign detail for review to verify compliance.

The traffic study has been reviewed and the only recommendation is sight distance mitigations. Staff requires a documented response from MODOT pertaining to their review and comments on the traffic study.

There appears to be a variety of options regarding the proper completion of Paddock Dr. to meet planned requirements and current standards. It could be a continuation of Paddock Dr. to the outer road as a public street extension (similar to shown on the PDP) or the terminiation of Paddock Dr. as a permanent cul-de-sac (location alternatives exist). If a road extension, a more narrow ROW would be considered and alternatives for adequate design of the turn given geographic constraints will be reviewed. If a permanent cul-de-sac, the location can vary from near the existing temp. cul-de-sac to locations one-sided or party on multiple properties with ROW modifications considered to meet existing constraints. FD has determined a secondary access is not required from Paddock Dr., though with access response times could improve in the immediate area with degree of change depending on whether or not access is controlled/gated to the cul-de-sac or a public street extension.

No sanitary sewer analysis was provided, hence the application is still considered incomplete, and any subsequent review shall follow a two (2) week turnaround for additional comments.

The stormwater study contained discrepancies in the drainage area shown in the northwest portion of the project, versus what is shown as the drainage areas on the grading. Please perform a QA/QC check of the grading plan, and determine where these discrepancies lie, and please reconcile them both in the report appendices and text.

It does not appear that the curve numbers for the existing condition follow the text of the report, which states that a curve number of 74 was used. It appears much higher curve numbers were used. This would result in a higher than actual "existing condition peak flow", and would skew the results towards a less conservative approach to calculating an allowable release rate.

The report seems to discuss the upstream non-detained pass-through drainage as if it were not accounted in the calculation of an alloweable peak flow rate? Please see page 6. We have seen other other reports which account for this pass-through, non-detained flow, and it is added to the allowable. Although it appears this may have been done (i.e., added to the on-site peak flow to arrive at an allowable peak flow rate), the text does not seem to support that assumption. Please reconcile in the report.

What soils analysis was performed to determine soil conditions, curve numbers, etc.? We did not see this in the report.

The plastic riser pipe structure is not supported. A concrete structure should be planned.

A waiver to the 2 year event is not supported.

No discussion of 40 hour extended detention exists within the report.

No discussion of the depth of the pond, whether it will support fish, and the effect of sediment loading. This is required.

The fire access road will require appropriate no-rise certificates, floodplain permits, and analysis prior to approval of any final plans.

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 2018 International Fire Code.

Misc.

Wellington Court already exists in the northwest portion of the city. Provide a new name.

Misc.

D106.1 Projects having more than 100 dwelling units.Multiple-family residential projects having more than 100dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separateand approved fire apparatus access roads. There are 140 units proposed off of one access (Napoleon and Neosho). Action required: As previously discussed Wellington Ct needs to connect to Neosho. This will provide the second access and meet the intent of being remotely spaced.

Dead Ends

IFC 503.2.5 - Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Action required: Provide a temporary cul-de-sac or approved turn around at the east end of Neosho.

Misc.

Why is an emergency access from Paddock being proposed? It is not required for the number of lots. A permanent turnaround is required if its not going to be connected to a through street.

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 2018 International Fire Code.

Misc.

Provide street names for review.

Legal Description

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.

REZONING. Provide a rezoning map that includes a legal description of the rezoning boundaries.

BUILDING ELEVATIONS. No building elevations were provided with the application submittal. Provide elevations for the duplexes and fourplexes that label all exterior building materials and color palette. Elevations shall be provided for all building sides. The use of horizontal and vertical breaks shall be incorporated on all building sides to satify the architectural requirements of UDO Section 8.180.

SITE DATA TABLE. - Include the existing and proposed zoning. - List the number of proposed lots and common area tracts. - List the number of required and proposed parking spaces. Provide a breakdown of the proposed parking spaces by garage spaces, driveway spaces and surface parking spaces.

PHASING. Will the development be phased? Provide a phasing plan if so. It appears that at least Lots 52 and 53 will be a separate phase.

LANDSCAPE PLAN. No landscape plan was provided for the fourplex area. A landscape plan shall be provided for the fourplex area in compliance with the requirements of UDO Article 8, Division III. The duplex area is not subject to the landscape requirements of the UDO.

BUILDING LINES. The building lines are labeled as 30' but actually scale as 25'.

SETBACKS. - Due to the drawings' scale, it is difficult to discern if all the buildings meet the minimum setback requirements. Include a table listing the minimum setbacks for the duplex area and the fourplex area. - The buildings on Lot 53 do not appear to meet the minimum 10' side yard setback.

SIDEWALKS. - Sidewalks are required along the development's Old M-291 Hwy street frontage. - Wrap the 5' sidewalks around the front of the two banks of head-in parking spaces at the south end of the proposed southern street loop. - The 5' sidewalks wrapped around the front of the banks of head-in parking spaces along the right-of-way need to be widened to at least 6' in order to account for vehicle overhang that will reduce the sidewalks' functional width.

RIGHT-OF-WAY. Where head-in parking spaces are provided along the public right-of-way, the right-of-way lines shall be adjusted so that the parking spaces are kept outside the public right-of-way.

TRASH ENCLOSURES. Will any trash dumpsters be used in the fourplex area? If so, all dumpsters shall be hidden from view using trash enclosures. Enclosures shall be constructed in accordance with UDO Section 8.180.G.

LIGHTING. All proposed exterior lighting shall comply with the requirements of UDO Sections 8.220, 8.230 and 8.260. A note can be added to the plans stating that the lighting standards of UDO Section 8 shall be met. Detailed lighting information may be deferred to the final development plan.

STREET NAMES. Provide street names for review.

MONUMENTS SIGNS. Show any proposed entrance monument sign locations on the site plan for review. Monuments signs shall be subject to the size and height requirements for the RP-3 zoning district found under UDO Section 9.260. Provide a sign detail for review to verify compliance.

In order to minimize the number of curb cuts on the collector street, access for Lot 3 needs to come off the local street on the west.

The temporary cul-de-sac at the north end of Paddock Dr (just off the SW corner of the development site) shall be made permanent. Staff is agreeable to the fire access coming off the bulb in lieu of street extension.

The traffic study has been reviewed and the only recommendation is sight distance mitigations. Staff requires a documented response from MODOT pertaining to their review and comments on the traffic study.