Lee's Summit

DE C&O #01 Eng Plans – FDP/PDP

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 development plan. All public infrastructure must be substantially complete, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy.

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 site development 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 #06 Land Disturbance

A Land Disturbance Permit shall be obtained from the City if groundbreaking will take place prior to the issuance of a site development 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 approval of the Final Development Plan.

Miscellaneous Correction

The Design Criteria Modification Request (i.e., waiver to the stormwater detention requirements) is currently under review.

A review of the temporary construction easement shows it was recorded with the legal description within the exhibit. This method is not in accordance with the City template. The legal description should have been placed within the language of the easement, not the exhibit. As discussed in previous comments on similar projects, the purpose of the exhibit is to show in graphic format the limits of the easement for ease in determining the limits. It is not meant to include the legal description, as this should be shown in the body of the easement. Please review and revise as appropriate, and please provide a courtesy review copy of the document prior to execution and prior to recording. The accepted easement shall be required prior to formal approval of any Final Development Plan.

Informational Comment: The City Law Department shall review the body and exhibit of the easement prior to execution and recording.

The DCM waiver request was missing the permit number. The permit number is PL2020239. Please add this to the top of the DCM template sheet.

The summary within the DCM waiver request should discuss the pre-development peak flow rates to a point of interest (i.e., likely to be the inlet which it is being connected), and the post-development peak flow rates to the same point of interest. The summary should discuss the increase in peak flow rates for each event. The summary should discuss the allowable that would have been required if the Comprehensive Control Strategy were used, including any credits for off-site contributors to flow. Please review and revise, and ensure this is also discussed within the stormwater study.

Please remove any extraneous exhibits such as the erosion and sediment control plan from the exhibit list within the DCM waiver request. The exhibit(s) shall be concise, and show only that which is pertinent to the waiver request. In this case, recommend the grading plan and the drainage area exhibits, along with points of interest or the point of interest on these exhibits. The DCM waiver request shall be required prior to formal approval of the Preliminary Development Plan.

The existing flume near the existing field inlet should be removed and replaced. The sidewalk over this old flume has been an issue for the City in terms of maintenance, and would not be allowed under the current Design and Construction Manual. Since there will be extensive work within this area to inistall new pipe, it will be a simple matter to remove the flume at this location and provide an alternative design which connects to the new system and meets the standards set forth in the Design and Construction Manual. Please evaluate and review, and revise as appropriate.

Any alteration of the existing public storm system shall be accompanied by a separate plan set. This shall be required during the final development plan phase of the project.

Profile Views: Although the profile views are not normally required during the preliminary plan phase, there is sufficient reason to require them in this instance due to concerns with cover over the top of pipe, proximity to buildings and air conditioner units, and perhaps other utilities. Please provide preliminary profile views with the revised preliminary plan, and ensure they include prominent notes stating "PRIVATE" on all interior storm lines. Please ensure this is shown on the profile views requested above.

Grading Plan: The grading plan was missing the grading information to the west of the grated inlet. Please show the grading plan to the west of the grated inlet.

City-owned storm lines shall be 15 inch diameter or greater. This was explained in the last applicant letter. Please review, analyze, and revise as appropriate.

Depth of cover is too shallow for the twin 10 inch lines and the 15 inch lines. In addition, pipe thickness was not taken into account on this issue, which lessens the depth of cover. Wall thickness of the pipe shall be used to ensure adequate depth of cover. Minimum depth of cover is 18 inch as specified in the Design and Construction Manual. Concrete pipe collar anchors may be used if allowed by the manufacturer on a case by case basis.

HGL was called out on the profile view without any corresponding storm event. The storm event shall be called-out for an HGL. Please review, analyze, and revise as appropriate.

Please see previous applicant letter concerning waiver requests (i.e., waiver to stormwater detention requirements). This shall be required prior to formal approval of any plans.

The proposed sump near the field inlet in the rear of the commercial property was not shown on the profile view. The profile view at this location shows finish grade to the top of the inlet, which is impossible. Please review, analyzed, and revise as appropriate.

Field inlet near 3rd St. was missing from the profile view. Please revise, and ensure finish grading in is shown on the profile view. Finally, is there a reason why the pipe is shown daylighting rather than tying directly to the existing box?

No further review was performed due to the incomplete nature of this proposal. I realize this was a concept plan, but subsequent submittals shall include all details necessary to perform a review, including: 1) grading of the existing swale with fill, 2) callouts showing edge of pavement and elevation of edge of pavement in relation to any field inlets or structures, 3) grading to the new field inlet in the rear of the commercial development rather than relying on a note which says "grade to drain to field inlet", 4) calculations of the storm event, in this case the 100 year event unless a suitable overflow route can be established, 5) dimensions from structures to the edge of pavement, 6) all other information necessary to perform a complete review, and 7) all other off-site grading to the east of Lot 9A if required to drain the lots to the field inlet.

Only the stormwater drainage report dated Dec. 29, 2021 was reviewed. No additional plans were provided, and shall be provided if the waiver is granted by the City Engineer for stormwater detention.

Plans are based on the acquisition of an off-site easement(s), and grading on-site and possibly off-site. This shall be the responsibility of the applicant, and all such easements shall be acquired prior to approval of the plat or any building permits or plans. Prior review of any easements shall be performed by City of Lee's Summit Legal Department prior to execution and recording to ensure the legal description is correct, language is correct, and exhbit(s) showing in graphical format the metes and bounds legal description is accurate.

A curve number for the proposed condition at DA-1 was presented in the report as 78. This is too low based on residential use. However, the bigger issue is the use of an inappropriate method to size stormwater pipes. Please see subsequent comment concerning the requirment that the rational method be used. Finally, report did not appear to include stormwater passing through the site from adjacent property. It only appears to address the drainage area on the property. All stormwater facilities shall be designed to manage not only the on-site flows, but off-site contributors to flow. Please reconcile, correct, and revise as appropriate. This would appear to increase the sizing of the underground pipe to be installed as part of this project.

The new field inlet to be installed is too close to the sanitary sewer. The minimum distance is 5 feet, as measured from the outside of the sanitary sewer line (i.e., not the middle) to the outside of the storm structure.

Stormwater drainage study mentions a waiver to detention requirements, but the rationale was not well thought-out and will likely be rejected by the City Engineer. Recommend a perusal of the City of Lee's Summit requirements, including Section 5600 of the Design and Construction Manual, and in particular, the portion under "exceptions". For instance, this site was very close to being exempted for stormwater detention, but missed the exemption by virtue of being greater impervious area than prior. And finally, the conclusions of the report state "flood protection for the 1% storm are not reasonably attainable." This is an incorrect statement that the City does not agree. All stormwater systems in the City shall be designed and constructed at a minimum to the 1% storm standard, either within the pipe, or by overflow swales, or other means, and provide a minimum of 2.0 feet of freeboard between the 1% water surface elevation and any building opening, unless the stormwater can be fully-contained within the underground system a minimum of 6 inches below the throat of the inlet. For this, there are no waivers available that would be supported by staff.

A waiver to the stormwater detention requirements is required and shall be submitted on forms provided by the City, along with a summary explanation of the waiver (i.e., NOT the entire stormwater report), and summary exhibit(s). Typically, the summary is a one sheet sealed and signed document, along with an exhibit or two. In this case, we suggest the summary explanation describe the fact that: 1) existing drainage in the vacated alley is poor, with substandard existing slopes, 2) installation of detention behind the proposed buildings (and only if it were if possible, and current information indicates it is not possible due to grade issues, and freeboard requirements and lack of a suitable outfall based on gravity flow) will not change this poor draianage issue in any way, 3) explain the difficulties associated with constructing detention basin in the rear of the units, since above-ground detention requires 2.0 feet freeboard requirements, 20 foot setback requirements from the clogged condtion/zero available storage 100 year WSE, lack of a gravity flow outfall for either above-ground or below ground detention, and lack of continued maintenance by individual homeowners.

Rational method should be used for pipe sizing. I am not sure why you went through a detention basin routing analysis because detention is not being proposed for this site. In any case, using the SCS method using cuve numbers is not an appropriate method for sizing pipes in the City of Lee's Summit.

The Preliminary Development Plan shall be updated to include all aspects of the stormwater design. It shall be submitted in its entirety, not just a revision sheet (i.e., the entire PDP shall be submitted in its entirety). Many of the elements of the underground and overland swale components of the design were missing in the report. All of these aspects shall be properly labeled, and preliminary sizing of the pipes and inlets shall be provided. A review of utility conflicts shall also be performed prior to moving forward, to ensure the placement of the storm line as proposed will be feasible. Applicant shall ensure the placement of pipe (minimum sizing is 15 inch) is placed at a minimum depth of cover as specified in the Design and Construction Manual (typically 1.5 feet), and still be able to discharge as assumed on the concept plan shown in the stormwater report. Recommend a profile view be generated to make this determination, since it appears that daylighting the pipe at Independence may present an issue.

Our preliminary assessment of the concept design appears to show the line as shown near Independence Ave. where it daylights (or is assumed to daylight, no labels provided so basing this on an assumption) is not possible with the grades shown. A minimum depth of cover is 1.5 feet for the storm line (or greater if recommended by pipe manufacturer), and the minimum diameter is 15 inches (with more being required if not able to manage the 100 year event without surcharging above the 6 inch level to the throat of any inlet) is likely going to prevent this concept from being possible.

Underground detention is being proposed with 6 inches of cover over HDPE pipe. Minimum cover of 12 inches is normally required to eliminate floating of the pipe.

It appears a landscape buffer is being proposed over the underground detention system. With only 6 inches of cover, this would appear to be impossible.

Stormwater report dated Jun. 24, 2021 did not appear to be based on the Comprehensive Control Strategy described in the Design and Construction Manual. It appears to be based on a pre-developed versus post-developed scenario, and also with no consideration for the 90% mean annual event for water quality. If waivers are being sought (i.e., such as allowing the pre-development versus post-development analysis), this report should discuss any waivers needed, as well as any reasoning why the waiver should be granted.

Staff would support a waiver to stormwater detention, subject to acquisition of private easement from adjacent property owner to the south for private storm drain. The swale to the south of the applicant's property is too flat for effective drainage, and the density of the new units and increase in impervious area will create an adverse impact to adjacent property owner to the south without installation of a private storm drainage system.

If a waiver to stormwater detention is sought, storm line(s) should be installed to collect and divert stormwater from the development to ditch along 3rd St. This shall require a grading plan to create a suitable collection point. This grading plan can either show the collection point within the limits of the development, or offsite with appropriate easements.

Please label the building height. This comment was made in the Applicant’s Letter dated 11/29/20, 2/17/21 & 3/17/21.

The latest elevations that were submitted do not have the exterior building materials labeled. Please label the proposed building materials of all elevations. This comment was made in the Applicant’s Letter dated 3/17/21.

Please label the building height. This comment was made in the Applicant’s Letter dated 11/29/20 & 2/17/21.

The latest elevations that were submitted do not have the exterior building materials labeled. Please label the proposed building materials of all elevations.

Stormwater detention basins are discussed within the stormwater report, and they are proposed within each back yard with the exception of the easternmost lot. The City would not support the placement of earthen detention basins within the back yards due to setback issues, freeboard requirements, and the lack of details concerning their ability to drain.

Minimum setback of twenty (20) between the highest water surface elevation and any building and property line does not appear to be shown, nor does it appear possible based on the layout. In addition, a minimum of 2.0 feet of freeboard between the highest water surface elevation discussed above (100 percent clogged condition and zero available storage) and the lowest building opening would be required. This does not appear to have been met.

The detention system as shown relies on the cooperation of all individual property owners to maintain the stormwater detention system. Unless a HOA is established, an acceptable form of legal agreement must be provided between each individual property owner for continued maintenance.

There is the possibility of a waiver being issued for stormwater detention, if adequate downstream systems exist to manage the small increase in peak flows. An official request along with supporting documentation for the request would be required. The waiver must be provided on forms provided by the City, along with a concise attachment(s) showing the existing downstream and upstream drainage in the area, an assessment of its adequacy to manage the proposed undetained flows, along with the reasoning behind the request for waiver. Please contact the City if this is desired.

If a waiver is being sought for stormwater detention, the stormwater report would need to be revised as appropriate to reflect the change in scope and purpose.

If a waiver to stormwater detention is not being sought, and stormwater detention is being proposed, the detention system shown would not be supported by staff. The placement of earthen stormwater detention basins within back yards, with questionable ability to drain and not meeting minimum setbacks, may be problematic.

If a waiver to stormwater detention is not being sought, a revised stormwater report would still need to be submitted based on our comments. The proposed system would not be supported based on the setback requirements, freeboard requirements, ability to drain properly, and long term issues of maintenance within a private backyard setting. It should be submitted based on what system is being proposed (i.e., free release with adequate downstream facilties to manage the increased flows and a waiver, or stormwater detention to manage the increase flows, along with 40 hour extended detention).

The above stormwater issues should be addressed prior to moving forward to Planning Commission, including the waiver if desired.

County records show the property at 201 SE Summit Ave is owned by Capital Home Investments LLC. The ownership affidavit that was submitted for this property was signed by Andrew Winfrey. Please provide Mr. Winfrey’s contact information. Staff needs to independently verify that Mr. Winfrey is an authorized signatory for Capital Home Investments LLC.

The substitution of a 6’ fence on the east side of the subject property does not meet the minimum standard for a low impact landscaping buffer as required. Modifications may only be granted by the Governing Body. If it is your intention to seek relief from this requirement you must request a modification from the UDO requirements in writing. Please provide a narrative statement that explains the need for and justifications for modifications of the applicable zoning district regulations.

The Rezoning Map shows that you are proposing to rezone the property to Planned Mixed Use District (PMIX). The PMIX zoning district is intended for developments that have a mix of uses, such as residential and commercial. As the proposed development is only proposing a single land use type, residential (duplex), the PMIX zoning district is not appropriate and will not be staff supported. The Planned Two-Family Residential District (RP-2) is the most appropriate zoning district for this proposal and would be supported by staff.

The floor plans provided do not seem to match the footprints shown on the PDP plan sheets. Please check this and ensure all sheets are consistent and depict accurately what you are proposing to build. This comment was made in the Applicant’s Letter dated 11/29/20.

Please label the building height. This comment was made in the Applicant’s Letter dated 11/29/20. Additionally, the architectural sheets submitted reference a project in Belton, Missouri. Please update the submitted plans sheets to reflect Lee’s Summit. Please update the vicinity map as well.

The RP-2 Planned Two-Family Residential District was established to provide opportunities for a moderate-density mix of single-family and duplex residential development at a maximum density of seven and one-half units per gross acre. As submitted you are proposing a density of 11.8 units per acer. A modification to the density may only be granted by the Governing Body. If it is your intention to seek relief from the density requirements you must request a modification from the UDO requirements in writing. Please provide a narrative statement that explains the need for and justifications for modifications of the applicable zoning district regulations.

Every property upon which a principal use may be located shall meet or exceed the UDO requirements for its respective zoning district. As proposed the project does not meet the Minimum Lot Size (4,500 sq. ft. per unit) and the minimum Lot Width (80 ft.). Modifications may only be granted by the Governing Body. If it is your intention to seek relief from these requirements you must request a modification from the UDO requirements in writing. Please provide a narrative statement that explains the need for and justifications for modifications of the applicable zoning district regulations. This comment was made in the Applicant’s Letter dated 11/29/20.

The plan view showing grading does not appear to have been prepared by a design professional, nor does it appear to reconcile with other documents submitted with this application package (see below).

The "Storm Water Drainage Report" dated Jan. 21, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the stormwater report) does not match the plans prepared by the surveying company in terms of what is being proposed. It appears some sort of basin is being provided in the rear yard, which is not discussed within the report.

The stormwater report states that the increase in flow is insignificant. We do not agree. If a waiver is sought, information such as percent increase in peak flow, conversion of sheet flow to point discharge, impacts to adjacent property owners, etc. must be discussed.

The plan showing the rear yard grading appears to show direct point discharge onto adjacent property. This would only be allowed if appropriate legal agreements are provided between the parties.

Sufficient off-site elevation contours are needed to make an informed decison concerning drainage. As shown, there is no context between adjacent properties, and the subject property. A complete depiction of the proposed drainage system must be shown in context with off-site properties.

The Stormwater Drainage Plan prepared by the surveying company shows a swale in the rear yard by virtue of a label, and a cross section. However, this appears to be some sort of basin. If this is intended to be a swale, where does it tie into adjacent properties, and does a swale exist on those properties to receive stormwater?

The property located at 201 SE Summit Ave shall be included within the limits of the proposed zoning. Failure to include this property will create a situation that singles out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners, also known as “spot zoning”. As proposed staff cannot support the application.

Please provide a rezoning map showing the following: 1. Boundaries of the property to be rezoned. 2. Legal Description 3. Existing and proposed zoning districts of the property to be rezoned. 4. Zoning, land use, and ownership of all parcels within 300 feet of the property to be rezoned.

Please show the topography with contours at 2-foot intervals.

Please provide the location of all oil and gas wells, whether active, inactive, or capped. If none are present, please include a note stating such and cite your source of information.

Please show the 5’ sidewalk that is required along SE High St.

The floor plans provided do not seem to match the footprints shown on the PDP plan sheets. Please check this and ensure all sheets are consistent and depict accurately what you are proposing to build.

Please label the building height.

Please provide a land use schedule shall include the following: 1. Total floor area 2. Number of dwelling units 3. Land area 4. Number of required and proposed parking spaces 5. Impervious coverage 6. Dwelling units per acre, with and without common area

Every property upon which a principal use may be located shall meet or exceed the UDO requirements for its respective zoning district. As proposed the project does not meet the Minimum Lot Size (4,500 sq. ft. per unit) and the Minimum Lot Width (80 ft.). Modifications may only be granted by the Governing Body. If it is your intention to seek relief from these requirements you must request a modification from the UDO requirements in writing. Please provide a narrative statement that explains the need for and justifications for modifications of the applicable zoning district regulations.

A landscaping and buffer plan is required, and shall include information as listed in the ordinance.

A buffer/screen between developments of differing land uses adjoining one another or separated from one another by only a street or alley shall comply with Table 8.890, Typical Buffers. The intensity of the required buffer/screen is established according to the intensity of the abutting uses, i.e., retail development adjacent to or across the street from a residential use or development requires a more intense buffer/screen than would retail adjacent to or across from office use, etc. As the proposed RP-2 zoning district will be abutting an R-1 zoning district on the southern and eastern project boundaries a low impact screening buffer is required.

The ROW for High Street, shown as 44 feet wide, does not meet minimum right-of-way width for a local residential street, 50 feet. Dedication of 6 feet of ROW should be conditioned on the plat or by separate document where adjacent to the subject properties to meet current standards.

Sidewalk is required along High Street. Payment in lieu of sidewalk construction option may be considered upon request considering the standard to which High Street is built in accordance with the UDO.

A stormwater study was discussed at the June 2020 pre-application meeting, since this site may require stormwater detention. No stormwater study and no detention basin(s) were provided or shown on the plan.

A preliminary grading plan was not shown on the Prelimary Development Plan.