Lee's Summit

Cape Dr. is still shown on the plans on Sheet 4, 23, 32, and on the cover sheet. Please see previous comment letter concerning the elimination of Cape Dr. from the plans. When the Cape Dr. plans are submitted, they should be based on the alignment discussed during the meeting, not abutting the south property line, and they should also be based on a length that will not result in public water lines to be placed overland. It appears that the stub street is still being aligned along the south property line rather than offset (as shown on General Layout sheet 4), and it does not extend far enough to allow for the installation of the water main along the road. As discussed in previous comment letter, the water main serving the school should be installed along a road, not overland.

Sheet 41: Is there any way to achieve the maximum design cross-slope of 1.5% for the lower right hand corner detail? A cross-slope of 2.29% is called-out, and it would appear this could be changed relatively easily.

Sheet 42: It appears the turning space for the upper right hand corner detail is in excess of 1.5% design slope. 1.84% is proposed, and it would appear the design slope of 1.5% would be achievable.

Pipe collar is still shown on the profile view for line D. Please see previous applicant letter. The City does not allow this method for extension of existing storm lines.

Cape Dr. still does not agree with Schlagel's preliminary plan for roadway extension of Cape Dr. Schlagel's plans show an offset of the 60 foot right of way by approximately 29.5 feet from the south property line. According to your plans, Cape Dr. right of way will abut directly with the south property line, which would require the acquisition of a temporary grading easement on adjacent property owner for installation of the box culvert, and would likely require the relocation of the district water main along the property line. In addition, Cape Dr. should have been removed from the plan set as requested in the previous applicant letter. As shown, Cape Dr. is too short to serve the development and will need to be extended to a point where water service can be provided to the development without being installed overland. Please see previous applicant letter.

The design storm HGL shall be shown graphically on the profile view in all storm lines. In addition, receiving storm system (i.e., the existing storm system near the creek running north/south) shall be analyzed. If the receiving system cannot manage the increased flows, it is possible that separate discharge points are needed into the creek.

Sheet 45 Drainage Calculations Table: No consideration was given to the incoming flow from the north. HGL calculations were not shown.

Profile views are shown on Sheet 44 with no plan views associated with them. In addition, line C is connected to a box near the creek with what appears to be an erroneous assumption. We are showing the existence of two (2) pipes at this location, not one (1).

Gutter spread for the 10 year event at the easternmost curb inlet appears too high. Recommend an additional curb inlet at this location to capture the bypass flow.

Sheet 40 Northwest Corner ADA Ramp: There appears to be an unnecessary twist in the ramp between sta 56+28 to 56+41.

Sheet 40 Southwest Corner ADA Ramp: Ramp includes grade breaks which are not allowed. Twists are also shown which are not allowed.

Sheet 40 Northeast Corner of ADA Ramp: Grade breaks and twists are shown on the ADA which are not allowed.

Sheet 40 Southeast Corner of ADA Ramp: Turning space adjacent to parallel ramp does not comply with the 1.5% maximum slope rule. In addition, the panel to the west of the turning space has a twist which is not allowed in the ramp.

Sheet 41 Southwest Corner ADA Ramp: Curb opening is greater than 2.00% cross-slope which is greater than the 1.50% maximum design cross-slope. In addition, a grade break is evident, which is not allowed.

Sheet 41 Southeast Corner ADA Ramp: Ramp slope is too high. An 8% running slope does not appear to match existing roadway grade, and appears arbitrary. Maximum 7.5% longitudinal slope (design), preferably smaller. The bigger question is why the grade breaks on this ramp?

Sheet 42 SW Corner of ADA Ramp: Same comment applies concerning the 8.0% callout. Maximum design slope is 7.5%. The bigger question is why were grade breaks introduced? If using the panel to the west of this 8% sloped panel, is the gain worth the severe slope in this area? The City does not necessarily require a "transition area", unless it makes sense. It does not appear it makes sense in this area. Finally, the cross-slope at the curb opening is too high. Design slope shall be 1.5% or less.

Sheet 42: Please go through all of the details shown on this sheet since the same comments described above apply to all.

Sheet 43: North corner of Dalton Dr. detail does not comply with the cross-slope requirement of maximum 1.5% cross-slope.

Sheet 43: South corner of Dalton Dr. is incomplete in terms of slope callouts.

Sheet 43: Northeast corner shows a cross-slope at curb cut greater than 1.5% cross-slope. In addition, there is a grade break shown on the plan which is not allowed in a ramp.

Future extension of Cape Dr. is shown on Sheet 33 with an alignment which does not match the future plans for the residential development to the east. Right of way for adjacent development is shown approximately 29.5 feet to the north of the property line to avoid the issue of obtaining off-site easements, and relocation of district water main along the south property line.

Add sidewalk between the proposed driveway and existing sidewalk along the south side of Dalton Dr. to connect the created gap. This may require a new ramp on the east side of Dalton Street for the road crossing. If so, a ramp detail is needed.

Traffic Signal Controller shall be noted as M60 ATC Upgrade. The ATC Upgrade appears to address M60 experienced issues/failures with the TranSuite ATMS interface.

Cape Dr. street and stormwater improvements should be a separate plan set, along with the water line extension to the plat boundary. As shown, there appears to have been very little coordination between Olsson and Schlagel and Associates on the road and culvert alignment for the future extension into the residential subdivision to the east. Right of way does not match Schlagel's proposed plans for the road alignment. As shown, additional easement would be required from the property owner to the south for the embankment, and will introduce a jog into the roadway which is not desired by the City.

Wings are shown on ADA-accessible ramps which are not desired by the City. Where grading will not allow 3:1 slope, straight back curb and gutter shall be provided. Preference shall be given to grading rather than the construction of straight back curb.

Sheet 3: No reference features (i.e., street names, etc.) were shown, and it is impossible to review this sheet without knowing where it is.

Sheet 11 is blank.

Sheet 17 Typical Section Views of Pavement: 12 inches of MoDOT Type 5 is required when using geogrid.

Sheet 18: Minimum of 10 inches MoDOT Type 5 is required over geogrid on 13th St. Also, Cape Dr. is a collector street and subject to higher standards for base, surface course, and subgrade. Please see previous comment, however, on Cape Dr. Separate plans should be provided for this portion of the project.

Sheet 18: Minimum 12 inches MoDOT Type 5 is required over geogrid for Century Dr.

Please review asphaltic concrete types contained within the Design and Construction Manual. Call-outs are out of date. New standards should be specified for the base and surface course. In general, Type 5 or 6 for surface courses, and Type 5 for base courses.

HDPE is called-out for at least one of the storm line extensions on Bailey Rd., which is a collector street. Collector streets must either use RCP or CPP.

Sheet 20: Why is the 10 foot wide multi-use sidewalk shown to the back of curb to the west of Century Dr.? Why is there no taper at the west end of the project? As shown, it abuts the street and begins in an abrupt fasion with no taper to the west of Century Dr.

Multi-use sidewalk should be a minimum 6 inches thickness.

15th St. and Dalton modifications do not appear to allow a vehicle to backup into the service drive and exit without performing a three-point turn. There are also questions about why the roadway is being narrowed to the extent shown. A ribbon curb appears to be shown along Dalton, but not called-out. The bigger question, however, is whether this road stub can be shortened a bit, and left as-is with sufficient grading at the end to eliminate ponding that is occurring now.

Please re-title the plans to Lee's Summit R7 Middle School on Bailey Rd. - Off-Site Traffic Improvements, Traffic Signal at Hamblen Rd. and Bailey Rd., and Greenway Trail Improvements

Cover sheet shows improvements being provided on Ranson Rd. Please review and update as appropriate.

Collars are shown for directional change rather than conversion of curb inlet to junction box on Bailey Rd. and other locations. Is there a better way to achieve the same objective and retain the structural integrity of a box junction? This shall require a waiver to the Design and Construction Manual.

Turning spaces cannot have more than 1.5% design slope in any direction, including the diagonal. As shown, there are exceedances in the design slope across the diagonal direction, some greater than 2.0%.

Are additional curb inlets and pipe required along Bailey Rd. to the north of the school? Some of this stormwater runoff would appear to enter the new school entrance? It would appear approximately 1,200 feet of widened road and greenway trail will drain along the gutter, and additional pipe and inlets may be warranted. Maximum distance between curb inlets is 400 feet as specified in the Design and Construction Manual.

Drainage at Dalton Dr. and 15th St. is currently substandard. What is the plan for dealing with the water that is currently dammed-up to the east?