Lee's Summit

Asphalt mix shall utilize KCMMB in accordance with new design standards. Please update plans accordingly.

Phasing plan was uploaded, and we want to ensure there is no misunderstanding on the requirement to complete the entire project in one (1) phase rather than two (2) phases shown.

Please see previous applicant letter dated May 11, 2022. No plan resubmittal was provided, so no review could be completed concerning the 7 comments provided in the letter. Please contact me if this applicant letter cannot be found.

Waiver request for the stream crossing was removed from the stormwater report dated May 18, 2022 which is acceptable since stream crossings with roads do not require a stream buffer waiver when the road crossing. However, the existing waiver request dated Apr. 26, 2022 still contains the waiver request for the stream buffer at the road crossing. The waiver request shall be revised to exclude any discussion or evaluation of the stream crossing since this is not needed. Please revise the waiver request as appropriate, including all exhibits and report summary. Please ensure the report summary is signed and sealed.

The waiver request includes a stream buffer waiver near the east/west stream bisecting the project. It would appear this waiver is being sought for work within the stream buffer to place the street crossing, and this action does not require a waiver to the stream buffer requirement. It also appears the drainage upstream of the point in question is near 40 acres. Please evaluate, and if possible, remove the stream buffer waiver request. If requesting a stream buffer waiver, it is likey a formal stream assessment shall be required based on previous expectations from the City Engineer.

The "Final Stormwater Management Plan" dated Apr. 18, 2022 includes within the conclusions section a statement about the stream buffer waiver. Please see above comment because it appears no stream buffer waiver is necessary. Please evaluate and revise the report as appropriate. Please call me if any questions.

Water quality riser is called out with "no open top" on Sheet 36 . Please specify how this will be achieved. Will a metal plate be welded internally, and concrete poured to the top in a convex fashion?

Tactile warning (i.e., truncated domes) were missing from the ADA-accessible ramp details. Please call these out on all sheets related to intersection and ADA-accessible ramp and route details.

All Sheets Related to the Grading Plan on Sheet 6 and 7: These sheets appear to show the Master Drainage Plan. Since this plan is required by Ordinance, and is used during the plot plan review process, we will need these sheets titled "Master Drainage Plan" with appropriate labeling for west or east portions of the site. Please re-title these sheets.

The Master Drainage Plan did not appear to show which lots require an as-graded plot plan before occupancy. Please show which lots require the as-graded plan on Sheets 6 and 7, preferably with the table you have aleady presented.

Sheet 46 - Street name signs should be a mix of upper and lower case letters. Additionally, the detail sheet should be updated to the current standard on the City's website.

N/A

Sheet 12 - K Value (sag) at sta. 16+35 is too low. (37 minimum - Residential Collector).

Sheet 14 - K Value (sag) at sta. 3+68.08 doesn't appear to have been modified and is too low (26 minimum - Residential Local).

The "Final Stormwater Management Plan for The Manor at Bailey Farms 1st Plat" dated Jan. 31, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as "stormwater report") was written for the entire build-out of the project. There was no discussion within the text of the report concerning the phasing of the project, and the fact that only one (1) detention basin is being constructed during this phase.

Since the stormwater report includes the entire site, the title of the stomwater report should be revised to reflect the entire site, not just Bailey Farms 1st Plat.

No review of the northern detention basin was conducted in reference to the actual design of the northern detention basin versus the pond setup sheets contained within the stormwater report. This review shall be performed separately from this review, and comments on the stormwater report may be forthcoming for the northern detention basin.

A waiver to the 2 year allowable release rate for RP-2 was requested within the body of the stormwater report. A waiver request on a form provided by the City shall be submitted, along with all necessary Design and Construction Manual citations, a signed and sealed summary of the waiver request attached to the form explaining the waiver request and a rationale behind the request, along with an exhibit.

The stormwater report discussed stream buffer waivers for "transition grading". This discussion is contained within the cover letter of the stormwater report, but no subsequent discussion is included within the body of the report. A review of the plans does not appear to show any grading within the buffer which would be considered an encroachment, since the City does not consider the grading for a detention basin side slope within the buffer as an encroachment. Was this what was being described as "transition grading"? If so, this does not require a waiver to the Design and Construction Manual. If this is the case, the cover letter should be revised.

The stormwater report describes the southern detention basin as EDDB #2, but the plans do not reflect this nomenclature. Please label the southern basin to match what is shown in the stormwater report.

The stormwater report shows a 15 inch CMP for the incoming pipe. CMP is not allowed unless aluminized. Recommend RCP due to longevity issues.

The stormwater report shows a 24 inch RCP, but the plans show HDPE. Recommend RCP for this area.

Recommend "X'ing-out" the portions of the stormwater report within the appendix that refer to the northern detention basin EDDB #1, along with notation they will be reviewed during the phase of the project related to construction of EDDB #1, since they are not included in this review. Other alternatives would include notation on the affected sheets within the appendix. If preferred, this may be done on the pond setup sheets for EDDB #1, but shall clearly state this will be re-reviewed at the time this basin is being evaluated.

Stream buffer is shown for a portion of the project as requested in previous applicant letter, but is missing callouts and dimensions near EDDB #2. Please show the limits of the stream buffer in this area, and show the transition between the 60 foot buffer and the 100 foot buffer on the general layout of the plans.

Easements are shown for storm pipes entering and exiting the private detention basin. These easements imply public storm lines, which these are not. Please eliminate the easements on all sheets, and ensure this is carried-through to the plat. Please label these lines as "PRIVATE" to ensure our GIS technicians are able to accurately shown these lines on our GIS system.

The storm line exiting the detention basin appears to be in conflict with the preliminary design of the box culvert on Cape Dr. Please review the preliminary design, and ensure this private storm line does not conflict with the box culvert.

Sheet 6 and 7 of Master Drainage Plan: MBOEs are called-out without any specific elevations. Please review and revise.

Sheet 6 and 7 Master Drainage Plan: No basement callouts were provided on the Master Drainage Plan (i.e., standard, daylight, or walkout). Please show this for every lot within this plat.

Sheet 6 and 7 Master Drainage Plan: No callouts were provided on these sheets whether an as-graded plot plan is required. Notation shall be provided for each lot whether or not an as-graded plot plan is required prior to occupancy.

Sheet 9 and 10 Master Drainage Plan: These two sheets appear to conflict with the previous Master Drainage Plans in that tables are provided and swale details are provided. Please eliminate the previous east and west Master Drainage Plan sheets, and use these sheets. Clean up the MBOE references on the lots with no corresponding elevation callout. Consider reviewing my comments from previous applicant letter which stated that MBOEs are not necessarily required for each lot.

Ensure the comment concerning the requirement that an as-graded plot plan is noted on the Master Draiinage Plan. This is usually shown in table format, with another column after the MBOE for the lots. Please be aware the City does not necessarily require an MBOE or an as-graded plot plan for each lot. The MBOE requirement should follow guidance previously-provided to you in the last applicant letter, and the necessity of an as-graded plot plan shall be at the discretion of the design engineer.

Sheet 9 Master Drainage Plan East: Callouts are provided for overflow swales running east/west, but no specific swale cross-sections are provided. Cross-sections at key intervals shall be provided for these overflow swales, suggest at the beginning, the end, and perhaps every 25 feet along the swale. Generic details as shown on the bottom of this sheet are not sufficient, as a site-specific design is required for these particular swales.

Sheet 10 Master Drainage Plan West: A generic swale section at the top of this sheet is provided, but does not match what is shown on the grading plan view. You are showing a V-bottom swale for most cases, and unknown on C-C. In this instance, the beginning and end of the swale should be noted on the plan view, along with notation along key intervals (i.e., 25 feet?). Section views should be provided for each location, which will likely require a separate sheet.

Sheet 15 Cape Dr. Plan and Profile: What is the purpose of the cross-hatching on this street? There is no definition of what this means. Please reconcile.

Please see previous applicant letter about the missing notation on the plans concerning who builds which sidewalk. The response to comments stated this was provided on the general layout sheets. I am not seeing any indication of this on the general layout sheets, the specific plan views, or the intersection details. All sidewalk along unplatted propery (i.e., along Bailey Farm Pkwy.), detention tracts, common area tracts, and all ADA-accessible ramps shall be shown to be installed by the contractor. Notation or symbology shall be clear in this regard to avoid any confusion in the field.

Intersection Detail Sheets General Comment: All ADA-ramp construction shall show in explicit terms the limits of construction. This shall include any required turning spaces. Please review and reconcile.

Sheet 19: The ADA-accessible ramp at Ranchland and Cape Dr. on west side is missing the detailing on the turning space. The turning space in this instance shall include the entire "baseball diamond" shaped turning space as shown on your proposed geometry. In no case shall the design slope be greater than 1.5% in any direction (i.e., flat as defined by PROWAG and City of Lee's Summit requirements). As previously discussed, all construction of ADA-accessible ramps shall be performed with the subdivision improvements, with the homeowner tying into the turning space, or if that is not practical at a later date due to grading concerns, the ADA-accessible ramp construction shall continue beyond the turning space if deemed appropriate by the design engineer.

Sheet 19: Longitudinal slope callouts were missing on the ramps at Ranchland and Cape Dr. Slope callouts are required for all ADA-accessible ramps in addition to elevation corner callouts.

Sheet 19: The ADA-accessible ramp at Sweet Root Dr. and Cape Dr. on east side is missing the detailing on the turning space. The turning space in this instance shall include the entire "baseball diamond" shaped turning space as shown on your proposed geometry. In no case shall the design slope be greater than 1.5% in any direction (i.e., flat as defined by PROWAG and City of Lee's Summit requirements). As previously discussed, all construction of ADA-accessible ramps shall be performed with the subdivision improvements, with the homeowner tying into the turning space, or if that is not practical at a later date due to grading concerns, the ADA-accessible ramp construction shall continue beyond the turning space if deemed appropriate by the design engineer.

General Comment on All Intersection Details: Wings are not allowed on ADA-accessible ramps. Please show grading up to the ramp no greater than 3 to 1.

General Comment on All ADA-Accessible Ramps: The five (5) foot wide ADA-accesible route across all stop-controlled intersections shall be shown, along with cross-slope callouts of no greater than 1.5%.

Sheet 20: ADA-accessible ramps at Rising Sun and Cape Dr. on northeast side and the southeast side are missing the detailing on the turning spaces. The turning space in these instances shall include the entire "baseball diamond" shaped turning spaces as shown on your proposed geometry. In no case shall the design slope be greater than 1.5% in any direction (i.e., flat as defined by PROWAG and City of Lee's Summit requirements). As previously discussed, all construction of ADA-accessible ramps shall be performed with the subdivision improvements, with the homeowner tying into the turning space, or if that is not practical at a later date due to grading concerns, the ADA-accessible ramp construction shall continue beyond the turning space if deemed appropriate by the design engineer.

Sheet 20: The longitudinal slope callout on the ADA-accessible ramp at Rising Sun Dr. on the northeast corner is higher than the maximum allowed by the City of Lee's Summit. The City has adopted a more stringent requirement than PROWAG (i.e., 7.5% versus 8.33%) to allow for some construction tolerance. In no case shall the finished product be allowed greater than 8.33%. Design slope, however, shall be 7.5%.

Sheet 20: The ADA-accessible ramps at Bailey Farm Pkwy. and Cape Dr. on east side are missing the detailing on the turning spaces. The turning spaces in these instances shall include the entire "baseball diamond" shaped turning space as shown on your proposed geometry. In no case shall the design slope be greater than 1.5% in any direction (i.e., flat as defined by PROWAG and City of Lee's Summit requirements). As previously discussed, all construction of ADA-accessible ramps shall be performed with the subdivision improvements, with the homeowner tying into the turning space, or if that is not practical at a later date due to grading concerns, the ADA-accessible ramp construction shall continue beyond the turning space if deemed appropriate by the design engineer.

Sheet 20: The longitunal slope callout is too high for the ramp shown at the northeast corner of Bailey Farm Pkwy. and Cape Dr. Please reconcile, and ensure the elevation callouts and the slope callouts show a design slope less than 7.5% (see previous comment related to City's more stringent design slope requirement).

Sheet 20: The ADA-accessible route across Cape Dr. is skewed due to the ramps not lining up at Rising Sun Dr. and Cape Dr. Please correct to elminate the skew in the ADA-accessible route.

Sheet 20: The ADA-accessible route across Cape Dr. at Bailey Farm Pkwy. is skewed due to the ramps not lining up. Please revise as appropriate to eliminate the skew.

Sheet 21: The ADA-accessible route across Cape Dr. at Falling Star Dr. is skewed due to misalignment of the ramps on either side. Please revise as appropriate to eliminate the skew.

Sheet 21: The ADA-accesible route across Ranchland at Sweet Root Dr. is skewed due to misalignment with the ADA-accessible ramps. Please revise to eliminate the skew.

Sheet 21: Both ADA-accesible ramps at Ranchland and Sweet Root Dr. are too high of a slope. The maximum design slope is 7.5%. Please see previous commens related to the City's more stringent design standards. Please revise as appropriate.

Sheet 21: The ADA-accessible ramps at Falling Star Dr. and Cape Dr. on northeast side and southeast side are missing the detailing on the turning spaces. The turning space in these instances shall include the entire "baseball diamond" shaped turning space as shown on your proposed geometry. In no case shall the design slope be greater than 1.5% in any direction (i.e., flat as defined by PROWAG and City of Lee's Summit requirements). As previously discussed, all construction of ADA-accessible ramps shall be performed with the subdivision improvements, with the homeowner tying into the turning space, or if that is not practical at a later date due to grading concerns, the ADA-accessible ramp construction shall continue beyond the turning space if deemed appropriate by the design engineer.

Sheet 21: The longitudinal slope on the ADA-accessible ramps on the northeast corner and he southeast corner of Falling Star Dr. and Cape Dr. are too high. The maximum design slope is 7.5%. Please see previous comments related to the City's more stringent slope requirements. Please revise as appropriate.

Sheet 21: The ADA-accessible route across Cape Dr. at Falling Star Dr. is skewed due to misalignment of the ADA-accessible ramps on either side. Please revise as appropriate to eliminate the skew.

Sheet 22: The ADA-accessible route across Rising Sun Dr. at Ranchland Dr. is skewed, and the ramp on the east side of Rising Sun Dr. is not mono-directional. Please revise as appropriate to eliminate the skew and to eliminate the multi-directional ADA-accessible ramp.

Sheet 22: The ADA-accessible ramp at Ranchland and Cape Dr. on northeast side is missing the detailing on the turning space. The turning space in this instance shall include the entire "baseball diamond" shaped turning space as shown on your proposed geometry. In no case shall the design slope be greater than 1.5% in any direction (i.e., flat as defined by PROWAG and City of Lee's Summit requirements). As previously discussed, all construction of ADA-accessible ramps shall be performed with the subdivision improvements, with the homeowner tying into the turning space, or if that is not practical at a later date due to grading concerns, the ADA-accessible ramp construction shall continue beyond the turning space if deemed appropriate by the design engineer.

Sheet 22: The longitudinal slope is too high for the ADA-accessible ramp at the northeast corner of Ranchland and Bailey Farm Pkwy. Please revise as appropriate, and ensure it is no greater than 7.5% design slope. Please see previous comments related to the City's more stringent requirements for slope on ADA-accessible ramps.

Sheet 22: Turning space is shown on the west side of the intersection of Ranchland and Rising Sun Dr. This turning space is not flat as defined by PROWAG and the City of Lee's Summit. A turning space is required for any turns greater than 45 degrees, and this is approximately 90 degrees. It shall be detailed with corner elevations and slope callouts. In no case shall the slope be greater than 1.5% in any direction, including the diagonal.

Sheet 23: Longitudinal slope callout for the ADA-accessible ramp at Falling Star Dr. and Ranchland is too high. The maximum design slope is 7.5%. Please see previous comments related to the Ciy's more stringent requirements for slope. Please revise as appropriate.

Sheet 23: The termination of the sidewalk shown within the cul-de-sac does not meet City requirements. This sidewalk shall end with an ADA-accessible ramp, without a receiver. Please see examples provided in an earlier email, or let me know and I can re-send. There are essentially two (2) choices: 1) enter straight into the cul-de-sac, or 2) enter using a parallel ramp geometry. Either is acceptable, but termination of sidewalk as shown in the cul-de-sac is not acceptable. Please revise as appropriate.

Sheet 24: The ADA-accessible route across Bailey Farm Pkwy. is skewed due to misaligned ADA-accessible ramps. Please revise as appropriate by eliminating the skew and aligning the ADA-accessible ramps.

Sheet 25: The ADA-accessible ramp at Arboretum Dr. and Bailey Farm Pkwy. on northeast coner is missing the detailing on the turning space. The turning space in this instance shall include the entire "baseball diamond" shaped turning space as shown on your proposed geometry. In no case shall the design slope be greater than 1.5% in any direction (i.e., flat as defined by PROWAG and City of Lee's Summit requirements). As previously discussed, all construction of ADA-accessible ramps shall be performed with the subdivision improvements, with the homeowner tying into the turning space, or if that is not practical at a later date due to grading concerns, the ADA-accessible ramp construction shall continue beyond the turning space if deemed appropriate by the design engineer.

Sheet 25: The ADA-accessible route across Windbreak Dr. at Bailey Farm Pkwy. is skewed due to misalignment of the ADA-accessible ramps on either side of Windbreak Dr. Please eliminate the skew by aligning the ramps as appropriate.

Sheet 25: The ADA-accessible ramp at Windbreak Dr. and Bailey Farm Pkwy. northeast side is missing the detailing on the turning space. The turning space in this instance shall include the entire "baseball diamond" shaped turning space as shown on your proposed geometry. In no case shall the design slope be greater than 1.5% in any direction (i.e., flat as defined by PROWAG and City of Lee's Summit requirements). As previously discussed, all construction of ADA-accessible ramps shall be performed with the subdivision improvements, with the homeowner tying into the turning space, or if that is not practical at a later date due to grading concerns, the ADA-accessible ramp construction shall continue beyond the turning space if deemed appropriate by the design engineer.

Sheet 26: The ADA-accessible ramp at Vantage Point Dr. and Bailey Farm Pkwy. on northeast side is missing the detailing on the turning space. In addition, the geometry should follow what is shown previously for these situations (i.e., the "baseball diamond" shape to 1 foot of righ of way). The turning space in this instance shall include the entire "baseball diamond" shaped turning space as shown on your proposed geometry. In no case shall the design slope be greater than 1.5% in any direction (i.e., flat as defined by PROWAG and City of Lee's Summit requirements). As previously discussed, all construction of ADA-accessible ramps shall be performed with the subdivision improvements, with the homeowner tying into the turning space, or if that is not practical at a later date due to grading concerns, the ADA-accessible ramp construction shall continue beyond the turning space if deemed appropriate by the design engineer.

Sheet 32: Rip rap at the end of the 48 inch RCP is shown without a stilling basin. It would appear this is warranted, along with a suitable method to drain the stilling basin during low flow periods. Recommend a stilling basin utilizing one of the recognized designs by USACE, and a method to drain the still basin using an underdrain. Please revise as appropriate.

Sheet 37: Geometry of the incoming and outgoing pipes do not mach what is shown on the plan view. The plan view appears to show a "straight-through" geometry, while the detail shows a skewed angle. Finally, why is the detail view 180 degrees opposite that which is shown on the plan view? This is very confusing for field review.

Sheet 37: Profile view for line 3800 does not match what is shown in the stormwater report or the other section details and plan view on this sheet. Where is the 15 inch pipe that is to be connected to the outlet structure? It is completely missing from the profille view.

Sheet 37: HDPE is called-out for the 15 inch pipe to be connected to the outlet structure, yet RCP is called-out in the stormwater report. Please revise to RCP, since a trash rack is to be installed and it would appear impossible to consruct such a trash rack unless it is RCP.

Sheet 37: A trash rack is called out on the 15 inch flared end section that connects to the outlet structure. Where are the details for such construction of a trash rack? Is the rack intended to be hinged for easy maintenance? Please show all details necessary for construction so there is no confusion during construction.

Sheet 37: The trash rack for the open top outlet structure was missing notes concerning welding of steel rods. Is this intended to be welded? If so, please be specific. If not, please show how these will be tied-together.

Sheet 37: Materials, thickness of walls, placement of steel, and all other details necessary to construct the outlet structure were missing. This is required. Please revise as appropriate.

Sheet 37: Detention basin was missing the graphic format of the 100 year WSE and clogged condition/zero available storage WSE on the plan view. It should also include dimensions from property lines to ensure a minimum 20 foot setback is maintained between the clogged/zero available storage WSE is maintained. Please update as appropriate.

Sheet 37: Detention basin was missing the contour elevation callouts within the basin and the dam. Please update and revise as appropriate.

Sheet 37: Please eliminate all easements for incoming storm lines and outgoing storm lines. These lines shall be considered private, and shall be noted elsewhere as "PRIVATE". Please ensure the plat is updated to remove these easements.

Sheet 37: The emergency spillway is referred to as an "auxilliary spillway" on this sheet. Please review and remove any refernce to "auxiliary spillway", since this is an emergency spillway and not to be utilized in any event oher than clogging of the primary outlet works or exceedances in the design flow to the basin over and above the 100 year event.

It is highly recommended that additional storage and freeboard be designed into the plans, as the as-built condition may deviate from the plan. The City may require modifiations during the as-built review phase of the project if design storage and freeboard requirements are not met by the as-built condition.

Sheet 37: It is recommended the outgoing pipe be lessened in terms of slope to eliminate the stormwater from entering the supercritical realm. Excessive erosion will occur at the daylight point near the stream bank, and will lead to degradation of the creek. Please revise to a lesser slope, and update the design calculations as appropriate.

Sheet 37: Energy dissipation in the form of rip rap may not be sufficient for the daylight point of the exiting 24 inch storm line 3800. Please provide caclulations showin the rip rap design is sufficient, and/or lessen the slope within the exiting 24 inch line to render the stormwater subcritical.

Sheet 37: Note under the trash rack for the outlet structure states "bar grating to be installed over V notch casting". What does this mean? It does not appear any V notch casting was included in the stormwater report, or shown on the plans. Please reconcile.

Sheet 37: A better section view is required for the outlet structure, which shows the height and grading of the dam in relation to this structure. As shown, it is more of a generic diagram rather than a site-specific section view. Although not necessarily required it be to scale, it should at a minimum show the riser structure, the grading in relation to the riser structure, the inlet and outgoing pipes, and the 8 inch orifice plate.

Sheet 37: The 8 inch orifice plate does not include any details such as material, method of fastening, etc. Please show these details so there is no guesswork during construction. The City shall require a robust method of fastening to the pipe/outlet structure.

Sheet 36: Storm Line 3600 is shown entering the basin at an excessive slope which will lead to erosion in the basin. Please lessen the slope from the upsream inlet to the daylight point, so the flow is subcritical to the detention basin.

Sheet 39: MoDOT Type 5 aggregate thickness shown on the section view does not conform to the Design and Construction Manual. A minimum 12 inch thickness is required, unless chemically-stabillzed subgrade is provided. Please review the table to the left of the typical section and revise as appropriate.

Sheet 39: Please remove PCC pavement table. It is irrelevant to this project.

Sheet 39: Please provide callouts for the asphaltic concrete pavement type on the typical section. Please see the Design and Construction Manual for specific choices for base and surface layers.

Are additional phases to the east and west of Bailey Farm Pkwy. being planned in the near future? Plans show these improvements to be installed at a later date, and the concern is the sanitary sewer comments related to upstream connections and minimum slope. Water Utilities may require a strict interpretation of the slope requirements for upstream connections, which may have a bearing on your plans since it appears these improvements will be completed later rather than in the near-term.

Alley details were provided, but no alleys are being constructed on this project. Please remove all references to alleys within the details section of the plans.

Separate plans were provided for erosion and sediment control. Please eliminate the erosion and sediment control plans from this plan set since they were submitted separately and are being reviewed separately.

A signage plan was missing from the plan set. Please ensure all stop-controlled intersections include the minimum 5 foot wide ADA-accessible route across the intersection, and ensure the route is a maximum 1.5% cross-slope across the entire width of the route from the mouth of the ADA-accessble ramp to the opposite side.

ADA-accessible ramp details were missing from the plan set. Only the general geometry of the ramps were shown. If using the geometry shown, there are instances where the ramps may be difficult to design and still conform to City standards. In general, these would include turning spaces that transition into the actual ADA-accessible ramp, and as such, the turning space may need to be extended to include the transition to the actual ramp. The City has a different geometric concept that you may be interested in utilizing. If desired, please contact me and I will forward this geometric concept to you.

It would appear there are several instances where the street profile at stop-controlled intersections is greater than the City of Lee's Summit 1.5% maximum cross-slope across the ADA-accessible route. However, without a specific ADA-accessible ramp plan, there is no way to verify.

The Master Drainage Plan was missing. Only portions of the Master Drainage Plan were provided, but the portion related to swale or diversion berm construction, lot corners, MBOEs, basement type, contours, etc. was missing. If necessary, an example can be provided.

Hydraulic grade lines were not shown in the profile view of storm lines and structures. The hydraulic grade line for the design storm shall be shown on the profile view. In general, the 10 year event should be contained at or below the crown of the pipe, with the 100 year event at or below the 0.5 foot level below the throat of an inlet. Please see additional requirements for the east/west creek that will be diverted underground. This system should be designed to flow by gravity (i.e., at or below the crown of the pipe) for the 100 year event due to shallow depth of cover. An emergency overflow swale along this route would be another alternative, but it is unclear whether there is sufficient depth of cover.

A typical section view of a collector street is required. This should be in graphic format showing pavement and base thickness, subgrade design, etc. In addition, the typical section view shall also include the asphaltic concrete type as specified in Section 2205 of the Design and Construction Manual. This shall apply to all typical section views, whether collector or residential.

Sheet 47 is blank and thus not reviewed.

Sheet 45 title has strikeovers rendering the drawing illegible. Please revise.

Detention basin detail sheet was missing, along with the outlet structure detail. No review can be conducted until this has been submitted. We would suggest one (1) sheet devoted entirely to the construction of the detention basin, along with all necessary details for its construction.

Detention basin detail sheet(s) shall include the following items: 1) design storage volume, 2) top of dam elevation, 3) design elevations of all weirs and orifices, 4) design 100 year water surface elevation, 5) clogged condition/zero available storage 100 year water surface elevation, and 6) emergency spillway elevation. This information will enable the as-built to be easily reviewed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Substantial Completion. This as-built of the detention basin is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Substantial Completion, and hence is also needed prior to issuance of any building permits.

Asphaltic concrete type shall be specified in the typical section view. Please see the Design and Construction Manual Section 2205 for specific information related to pavement type.

HDPE pipe is not allowed beneath collector streets. Please see Design and Construction Manual for suitable alternatives beneath collector streets, and revise as appropriate. In general, either CPP or RCP shall be used in these instances. This shall apply to Cape Dr. and Bailey Farm Pkwy.

No clear indication of what sidewalks will be constructed with this project. ADA-accessible ramps shall be constructed with the project, along with all sidewalk adjacent to unplatted land or adjacent to common property. Please show what will be constructed by notes, labels, symbols/legend, or combination thereof.

Limits of the stream buffer should be shown on the plans.

Sheet 41 shows what appears to be proposed features for a future project. The lineweight is bold, which typically means the improvements are being constructed with this project. Please reconcile and revise as appropriate for the storm line not to be installed at this time.

For purposes of the east/west stream bisecting the property, the underground storm line shall be designed to manage the 100 year storm event without surcharging. In this instance, the hydraulic grade line for the 100 year event should be at or below the crown of the pipe. Grading should be provided along this alignment for an emergency overflow swale. It is recommended that MBOEs be established along the route of this underground system.

RCP should be specified for the east/west underground system described in the above comment.

Several area inlets are called-out without any corresponding opening information. In accordance with the standard detail, please provide callouts for the number of openings and the orientation as a cardinal direction. Please reconcile.

In all instances where fill is being brought in for storm line installation, please show in graphic format on the profile view the placement and compaction of fill, followed by the installation of the pipe. When pipe is to be installed in embankment or fill, the embankment shall be constructed in accordance with APWA section 2102.6 and shall be built up to a plane at least 18 inches above the top of the pipe prior to the excavation of the pipe trench. Please revise the plans as appropriate to show this on the profile view.

Street Legend: A legend is provided denoting collector and residential streets. However, there are no such symbols used on the plans, and hence, no way to determine what street is a residential or collector. Please revise the plans as appropriate.

In general, MBOEs are not required on all lots. The City has adopted guidance for MBOEs that you may wish to consider. If the upstream drainage area is greater than 1 acre, and the underground system is not capable of managing the 100 year flows without surcharging above the 0.5 foot level beneath the throat of the inlet, an MBOE would be required. There would be other considerations, however, such as large upstream drainage areas, emergency overflow swales, or detention basin 100 year water surface elevations that should be considered when establishing an MBOE for a particular lot. In short, the City has adopted guidance which allows the engineer to provide their best judgment on the placement of MBOEs on the lot(s).

A note should be provided on the plans (preferably the detention basin plan sheet(s) discussed previously) stating the detention basin shall be constructed along with all other erosion and sediment control devices and prior to any infrastructure being constructed.

The Final Stormwater Management Plan dated Nov. 5, 2021 was not reviewed due to a lack of the detention basin plan and outlet structure plan. It is not possible to perform this review without both. Finally, the Final Stormwater Management Plan was not sealed.

Sheet 20 - K Value (sag) at sta. 13+20 and sta. 16+35is too low (37 minimum - Residential Collector).

Sheet 22 - K Value (sag) at sta. 3+68.08 is too low (26 minimum - Residential Local).

Please include signing and temporary traffic control plan.