Lee's Summit

Please review the Engineer's Estimate quantities. Spot checks found many discrepencies between estimate and plans for storm sewer items. Review and revise as needed.

There is no drop across CI 1-9 between Line 5 in and Line 1 out. A 0.5' drop is required. Please revise.

Comments on the Engineer's Estimate will be sent under separate cover.

Paddock Drive: • Include the required grading for the Paddock Drive cul-de-sac. • Will fill be placed within the floodway or just the floodplain? • Show the removal of the temporary portion of the existing cul-de-sac. • Revise the Engineer’s Estimate to account for all of this cul-de-sac work, if not already included.

Sheet C.100: Remove the extraneous Storm Line 7 labels/leaders.

Sheet C.200: Please label the proposed contours just west of Building 33.

Sheet C.201: Please revise the structure elevations so none are in bold for clarity.

Sheets C.301 & C.302: The flowline elevation shown for the Line 5 connection to CI 1-9 is shown differently in the Line 1 and Line 5 Profiles. Please revise.

Sheet C.302: Include the existing water line crossing between CI 5-2 and FES 5-3 in Profile view.

Please include design of the permanent cul-de-sac and removal of the temporary portion of the existing cul-de-sac at the north end of Paddock Drive in this set of plans. Please note that a Floodplain Development Permit will be required if work is proposed within the floodplain. Both the floodplain and floodway shall be located by elevation for confirmation of their locations.

Based on the number and nature of comments, the next review will be a 10-day review.

Sheet C.001: • Please review the Site Improvement Notes, they don’t match the project. • Please use the same terminology throughout the plan set for the stormwater BMP in Tract C (Retention or detention).

Sheet C.100 (First One): • Please provide a legend to clarify the dashed lines and hatched area. Please make this revision to all of the plan sets on this project. • There are extra storm line labels/leaders in the NE section of the site. Please remove. • This sheet and the following sheet are both labeled C.100. Please revise.

Sheet C.200: • Swale information is provided, but no swales are shown on the Grading Plan. Please revise as needed. • Please label contours west of Building 32.

Sheet C.201: • Please label all top of structure elevations and include any 100-year WSE information applicable. Please note that additional review of the grading will be done once storm sewer structure elevations are shown. • Please remove the contours from this sheet.

Sheet C.202: Please revise the drainage area boundary line type for clarity.

Sheets C.203-C.207: • Please include underdrain at low points. • Please review Profile view label and revise overlapping text for clarity. • Why is Neosho Drive shown differently the first 300 feet in Profile view? • Please denote ADA route slope requirements at all stop conditions in Profile view.

Sheets C.301-C.307: • Please show all utility crossings in Profile view. • Storm Line 1 between CI 1-6 & 1-7 does not meet horizontal separation requirements with the water line. Please revise. • The Storm Line 5 FL In (W) is incorrect at CI 1-9 in Profile view. Please revise. • Please revise the compacted fill hatching in Profile views to something that provides more clarity. The hatching used covers up too much. • Many storm sewer structure tops are not shown meeting proposed grade. Please review all Profile views and revise as needed. • Please revise the alignment at FI 9-1 to make it a minimum 90 degree bend. • Please confirm that the storm sewer for the collector has been designed for the 2% event. • HDPE is not allowed under collector roadways. Please revise storm sewer as needed.

Sheet C.205 - Horizontal curves along Kirksville Dr. (Sta. 7+85, 9+15, & 11+60) are too tight (min. 200').

Sheet C.206 - Horizontal curve along Napoleon Dr. (Sta. 15+15) is too tight (min. 200').

Please provide a request for payment in lieu of construction for the sidewalk around the cul-de-sac on the south side of the property (Paddock Dr.).

Please submit an Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Costs.

SHEET C.001 – Please provide updated items and quantities.

SHEETS C.203 – C.207 – At the bottom of the profiles, consider showing proposed ground elevations.

SHEET Exhibit – In reviewing the macro drainage report, Exhibit I shows additional useful information for the outlet structures and a detail for the trash guard. Please include that information on this sheet.

SHEET C.300 – It appears that the labels for storm line 11 are in reverse as compared to sheet C.306. It appears that they are also switched in the inlet/pipe calcs.

SHEETS C.301 – C.307 – Please show proposed water in the storm profiles.

SHEET C.302 – Looking at storm line 5, at roughly STA 2+00 the proposed grade just stops. Please show the proposed grade tying into existing ground.

SHEET C.302 – Looking at storm line 5, it appears that the flowline elevation at FES 5-1 is too low to work with the elevation of the existing outer road.

SHEET C.303 – Looking at storm line 6, please show the proposed grade tying into the top of FES 6-1.

SHEET C.304 – It appears that proposed grade does not meet up with the top of the proposed field inlets along the profile.

SHEET C.304 – Comparing the back, corner lot elevations shown on sheet C.201, for buildings 8, 7, 6, 5, and 4 to the top of structure elevations for the field inlets, it appears that the inlets are sitting too high. In particular, the throat of FI 7-3 is 972.50 as compared an elevation of 969.05 for the corner of the lot for building 7. Additionally, given the elevation of the pipe, it does not appear that the inlet top can be lowered enough to obtain positive drainage. Please be aware that it will be necessary to check all field inlets throughout the development and ensure that they are sitting low enough to accommodate positive drainage from the homes.

Please provide coordination and approval from the State for all work within the outer road R/W.

Please provide typical sections.

Sheet C.204 - Neosho Drive Sta. 0+78.97 - sag curve K-Value too low (Min. 37).

Please provide horizontal curve data.