Lee's Summit

DE Engineers Estimate

The Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Costs has been accepted for this project, and the Engineering Plan Review and Inspection Fee (which is calculated as 3% of the total infrastructure cost plus a water test inspection fee(s)), and the water tap and meter setup fee have been included. These must be paid prior to the issuance of an infrastructure permit and/or the final processing of a building permit. $140,026.79

DE Commercial Detention Basin

The applicant shall submit and the City shall accept an “As-built / As-graded” detention basin plan prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the proposed development.

DE Contact Field Eng. Inspector

Prior to the commencement of any construction activities, the Contractor shall contact Field Engineering Inspections at (816) 969-1200 to coordinate a preconstruction meeting / conference with the assigned Field Engineering Inspector.

DE Future Repair Work

Please be aware that any future repair work to public infrastructure (e.g., water main repair, sanitary sewer repair, storm sewer repair, etc.) within public easements will not necessarily include the repair of pavement, curbing, landscaping, or other private improvements which are located within the easement.

Misc.

An elevation certificate(s) shall be submitted and approved prior to commencement of constructing any residential building on the project. Individual elevation certificates for each habitable building are required.

DE Contact ROW Inspector

Prior to any activities within the right-of-way that are not directly associated with a specific infrastructure or building permit, a separate right-of-way permit may be required. Contact a Right-of-Way Inspector at (816) 969-1800 to obtain the required permit.

Fire Lanes - Marking

IFC 503.3 - Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words NO PARKING—FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility.

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 2012 International Fire Code.

The waiver for the detention basin setback requirement for the 100 year clogged condition has been approved. Please see previous applicant letter for outstanding items to be corrected or revised.

For the trash enclosure a Portland cement concrete approach 30 feet in length, measured from the enclosure opening is required. The pad and approach shall be improved with a minimum six inches of full depth unreinforced Portland cement concrete constructed on a sub-grade of four inches of granular base course. As show you are only providing an approach of 8’. Also, to empty these types of trash containers the trucks servicing them need to be able to back straight to them. Given the close proximity of the adjacent parking stalls across from the trash enclosure, will the proposed layout work with the trash truck’s turning movements?

Miscellaneous Correction

Inadequate information to complete review. Provide the following: - Water pipe sizes and materials - Size of water meter(s) 5/5/22 - Pipe materials not found. Each building must be metered separately. Provide flow calculations to justify any meter over 2". Also, any meter over 2" must be coordinated and approved by Water Department.

Please refer to comment 16 in previous applicant letter. The dimensions are shown from the 100 year nominal event to the property lines and building, but the 100 year water surface elevation for the clogged condition/zero available storage was not shown. It would appear the 20 foot minimum setback will not be achieved. Please review, revise, and provide a re-design as appropriate to ensure the 20 foot setback requirement is achieved for the 100 year clogged/zero available storage event.

Please refer to comment 31 in previous applicant letter. The method of draining the backflow vault shall be permanent, not temporary. Please review and revise as necessary.

Please refer to comment 39 in previous applicant letter. There are 3 instances of what appear to be water meters within drive aisles and medians (water meter symbology is not defined nor labeled, so making the assumption). This is not allowed. In addition, water meters shall be labeled or a symbol shall be noted in a legend. In general, all water meters shall be located as close to the buildings to be served as possible, and outside any drive aisles, parking stalls, medians, enclosed areas, inaccessible locations, within landscaped areas, or fire lanes. It shall be accessible to Water Utilities staff without undue work to access the water meter. Please review and revise as appropriate.

Curb inlets 235, 225, and 220 appear to be surcharging during the 100 year event. Surcharging in this instance shall be defined as being 6 inches or less from the throat of the inlet, and in these cases, are surcharging partially out of the inlet. Although this may be acceptable for the 100 year event, the finish floor elevation for the adjacent building shall be a minimum of 2.0 feet above the 100 year water surface that is surcharging out of the inlets. It appears the building in question is set at a finish floor elevation of 1005.0. Using the 100 year water surface elevation for these inlets, the following actions shall be taken: 1) re-design the storm system so the 100 year HGL is a minimum of 6 inches below the throat of the inlet, 2) raise the building finish floor elevation, 3) a combination thereof. Please review and revise as necessary.

In all instances where a domestic water service is proposed on the utility sheet, please provide a reference to the standard water meter detail for all domestic service line connectons on Sheet C605. This shall include all copper line requirements as noted on the standard detail, along with all other items noted on the standard detail.

Elevation Certificate review process in progess.

An Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs should accompany your final submittal drawings. Items to include on the cost estimate should exclude the buildings, lighting, landscaping, or other items not reviewed and inspected by Development Services Engineering and Inspections.

Fire Lanes - Marking

IFC 503.3 - Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words NO PARKING—FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. Action required- Provide fire lane marking.

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.

Please refer to comment #28 in the previous applicant letter. A SWPPP was requested and received in the resubmittal package. It was missing key items, however, and is insufficient for this particular site. Please visit https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/sw_swppp_guide.pdf for a guide to prepare an adequate SWPPP.

The SWPPP did not discuss the temporary sediment basin, and shall be included within same. It shall also discuss the measures to be taken to remove silt as it accumulates, and final restoration of the sediment basin to a permanent stormwater management facility.

The SWPPP discussed endangered species without specifically stating what measures would be taken if endangered species (i.e., bats?) are enountered during tree removal. These shall be discussed within the report, including who and when to report the encounter. You will be responsible for determining who and when to report these encounters. For purposes of the City, we are primarily concerned with dislocation of these species to attics or other areas in close proximity to humans and adjacent homeowners, and possible rabies transmission that has occurred in Texas over the past 2 years due to lax enforcement of new developments.

A schedule of inspection appeared to be missing from the SWPPP showing dates of inspection, what was done during the inspection, who performed the inspection, and any notes concerning the inspection such as corrective action taken. This shall be required of the SWPPP, and revisions are warranted.

The SWPPP includes a list of attachments which were not included. Please include any attachements within the SWPPP.

If requested, the City can provide an example of an acceptable SWPPP from a different project with similar scope. Please let me know if this is needed.

Please see comment #8 in previous applicant letter. Pavement section for standard parking aisles does not comply with the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Article 8 "Parking" in terms of asphalt thickness, aggregate base, or subgrade stabilization either by chemical treatment or by use of geogrid. For vehicle parking aisles and drive aisles not designed for heavy vehicles, the minimum is 1.5 inch surface course over 4 inch base course, over 6 inch granular base over geogrid or chemically-stabilized subgrade compacted to 95% proctor. For fire lanes and truck access, the minimum requirements are the same, except the base course asphaltic concrete is 5 inches rather than 4 inches. The City Engineer may consider a different design if it can be shown that your design is equal to or better than the standard design described in the UDO. This is contiingent upon a geotechnical report using parameters established by the City Engineer.

The "Geotechnical Exploration and Subgrade Recommendations" Feb. 2021 did not include the parameters needed by the City Engineer to review your request. I had asked whether you wanted to review those parameters in comment #8 within the last applicant letter, but no such request was received. The parameters shall be transmitted to you separately from this applicant letter.

Sheet C601: The 4 inch orifice elevaton flowline does not match the stormwater report dated Apr. 21, 2022 pond setup sheet within the appendix. Appendix shows 995.0, but the plans show 994.85. Please re-run the calculations, reconcile, review, and revise as appropriate.

Sheet C601: The 33 inch rectangluar weir is easily confused with 38 inches. Please move the 33 inch dimension so it is not obscurred by the centerline.

Sheet C601: The open top weir on the outlet structure elevation does not match what is shown in the stormwater report dated Apr. 21, 2022. The plans show 1001.31, but the stormwater report shows 1001.0. Please review and revise as appropriate, including a re-run of any routing calculations and a recalculation of the emergency flow conditions within the emergency spillway.

Sheet C601: The rock ditch check detail is being used at the end of the pipe near the discharge to the creek. There are doubts this will be effective in managing the energy from stormwater discharge at this point. Wouldn't a depressed area (i.e., a stilling basin) within the rip rap be more appropriate and more robust? As shown, this feature will likely be washed-away within a year.

Sheet C601: Font size is too small to read for top of berm, spillway elevation, peak 100 year WSEL, and spillway elevation. Please enlarge these labels.

Sheet C601: Spillway is called-out in upper right hand corner inset view, but this is referring to the emergency spillway. It is not utilized for anything other than clogging of primary outlet works or peak flows in excess of the 100 year event. Please relabel as "Emergency Spillway".

Sheet C601: Please refer to previous applicant letter. Comment #12 requested the dimensions from the property lines and buildings to ensure the 20 foot setback is maintained from the respective 100 year water surface elevations. Please review this comment, and revise as appropriate.

Sheet C601: Please refer to comment #12 in the previous applicant letter. No design storage volumes were shown on the plans for the 2, 10, or 100 year event or the water quality event. This is needed because prior to occuapancy, there will be a rush to have the as-graded and as-built detention basin approved. Without a clear set of construction plans with this information on Sheet C601, there will be considerable delay in issuing the occupancy permit. Please include this information so the future review of the as-built detention basin plan can be made in a timely fashion.

Sheet C601: The entire detention basin shall be shown on the detail, not just the northwest portion of the basin. Please revise as appropriate.

Sheet C601: The outlet structure is shown in the plan view as a "Lee's Summit Standard 24 inch Sewer Manhole". This is not a manhole. It is a box. Please revise as appropriate.

Sheet C601: No construction details are provided on the outlet structure, other than showing a box. Need steel reinforcement, thickness, frame and lids, internal steps and internal step locations, and any other information necessary to construct or pre-fabricate the box.

Rip rap is shown abruptly ending in a skew. It would appear the rip rap needs to be extended to the property line at a minimum

Storm line exiting the detention basin appears to be missing a profile view. This shall be required, and shall be laid at a slope appropriate for the energy dissipation method used.

Sheet C601: Design allowable release rate and design proposed release rates for the 2, 10, and 100 year events should be placed on this sheet. This is required since it is possible the basin will not be built to plan, and it is possible a re-run of the calculations shall be required prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Placing this information on Sheet C601 will help facilitate a timely review.

Please refer to comment #13 within the previous applicant letter (comment related to the note about submittal and acceptance by the City of an as-graded and as-built detention basin prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, and possible re-run or modification to the basin if release rates and/or storage volumes are not within tolerance). No notation was shown on Sheet C601, despite the response to comments stating that it had been placed on Sheet C601.

Sheet C200: Please refer to the previous applicant letter comment #18. Despite the response to comments stating this comment had been addressed on Sheet C200, I am seeing no such update. A clear distinction shall be made on the paving of the parking lot, in particular, fire or truck access paving, versus drive aisle/parking stall paving. Please be aware the City makes no differentiation between parking stalls and drive aisles in terms of pavement design under the UDO. If no such notation is made, the assumption will be all paving meeting the heavier-duty standard for fire truck and heavy truck access.

Two (2) 8 inch water meters are being proposed for this project, each near Chipman Rd. at the backflow vaults. These meters are costly, and want to ensure this was taken into account. Meter setup and tap fees are nearly $800,000 for both meters, and require the design and construction of a special 8 inch meter vault at the developer's expense (which has not yet been completed). Although this is acceptable, I wanted to make you aware of the cost and the need for additional engineering to design an 8 inch vault box for the water meter, as this is a special design that is not available off-the-shelf. The other option is to meter each building individually with a public water meter, but this will require payment of meter and setup fees for each meter albeit at a much lower cost. Just for reference, a 1 inch meter is about $10,300 for tap fees and meter setup fees including the pit, and a 2 inch meter is about $42,000 for meter setup and tap fees including the pit. Please consider the ramifications of each decision. If you decide to meter as shown, this will add $800,000+ to the cost for meter setup, tap fees, and special vault. If you decide to meter with public water meters internally, the location of these meters shall be shown internally, and individual tap fees and meter setup fees will apply. Please revise as appropriate.

Please refer to the previous applicant letter comment #22. If using ductile iron pipe, it shall be zinc-coated. No such update was included on the plans regarding this requirement. Please revise, or alternatively, remove the ductile iron pipe option.

Please refer to the previous applicant letter comment 26. The fire hydrant was moved, but the private water line is still within the easement. Also, the private fire hydrant connection point to the private water line is within the easement. Please revise.

Please refer to the previous applicant letter comment #43. Despite the response to comments stating the outlet pipe was included on Sheet C601, no such profile exists for the outlet pipe to the creek. Please provide the profile view for this pipe.

Please see previous applicant letter. Despite the response to comments stating otherwise, the plans did not appear to show how the backflow vaults will be drained. How will the backflow vaults be drained? A method of draining the two (2) backflow vaults shall be shown on the plan view for the fire line, and shall specify how this will be achieved (i.e., daylighting, sump pump, connection to a storm box, or construction of an infliltration gallery). Please revise as appropriate.

Several private sanitary sewer callouts show tees rather than wyes. The City does not allow tees for private sanitary sewer connections. Please revise.

Please see previous applicant letter comment #57. A trenching and backfill detail was requested, but was not included. Please ensure the new standard of 12 inch aggregate over top of pipe is shown.

Please refer to previous applicant letter comment #58. Notes were added, but no details were provided anywhere in the plan set. Please provide details in the plan set for these drainage structures, and please show callouts on the plan view with sufficient notation specifying where they are located within the plan set.

Please refer to previous applicant letter comment #60. It did not appear that a toe wall detail was included in the plans. Please provide a toe wall detail as requested.

Sheet 200: The 100 year water surface elevation within the detention basin contradicts what is shown elsewhere within the plans and the stormwater report. Please reconcile.

Please refer to previous applicant letter comment #64. I did not see anywhere within the plans where the backflow vault method of draining was shown on Sheet C400, or anywhere else in the plans. Please show how the backflow vaults will drain using either of the methods discussed previously.

Stormwater Report dated Apr. 12, 2022: The appendix is missing key items, such as the: 1) inflow hydrographs for all design storms, 2) routing curves for all design storms with time plotted as the abscissa and the cumultive inflow volume, cumulative discharge, stage elevation, and cumulative storage plotted as the ordinate.

Sheet C400: Please provide callouts on the private domestic service lines from the private main to the individual buildings. If metering each building internally, show the location of the internal "public" water meter on Sheet C400. The location of all internal public water meters (if choosing to go with this method) shall be accessible to Water Utilities personnel and not within parking stalls, drive aisles, or fire lanes.

Elevation certificate shall be required for all habitable structures, and is currently in review.

Miscellaneous Correction

Inadequate information to complete review. Provide the following: - Water pipe sizes and materials - Size of water meter(s) 5/5/22 - Pipe materials not found. Each building must be metered separately. Provide flow calculations to justify any meter over 2". Also, any meter over 2" must be coordinated and approved by Water Department.

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 2012 International Fire Code.

FDC

IFC 903.3.7 - Fire department connections. The location of fire department connections shall be approved by the fire code official. Connections shall be a 4 inch Storz type fitting and located within 100 feet of a fire hydrant, or as approved by the code official. Action required- Show the location of the FDC's on all of the buildings and the hydrant within 100-feet.

Fire Lanes - Marking

IFC 503.3 - Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words NO PARKING—FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. Action required- The cul-de-sac shall be posted "Fire Lane- No Parking" .

Knox Locks

IFC 506.1 - Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving or fire-fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The key box shall be of an approved type listed in accordance with UL 1037, and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. 506.1.1 Locks. An approved lock shall be installed on gates or similar barriers when required by the fire code official. Action required- A Knox padlock shall be provided on the gate and a Knox box on each of the buildings.

Miscellaneous Correction

D105.1 Where required. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet (9144 mm), approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. D105.2 Width. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. D105.3 Proximity to building. One or more of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located not less than 15 feet (4572 mm) and not greater than 30 feet (9144 mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Action required- Fire access lanes for buildings greater than 30 feet in height shall be 26 feet wide (drivable surface).

Imposed Loads

IFC 503.2.3 - Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Action required- Fire lanes shall be capable of carrying the weight of fire apparatus (75,000-pounds). Provide a pavement detail.

Miscellaneous Correction

Inadequate information to complete review. Provide the following: - Water pipe sizes and materials - Size of water meter(s)

The base flood elevation appears incorrect. Although your LOMA allowed a lower BFE, your HEC-RAS study from last summer showed a BFE of 1000.9. This was also discussed in staff letter to Planning Commission for the BFE. The plans shall be revised to show horizontal extent of floodplain in relation to this elevation. As shown, your floodplain limits are based on what appears to be an incorrect BFE, and the horizontal limits of the floodplain are too narrow. The main concern is overtoppinng of a levy that is questionable in terms of long term viability and design. This levy was neither permitted by USACE, and does not appear to have been built to any design standard. Please revise, matching the 1000.9 elevation to the existing contours.

Stream buffers missing on the overall grading plan (it was shown on the detailed view, but should also be shown on the overall view). Please show the location of stream buffers on the overall gradinig plan.

Floodplain Development Permit is required for any work within the floodplain. It appears some grading and consruction is proposed within the floodplain, but it is not clear at the moment since the horizontal extent of the floodplain has not been correctly identified. Please see comment 1 for more details.

Elevation Certificate shall be obtained. Please follow City requirements for submittal of this document. There shall be multiple submittals of this document during the construction process to ensure foundations are not poured prior to review of the Elevation Certificate.

Provide BFE in accordance with HEC-RAS study at the detention basin. WSE for 2, 10, and 100 year event are needed at this location (i.e., the detention basin). The storage below these WSEs shall be subtracted from the available storage of the basin due to hydraulic communication between the discharge pipe of the basin, and the creek.

Stream buffer shall be shown in relation to: 1) overall grading plan, 2) detention basin plan, and 3) general site plans. Please revise as appropriate.

LOMA language shall be revised to state "The City of Lee's Summit has adopted the more strigent base flood elevaton of 1000.9 analyzed in the HEC-RAS study [cite the actual name of the report, who prepared the report, and the date of the report]". This is due to the questionable nature of the levy at the northwest corner of the project. Without knowing whether this levy was constructed to an acceptable design standard at the time, there is no way of knowing whether the area behind this levy is outside the floodplain. Since this project should be designed using conservative approach in regard to floodplain issues, the floodplain should be shown at the higher BFE of 1000.9. Please revise.

Pavement section was not provided. Please be aware the pavement section described in the geotechnical report does not meet City standards, and if utilized for an alternative design to the standard design shown in the Unified Developement Ordiance (UDO), specific design parameters are required. If this is desired, please contact me for these design parameters, such as the 20 year design life, etc.

Public improvement plans are shown within the Final Development Plan. These are public improvements and require a separate review. Currently, I am showing a review under PL2021416 under "Public Sreet Improvements Summit Point Phase 2", and we were awaiting a response to comment letter and a resubmittal. Submittal of public infrastructure plans within a Final Development Plan is not allowed in this instance, and submittal under the PL2021416 review number is required. No further review of the public street plans was performed at this time.

Comments were sent on Dec. 9, 2021 on the public road improvements project. No resubmittal has been received as of this date. This is under application PL2021416.

A separate sheet(s) is required for the detention basin, the outlet structure, and the outfall from the detention basin. Since this separate sheet(s) was not provided, no further review of the stormwater report was conducted in relation to the detention basin design since this is required to determine whether the detention basin meets the design contained within the report.

The separate sheet(s) discussed in the above comment shall require the following items: 1) top of dam elelvation, 2) emergency spillway elevation, 3) 100 year water surface elevation for the nominal and clogged/zero available storage in numeric and graphic format, with setback dimensions from property lines and buildings shown (i.e., 20 foot minimum setback is required from the clogged/zero available storage condition), 4) section view of the emergency spillway, 5) section view of the dam, including a minimum 3 foot flat area on top of dam, 6) 100 year water surface elevation in relation to the emergency spillway, including the minimum 0.5 feet of freeboard, 7) 100 year water surface elevation in relation to the top of dam, including the minimum 1.0 feet freeboard, 8) a note stating the detention basin shall be constructed first, along with other erosion and control measures, 9) elevation callouts on the grading contours within the basin at key intervals, 10) design storage volume for the 90 percent, 2, 10, and 100 year event, 11) design allowable release rate for the 2, 10, and 100 year events, 12) design discharge for the 2, 10, and 100 year event, 13) elevation of all weirs and orifices used in the outlet structure, to match what is shown in the stormwater report pond setup table, 14) slope callouts on the bottom of the detention basin which also match the contour elevations shown on the detention basin grading plan, 15) design of trash guards, 16) design of the outfall discharge to the creek, including all design calculations.

A note shall be placed on the detention basin sheet(s) stating that an as-graded and as-built plan shall be submitted to the City and accepted by the City prior to occupancy. If the as-graded plan or as-built plan differs from the proposed plan, it may require revisions to the design and/or the stormwater report.

Sheet C200: As previously discussed in this comment leter, the extent of the floodplain is incorrect. It is based on an incorrect base flood elevation. The base flood elevation to be used to construct the limits of the floodplain shall be 1000.9 as indicated by your HEC-RAS study. Please revise the limits of the floodplain to match the 1000.9 elevation.

Sheet C200: This sheet is incomplete in terms of showing the detention basin. A note is pointing to a blank area, and there is a diagonal feature shown within the blank space. At a minimum, sufficient details shall be shown for the basin, including proposed grading or an outline of the basin or both, along with the proposed outfall location from the basin. Revise as appropriate.

Sheet C200: Overstrike errors exist on this sheet for the "stream setback" callouts. Ensure these callouts are legible and not overstriking other features. Correct as necessary.

General Comment Concerning the Plan Set: Proposed improvements are difficult to determine based on linewidths that are similar to existing features. Recommend lightening the existing features to a lineweight which makes reading the plans easier. As shown, these plans are difficult to read, and will be even more difficult to read in the field. Please revise the lineweights on all sheets.

Sheet C200: There was no designation on this sheet regarding what type of pavement design is being utilized for the parking lot, nor any reference to a typical pavement section to be shown elsewhere in the plan set. Provide callouts of the pavement type on this sheet or elsewhere within the plan set, with specific callouts referencing a typical detail section view of the pavement design using standard drafting notation.

Sheet C200: A note shall be provided for public street improvements (i.e., the separate public infrastructure plans) to be constructed by others, and referencing the separate plans. Revise as appropriate.

Sheet C200: The legend is missing: 1) stream buffer callout and linetype, 2) regulatory floodplain and linetype.

Sheet C400: Two (2) water meters appear to be shown without any sizing. Please provide the size of the meter.

Sheet C407: Why is ductile iron pipe being proposed for the private line? If using DIP, it shall be zinc-coated as per City of Lee's Summit specifications. Otherwise, recommend CIP.

Sheet C407: Label the profile view as "PRIVATE".

Note Concerning All Stormwater Profile Views: The hydraulic grade line for the design storm shall be shown on the profile view.

Sheet C406: Please label the profile view as "PRIVATE".

All utility sheets: The private fire hydrant shown near the cul-de-sac bulb in the northeastern portion of the project appears to be shown within an easement or right of way. This private fire hydrant shall be moved outside the limits of right of way or public easements. Please revise.

Erosion Control Plan: Why is the detention basin not being utilized as a sediment basin? It appears this basin should be utilized as a sediment basin, and a site-specific design is required showing the location of faircloth skimmer or other devices. Please analyze, and revise as appropriate.

A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this project. It was missing from the submittal package.

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: This plan is incomplete for the following reasons: 1) no phasing chart or phasing schedule was provided, 2) no sediment basin design, 3) no notes concerning the requirement that the detention basin/sediment basin be constructed before any improvements are constructed, 4) no construction entrance was shown, 5) only a perimeter silt fence was shown, while it would apepar interior silt fence is also necessary. Please review and revise as appropriate.

Grading Plan and Parking Lot Details: The ADA-accessible spaces within the parking lot did not show sufficient detail for review. Elevation callouts are insufficient to review the slope requirements. Slope callouts are required in the vicinity of all ADA-accessible parking spaces. Please review and revise as appropriate.

Sheet C302: Grading along the detention basin may create an adverse impact to adjoining property to the east. Sufficient detailing of the swale being created, along with design calculations, are required for this drainage feature. Please review and revise as appropriate.

Sheet C302: A swale detail with dimensions, slope callouts, cross-sections at selected intervals, etc. is warranted for the swale described above.

Sheet C302: The grading to the east of building A2-1 will create an adverse impact to the property to the east. Although the grading plan was close to what is required, a swale appears warranted. The problem is the swale has been forced upon the adjacent property owner, which is not allowed unless a specific agreement is reached with adjacent property owner. Please correct.

Modular block retaining walls are called-out throughout the project. All retaining walls greater than 42 inches in height (including footer) shall be designed by a registered design professional in the State of Missouri. This shall be required prior to construction of these features, but shall not necessarily delay approval of the Final Development Plan.

Sheet C400: The detention basin outlet to the creek is significantly different than shown on the Preliminary Development Plan. As discussed during review of the Preliminary Development Plan, this outfall to the creek has the potential to affect adjacent property owners. Although difficult to determine from this drawing, it would appear this design is substandard and shall create a negative impact to the adjacent property owner. Recommend review of the Preliminary Development Plan and pursuing a concept that is in line with that preliminary design rather than simple rip rap at the end of pipe. Analyze, review, and revise as appropriate, and please be aware a separate sheet(s) shall be required for the detention basin and outlet structure/emergency spillway.

There are numerous instances throughout the plan set with callouts to sheets that do not exist. For instance, Sheet C402 includes a note at the outlet structure stating "see detail sheet C". No such sheet exists. Review these instances and correct.

A different method of energy dissipation at the discharge point of the detention basin is likely required. Rip rap is likely not going to be sufficient due to the proximity to the adjacent property. Recommend alternative designs which reduce the energy of flows up to and including the 100 year event to sub-critical flow. There are numerous design options available, and the engineer shall explore different methods. One particular concept design was shown on the Preliminary Development Plan, and it would appear a stilling basin could be constructed at the end of this discharge, along with rip rap towards the property line. Please review, analyze, and revise as appropriate, and please be aware the specific details of design shall be shown on the separate detention basin sheet(s).

The concrete trickle channel is not allowed in the City of Lee's Summit without a design waiver. Is a french drain more appropriate for this application? Are there issues with achieving the necessary storage volume? A 0.5% slope appears very low, and would appear too small to function correctly. Please review and revise as appropriate.

Assuming that no internal sub-mters are being proposed? It appears two (2) master meters (unlabeled as to size) are serving this development, which is acceptable. However, please note that any sub-meters installed within the boundary of the project shall be at the expense of the developer and shall be maintained by the developer. The City shall not read this meters or maintain these meters in any way. Please review and if appropriate, show the locations of any private sub-meters within the interior of the project.

It is difficult to determine whether the backflow vaults along Chipman Rd. are outside any public easement or right of way due to the lack of linework showing these features. Please show the right of way and easements along Chipman Rd. to ascertain whether the backflow vault encroaches into these areas. Ensusre the backflow vault is outside the limits of these areas, with the exception of the gate valve just prior to the backflow vault. The gate valve denotes the end of the public line, and is allowed to encroach within the easement or right of way, but the actual backflow vaults shall be outside these limits. Please revise as appropriate.

General Comment Concerning Stream Setback: The stream setback (i.e., stream buffer) shall be denoted with a bold line on all sheets. As presented, it is very light, as well as the labeling. It is difficult to see, and may be missed during construction.

General Comment Concerning Stream Buffer: A note shall be provided on all sheets with the stream buffer shown that "no grading or development activities allowed within the limits of the stream buffer, except as shown for the detention basin", or equivalent language.

Profile view of Line 1 (storm line exiting the detention basin) was not provided. It should be part of the detention basin plan sheet(s) discussed earlier in this comment letter. Please review and revise as appropriate.

All profile views of storm lines, water lines, and sanitary sewer lines shall be noted as "PRIVATE" across the top of the profile view. This enables quick transfer of the private utilities to the City GIS system. Please revise as appropriate.

Sheet C700: Parking lot detailing was incomplete for the clubhouse. Please see previous comments related to slope callouts and elevation callouts for ADA-accessible spaces. Revise as appropriate.

Curb and gutter section view is required for the Final Development Plan parking lot. It shall show the subgrade being extended a minimum of 12 inches beyond the back of curb.

C1001: Although a part of the public street improvement project, the section view of the curb and gutter shown at the bottom of this page is typical of what I would expect for the parking lot curb and gutter detail. It can also serve as a pavement typical section view for the parking lot. The only exception is the curb type, which shall be straight back curb and gutter. Please review and revise as appropriate.

Sheet C405: Missing north arrow.

Sheet C406: Missing north arrow.

Sheet C405: A portion of Line 1 is shown "to be abandoned". How will this line be abandoned? Will the line be removed? Please review the City's Design and Construction Manual for acceptable methods of abandoning a sanitary sewer line. Revise the plans with detailed notes and/or drawings showing the work to be completed.

Sheet C405: Doghouse manhole is proposed at one location west of building A2-3 . Doghouse manholes are not allowed on public or private lines. Please revise, and provide sufficient notes showing acceptable alternatives to doghouse manholes. Pumping around appears to be the only suitable alternative in this case.

Sheet C405: There are two (2) instances of "manhole 1 line 1" on this sheet. Please review and eliminate any discrepancies in manhole numbering and/or labeling. Revise as appropriate.

Sheet C405: The eastern manhole 1 may need to be removed and replaced. It is unclear whether the manhole can be re-used with the angle of entry. Please review and revise as appropriate.

Sheet C406: Manhole 5 on line 2 is shown as a doghouse manhole. Please see previous comments related to doghouse manholes not being allowed on public or private lines. Please add sufficient details so there is no confusion on this issue, as the City shall not allow doghouse manholes. Please revise.

Sheet C406: Manhole 5 line 2 is shown within the stream buffer. What is the extent of tree removal that shall take place during the installation of this private sanitary sewer line? Please show on the plans.

A trenching and backfill detail was missing for the sanitary sewer line, the water and fire line, and the storm lines. Please ensure the new standard of 12 inch aggregate is shown over the top of pipe. This standard changed in July 2020.

Pre-cast curb inlets are called-out with no corresponding detail or reference on the plans to what is being installed. Please use standard drafting standards to show: 1) what is being installed and where, 2) the sheet number of the detail, and 3) the detail number. Please revise as appropriate.

Nyloplast inlets are being called-out with no corresponding details. Please see above comment and revise as appropriate.

Flared end section detail showing the toe wall was not shown. Please show in the detail section.

Sanitary sewer manhole detail was missing. Please use the City of Lee's Summit standard drawings, and insert as appropriate.

Gate valve detail was missing. Please add the standard detail in the detail section.

Backflow vault detail was missing. Please insert the City standard drawing for backflow vault.

Please show the method that is being proposed to drain the sump within the backflow vault. It can drain via: 1) gravity to daylight, or 2) installation of an infiltration gallery. Review and revise as appropriate, and show on the plan view what is being installed and where.

Fire hydrant standard details were missing. Please provide.

Thrust block standard details were missing. Please provide.

Straddle block details were missing. Please provide.

Water meter standard detail was missing. Please provide.

Wye connection standard detail was missing. Please provide.

There are instances where Nyloplast inlets may not be appropriate due to longevity issues. Recommend looking at the City standard curb inlet/junction boxes for larger applications. Please evaluate and revise as appropriate.

Please ensure that the 100 year WSE for the nominal and clogged event is taken into account when preparing the profile view for Line 2. This will affect upstream HGL calculations since the pipe will be flowing full. Please evaluate, and please provide the HGL on the profile view for the design storm event. In the case of Line 2, the design event shall be the 100 year clogged condition/zero available storage event.

Sheet C400: A gate valve is required just prior to the backflow vault, near the public water main. This point denotes the end of the public service. Please revise as appropriate.

Standard detail for manhole frame and lid was not provided. Please add to the details section.

General Comment: Many of the sheets in the plan set include an unidentified dashed line on the west side of the project in close proximity to the stream buffer line. What does this line denote? Please identify, or remove as appropriate.

Sheet C400: Please thoroughly review this sheet. Private domestic water lines to serve buildings are missing in some instances, while some private sanitary sewer lines are not shown connecting the buildings. In one case, the private santiary sewer is shown connecting to a curb inlet. In another case, a callout is provided stating to connect to water, but a sanitary sewer is shown as the connection point. Please review and revise as appropriate. No further review of this sheet was performed due to QA/QC issues.

A landscaping plan showing the location of City-owned utilities in relation to landscaping was not provided. No review was completed.

The "Final Stormwater Drainage Study" dated Feb. 2, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as "the stormwater report") includes within the appendix a drawing Sheet C600 which was not included within the plan set. No further review of this sheet was conducted due to the incomplete nature of the detention basin outlet structure. See previous comments related to the required detention basin details sheet(s). It will also require the design of a suitable trash guard to mitigate clogging issues.

There is concern that a 42 inch pipe is discharging into the detention basin, but a 36 inch pipe is exiting the basin. Please ensure the 36 inch pipe is able to manage up to and including the 100 year event without utilizing the emeregency spillway. The emergency spillway shall only be designed to be utilized in the event of a storm in excess of the 100 year event, or clogging of the primary outlet structure.

The stormwater report presents Sheet C600 within the appendix (not included within the plan set). This sheet shows simple rip rap (unlabeled, so making the assumption). Please see previous comments related to this issue. Suitable energy dissipation measures may need to go above and beyond simple rip rap. This was discussed during the Preliminary Development Plan, and the City was assured the final design would incorporate features that addressed this issue. In particular, please see the Preliminarly Development Plan for a geometric concept of a spillway design that appeared acceptable, subject to final design and detailing. It appears the proposed design in the latest Final Development Plan has abandoned this concept in favor of an inferior product. Please review and revise as appropriate.

The erosion and sediment control plan was missing a final restoration plan.

A signed and sealed Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs is required prior to formal approval of the Final Delelopment Plan. This estimate shall include all site work necessary to construct the project, including public or private infrastructure such as parking lots, sanitary sewer, water lines, stormwater, and erosion and sediment control and final restoration.

Please provide details for the material to be used in all proposed retaining walls.

Please provide the manufacturer’s specification sheets for proposed exterior lighting to include both parking lot pole mounted and wall mounted fixtures. The specification sheets shall indicate the exact fixture to be used.

All vehicle parking lot areas and access drives in all zoning districts shall have a boundary constructed of straight-back Portland cement concrete curbing (CG-1) or an integral Portland cement concrete sidewalk and curb with a vertical face. Please proved the standard details for the proposed curbing type.

All accessible parking shall comply with the requirements of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Please provide details on the signage and parking lot markings for ADA stalls.

Please provide slope callouts and elevation callouts for ADA-accessible routes from the parking stalls to the building they are serving.

All exterior trash storage containers shall be screened so that they are not visible from off the property. Please provide details for the proposed trash enclosure screening.

Please provide the required photometric diagram indicating the foot candle levels throughout the site and at the property lines. The maximum maintained vertical footcandle at an adjoining residential property line shall be 0.5 footcandles, measured at three feet above the grade.

All light fixtures on properties within or adjoining residential uses and/or districts shall not exceed 15 feet in height within the perimeter area. For purpose of this standard, the perimeter area shall be measured 100 feet from the property line closest to the residential use and/or district. Outside the perimeter area, the overall height may be increased to 20 feet, measured to the top of the fixture from grade. Please provide details on the light pole, including height, to be used.

Trash enclosure areas shall be improved with a Portland cement concrete pad and a Portland cement concrete approach 30 feet in length, measured from the enclosure opening. The pad and approach shall be improved with a minimum six inches of full depth unreinforced Portland cement concrete constructed on a sub-grade of four inches of granular base course.

Designated fire lanes, delivery/freight truck access lanes, and loading areas shall be improved per UDO requirements (Sec. 8.620. - Parking lot design). Please provide standard details for this pavement type and call out the pavement type on the plan sheets. Please also provide standard details for other pavement type and call out on the plan sheets.

To promote pedestrian connectivity please connect the sidewalks at the north west corner of building B1-1.

Sidewalks shall be a minimum width of five feet. Please update the plans to meet this requirement.

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 2012 International Fire Code.

FDC

IFC 903.3.7 - Fire department connections. The location of fire department connections shall be approved by the fire code official. Connections shall be a 4 inch Storz type fitting and located within 100 feet of a fire hydrant, or as approved by the code official. 5/3 Action Required- On buildings A2-3 and B1-1 the location of FDC exceeds 100 feet from a hydrant. Its recommeded a hydrant be placed on the island

Fire Lanes - Marking

IFC 503.3 - Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words NO PARKING—FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. Action required- The cul-de-sac shall be posted "Fire Lane- No Parking" .

Knox Locks

IFC 506.1 - Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving or fire-fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The key box shall be of an approved type listed in accordance with UL 1037, and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. 506.1.1 Locks. An approved lock shall be installed on gates or similar barriers when required by the fire code official. Action required- A Knox padlock shall be provided on the gate and a Knox box on each of the buildings.

Miscellaneous Correction

D105.1 Where required. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet (9144 mm), approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater. D105.2 Width. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925 mm), exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. D105.3 Proximity to building. One or more of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located not less than 15 feet (4572 mm) and not greater than 30 feet (9144 mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Action required- Fire access lanes for buildings greater than 30 feet in height shall be 26 feet wide (drivable surface).

Imposed Loads

IFC 503.2.3 - Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Action required- Fire lanes shall be capable of carrying the weight of fire apparatus (75,000-pounds). Provide a pavement detail.