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 right of way 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. $12,735.59

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 schedule a project coordination meeting 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.

Sheet C.201: This sheet needs cleanup. Darken all lot lines, and provide missing finish grades at all lot corners. Correction required.

Sheet C.201: Grading does not show how the field inlets will effectively capture stormwater. Correction required.

Sheet C.201: Show proposed grades in bold in accordance with normal drafting standards, and existing grade as the lighter lineweight. Correction required.

Standard Details: Use new stormwater lid. Detail to be sent separate. Correction required.

Sheet C.100: Notes are shown for a headwall at the pond at the south side, and other work towards the north, both offsite locations which will require easements. Correction required to match what is shown in the detailed plans shown elsewhere in the plan set.

Updated cost estimate required. Informational comment.

Please refer to comment #11 in the previous applicant letter. Rather than providing excess cover at the end of storm line 1 entering the off-site detention basin, the pipe is now above-ground near the discharge point. This will be an ongoing maintenance issue for City staff. Recommend deepening the storm line at the junction and lessening the slope to mitigate this issue, and placement of a concrete collar at the end of pipe to mitigate "floating" over time.

Please refer to comment #12 in the previous applicant letter. Although the note is provided, it was provided on the wrong sheet. This note should be shown on Sheet C.201 since this is the sole sheet used during the plot plan process. Please revise.

Please refer to comment #5 in the previous applicant letter. The response to comments refers me to Sheet C.100. The notes on Sheet C.100 state that specific owners of lots shall install sidewalk along common area tracts, which is not allowed. These shall be installed with the subdivision improvements. In addition, the sidewalk and ADA accessible ramps near Dick Howser Dr. are not labeled with any notation, nor is a legend provided to specify these are to be constructed with the subdivision improvements. Please update and revise as appropriate.

Provide a revised erosion and sediment control plan within these plans which eliminate gutter buddies on "at-grade" curb inlets. The placement of gutter buddies in any fashion at "at-grade" curb inlets prevents stormwater from entering the inlet, and causes downstream street and structure flooding. They may be utilized in sump locations, as long as a 100 year pathway is established for overflow. Please add the erosion and sediment control plan to these plans, and revise as specified.

Sheet C.201: This sheet has changed since the last submittal, and no longer includes the required lot corner existing and finish elevations. Please review and revise as appropriate. The lot corner elevations are required for the Master Drainage Plan.

Overall Comment: The plans have changed considerably from the previous submittal in August 2022. These changes were not discussed in the response to comments letter. For instance, stop-controlled intersections are now non-compliant with ADA-accessibility across the street in terms of cross-slope, and stationing is missing on the plan view. Please evaluate and revise as appropriate.

Were other revisions made to the plans not specifically dicussed in the response to comments letter?

Sheet C.206: This sheet (i.e., the ADA-accessible ramp details) does not match the profile view of the street construction plans. Please review and revise as appropriate, and ensure the ADA-accessible ramp details reconcile with the profile view of the streets.

Please refer to comment #3 in the previous applicant letter. Sidewalk installation notation was missing near Dick Howser Dr. In addtion, a shaded pattern was used for all sidewalk in the subdivision, with the exception of the portion near Dick Howser Dr., with notation along common area tracts. Recommend the following: 1) provide a separate symbology for sidewalk to be constructed with these improvements, including common area tracts and unplatted areas, and 2) provide a separate symbology for sidewalk to be installed by the homebuilders. As shown, there is no consistency and questions shall be fielded on what is to be constructed with these improvements.

Please refer to comment #4 in the previous applicant letter. The response to comments states the storm system has been re-designed, and proposed velocities are within allowable range per APWA 5600. I am not seeing any re-design of the pipe slope on the discharge end of storm line 1. It was unchanged, and shown discharging into a trapezoidal channel with a 16.67% slope. Finally, the response to comments on comment #4 states that the velocity is within accepted range specified in APWA 5600. I do not agree with the velociity calculation, as this appears to be steady uniform flow. It would appear this is supercritical flow, and the velocity will be substantially higher. This will lead to backcutting over time, and a re-design appears warranted.

Please refer to comment #5 in the previous applicant letter. The response to comments states the normal pool elevation of the receiving water body was shown on the plans, but I cannot find where this is specified. The bigger question is why you are proposing to discharge the flow from storm line 1 into a trapezoidal channel with a 16.67% slope with high energy and future damage to property by backcutting. Has there been any discussion with the Lakewood Property Owner's Association on the discharge of storm line 1? It would appear this is necessary, since you are propsing to grade on their property.

It would appear storm line 1 should be designed to convey the stormwater underground rather than installing an excessively-steep trapezoidal channel with excessive slope. This will require a re-design of the system, and likely extension of storm line 1 onto the adjacent property. Please review and revise as appropriate.

Off-site easements shall be required for the stormwater improvements shown on the plans. This would include storm line 1 and storm line 6.

Storm line 6 is shown discharging from a pipe slope of 6.5% to a v-bottom swale. The velociity calculations for this swale appear to be based on steady uniform subcritical flow rather than supercritical flow. The velocity calculation appears in error, and should be higher than shown. It would appear the storm line should be extended closer to the permanent pool to minimize erosion issues. Please review and evaluate, and revise as appropriate.

Please refer to comment #6 in the previous applicant letter. Although there was a slight change in cover, please see previous comments related to the discharge of storm line 1 and a re-design. These comments will have a bearing on this comment. Please revise as appropriate.

Please refer to comment #8 in the previous applicant letter. Although the response to comments states that sideyard swales were called-out on the Master Drainage Plan, there is an indistinct note in the bottom left hand corner with this notation. Recommend a bold note in a prominent location so this is not missed during the plot plan review process. Please revise as appropriate.

Sheet C.301: This sheet has changed in terms of pipe size for the discharge end of storm line 1. The previous submittal showed a 36 inch HDPE pipe. The latest submittal shows a 30 inch HDPE pipe with no explanation for the change in pipe size. Finally, the pipe immediately upstream of the discharge end of storm line 1 was shown as a 24 inch HDPE, but is now shown as an 18 inch HDPE. Please explain the discrepancy in the plans, and please describe any other changes that were made since the August 2022 submittal.

ADA-accessible ramp at Dick Howser is showing a 4 foot width sidewalk. The minimum is 5.0 feet for both the sidewalk and the ADA-accessible route across the intersection. If the current sidewalk at Dick Howser is only 4 feet wide, a taper will be required to tie-into the new 5 foot sidewalk/ramp/route across the intersection. Please revise.

Sheet C.100 is still showing a curb inlet in the northeast corner of Lot 63. Please go through the plans, and ensure this is corrected throughout the plan set, as this appears to be a recurring issue during the review.

Sidewalks are still missing along common area tracts, in particular, on the plan and profile sheets. Suggest a bold or hatched symbology to ensure it is not missed during construction. Please revise.

Please refer to comment #18 in previous comment letter pertaining to the excessive pipe slope at the discharge end of line 1. Nothing was done to mitigate the issues discussed in this comment. I do not agree with your assessment that nothing additional is required. Please review, evaluate, and provide a re-design.

Comment #24 in previous applicant letter was not addressed. Please address this comment. As discussed in the previous applicant letter, no plan was provided other than direct-discharge to a point on the ground, with no limits of the detention basin shownn, including normal pool elevation, and how the stormwater will be discharged to this basin without negative impact. It shall include off-site contours and contour elevations (proposed and exiting), grading to make this work, along with any structures needed to manage shtromwater. As shown, there is no way to evaluate hthe sytem. All that is shown is rip rap, with no associated grading. No further review of the discharge point shall be conducted until the items listed in the previous comment letter have been addressed. Please provide the required information to perform a review, and provide a re-design as appropriate.

Please refer to comment #27 in previous applicant letter. I disagree with your assessment that the end of pipe will tend to float. You stated that a 1000 pound force is sufficient to mitigate this concern. I would disagree this is sufficient force, as there appears to be minimal cover over the discharge end of the pipe. If you can provide an independent assessment by the pipe manufacturer, it could be considered. However, it has been my experience that a pipe collar on HDPE pipe with insufficient cover (i.e., less than 2 feet of cover) should be secured with a concrete collar at the end. Please address this issue, as the City shall not be in a position to approve a system which causes the pipe to gradually work its way out of the ground. Please review and revise as appropriate.

Please refer to comment #23 in the previous applicant letter. The easement width between Lot 71 and 70 is still too narrow. A minimum width of 20 feet is required based on the depth of the underground storm system. Please revise, and ensure the easement width is carried-through to the final plat.

Please refer to comment #9 in the previous applicant letter. Although the response to comments states you are comfortable "as-is" and don't see the need for sideyard swale callouts, I feel it is necessary to avoid any confusion during the plot plan review process. If you can provide other reasons not to place these notes on the Master Drainage Plan, it would be considered. However, with the potential to create issues with drainage not only for the new lots, but existing lots to the west, it would appear notes are warranted. Please review and revise as appropriate.

Please refer to comment #17 in the previous applicant letter. The response to comments states the drainage area does not meet the warrants stated in KCAPWA concerning the placement of additional curb inlets to manage stormwater. The issue is the lack of curb inlets on Dick Howser Dr. in the immediate downsream vicinity, and the addition of the new street connection and additional drainage area and runoff will likely create adverse conditions along Dick Howser Dr. due to your development. Placing additional inlets near the interesection of Dick Howser Dr. and NE Independence Ave. appears warranted to mitigate this issue. If you can provide an assessment of the entire downstream drainage on Dick Howser Dr. after your development is completed, and you can show the additional runoff will have no adverse impact in terms of gutter spread on a collector street, it would be considered. Please review, evaluate, and revise as appropriate.

Sheet C.301: The end of Line 3 is not matching crowns as required by the Design and Construction Manual. The incoming pipe crowns are lower than the crown of the 36 inch outgoing pipe. Please revise as appropirate.

Please see previous applicant letter. A curb inlet is still called-out on Sheet C.301 on Lot 60. Is this a junction box? Field inlet? Please reconcile and revise as appropriate.

Please refer to comment #25 in the previous applicant letter. I had requested you specify which method to use for the underdrain, but saw no such indication in the details section of the plans. I also requested you show the location where these would be installed, but only saw a vague note on the street profile view. This should be shown on the plan view as well, showing in general terms where it is located on the plan view (e.g., from curb inlet to curb inlet). Please specify which method(s) to use for installation of the underdrains, and show in clear terms where it is to be installed on the plan view.

A revised cost estimate shall be required prior to formal approval of the plans.

A stormwater report or memorandum was missing from the application. Please include a stormwater report or memorandum discussing whether or not detention is required, and the suitability of the existing detention basin to accept and manage the stormwater flows from this project.

Collector street asphalt paving section does not meet the requirements of the Design and Construction Manual in terms of asphalt thickness, MoDOT Type 5 aggregate, or subgrade stabilization. Please review and revise as appropriate.

It appears right of way may not be decdicated for the connection point to Dick Howser Dr. The plat "East Lake Village 2nd Plat" appears to show a strip of land blocking access to the Dick Howser Dr. connection point. Please verify if right of way extends to the plat boundary, as it is difficult to determine from the old plat recorded in 1986.

Please provide contour labels for Lots 48 through 51. It is difficult to determine the grading in this area without the labels.

Please provide contour elevation labels along Lot 63 and 74.

Lots requiring an MBOE were not shown on the Master Drainage Plan. Please evaluate and revise as appropriate.

Basement type was not included on the Master Drainage Plan for each lot. Please show basement type (i.e., daylight, walkout, or standard) on the Master Drainage Plan.

Cover Sheet: Sheet C.200 is labeled as including the SWPPP. Was this a typographical error? SWPPP is a standalone document required with the erosion and sediment control and mass grading plans.

Would it be beneficial to include notes on the Master Drainage Plan to construct sideyard auxiliary swales between the homes during home construction? Currently, drainage is directed toward the new lots, and without the sideyard swales being constructed when the homebuilder pulls building permit and plot plan, there is the potential to create a dam in the backyard. Please review and revise as appropriate.

ADA-accessible ramps do not follow the Design and Construction Manual in terms of running slope, cross slope, distance from truncated domes to the back of curb, and ADA-accessible route across stop-controlled intersection. Please review and revise as appropriate.

Slope callouts for the ADA-accessible routes across the intersections were not provided. Please show the proposed cross-slope across these intersections, and ensure they are no more than 1.5% design slope and minimum of 5 feet width.

It is unclear how the ADA-accessible route accross Independence Ave. will be possible with the slopes shown on the profile view shown on Sheet C.203. A maximum cross slope of 1.5% is allowed at this stop-controlled intersection, and the profile view shows greater than 3.95%. Please evaluate and revise as necessary.

The same issue (above) exists for the ADA-accessible route across Troon Dr. at Independence Ave. A 1.73% cross slope is shown on the profile view on Sheet C.204, while 1.5% is the maximum design slope across the ADA-accessible route in the stop controlled scenario. Please review and revise as appropriate.

The ADA-accessible ramp details do not show the start and stop points of construction. Please show the limits of construction on these sheets.

The second ADA-accessible ramp on Sheet C204 does not appear to meet any of the City standards in regard to geometry. Please be aware the old Type B ramp shown in the standard details is now an acceptable alternative to the mono-directional ramp design requested in the past. Please review and revise as appropriate.

Sidewalk installed along all common area tracts and unplatted land shall be installed with these improvements. I did not see anywhere in the plans where this was specifically shown. This would pertain to the tracts, and also the sidewalk to be installed just north of the plat boundary near Dick Howser Dr. Please clearly shown the limits of construction of these required sidewalk improvements.

It appears an additional curb inlet is warranted near Dick Howser Dr. Please review and revise as appropriate, and show how the storm line will be directed towards the detention basin.

Storm line 1 last segment is shown with an excessive slope that can be mitigated by installing deeper. This slope will lead to supercritical flow at the outlet. Please review, analyze, and revise as appropriate.

Sheet C.301: Why are field inlets called-out along the street on storm line 1 and 2? Please review and revise as appropriate.

HDPE is not allowed beneath collector streets (i.e., Independence Ave.). Acceptable alternatives include RCP and CPP. Please review and revise as appropriate.

Sheet C.300: A field inlet is called-out on Troon Dr. Please correct.

Sheet C.301: A note and arrow is pointing to "Storm Line 1" which does not make sense. This note is located on the inset plan view of storm line 2 on north side of Lot 63. Please review and revise as appropriate.

The easement between Lot 71 and Lot 70 is too narrow for the storm line. This is also the case for the easement between Lots 66 and 67. The easement should be twice the depth of the storm line at its deepest point.

What is the plan for discharge into the existing detention basin? As shown, there is no plan other than direct-discharge to a point on the ground, and then subsequent rilling and erosion will take place. A plan shall be submitted showing how this discharge will be managed. It shall show the limits of the detention basin including the normal pool elevation, and a plan for how the stormwater will be discharged without a negative impact. It shall include off-site contours and contour elevations (proposed and existing), along with any structures needed to manage stormwater. As shown, severe erosion shall take place without a proper design.

Standard details were provided for underdrains, but neither the method to use was specified, nor the location shown elsewhere in the plans. These shall be installed at sump locations between curb inlets. Please revise as appropriate.

A trenching and backfill detail was missing for the storm line. Please provide a detail for trenching and backfill. Ensure the new standard of 12 inches of aggregate over top of pipe is shown.

A concrete anchor or other means of securing the shallow pipe at the discharge point to the detention basin is warranted. There is the potential to float. Please revise as appropriate.

Ensure the cover sheet note is updated when revising the pavement section for collector street (i.e., Independence Ave.).

C.203 - Sta. 6+18 K Value too low. Minimum 37 for residential collector.

Gen.: Please include street name signs for review. Size and styles can be found on the City's details.