Lee's Summit

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. Provide plans for building permit review.

Miscellaneous Correction

All plans submitted for review on or after April 1, 2019 shall be designed to the requirements of the 2018 International Building Code, 2018 International Mechanical Code, 2018 International Plumbing Code, 2018 International Fuel Gas Code, 2018 International Fire Code, 2017 National Electric Code and the ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 as amended and adopted by the City of Lee’s Summit. Action required: Update Applicable Codes on sheet G-002 to comply.

Miscellaneous Correction

Architectural plans are not part of this review. Action required: Comment is informational.

Miscellaneous Correction

Jackson County Health Department review and inspection deferred to building permit. Action required: Comment is informational.

Miscellaneous Correction

Insufficient information to complete review. Action required: Provide utility plan.

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 project coordination meeting with the assigned Field Engineering Inspector.

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) 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. $40,031.35

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.

Miscellaneous Correction

Third party inspection of the bridge installation shall be required. Informational comment.

Provide available manufacturers specs/elevations of temporary kitchen structure and accessible ramp.

Clarify how many parking stalls will be temporarily blocked due to structure and surrounding generators/other temp equipment.

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 project coordination meeting with the assigned Field Engineering Inspector.

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) 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. $40,031.35

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.

Miscellaneous Correction

Third party inspection of the bridge installation shall be required. Informational comment.

Awaiting submittal of the prefabricated bridge design signed and sealed by a design professional registered in the State of Missouri. Corrections required.

Cost estimate was missing the following items: 1) the pedestrian bridge and piers, 2) erosion control measures shown within the erosion control plan, 3) final restoration including seeding, sodding, topsoil, and fertilizer, 4) ADA-accessible ramps within right of way, 5) KCMMB concrete entrance, 6) parking lot striping, 7) seal and signature by a design professional registered in the State of Missouri. Correction required.

Refer to comment #14 in previous applicant letter. I am still not seeing any callout on the plan view (detention basin detail sheet in this case DP-C6.3) for the rip rap. The plan view calls out 8 ft by 9.5 ft rip rap and refers to Sheet C3.3, but when directed to Sheet C3.3, critical design notes are missing, such as the sizing (D50). To make this process simple, why not place all of this information on Sheet DP-C6.3? Provide the width, length, depth, D50 sizing, a filter fabric. It does not appear to make sense to locate this detail within the erosion and sediment control plan. Corrections required.

Pedestrian bridge design shall be submitted by a registered professional engineer licensed in the State of Missouri prior to formal approval. Informational comment.

Refer to comment #17 in the previous applicant letter. It appears the typical section views of the asphaltic concrete are acceptable, but the KCMMB callout was missing. Correction required to designate KCMMB asphaltic concrete mix.

Refer to comment #19 in previous applicant letter. A site specific design for the ADA-accessible ramps at the new commercial entrance and the ADA-accessible route across the new commercial entrances was requested, but not provided. A note stating "See GEN-1, GEN-3A, etc." is not going to be adequate. The plan shall include: 1) elevation callouts at corners, 2) running slope callouts, 3) cross-slope callouts, 4) width of sidewalk callouts, 5) width of ADA-accessible route callouts for the new commercial entrance, 6) "wingless" design, and 7) distance from the truncated dome to the back of curb not to exceed 5 feet. Corrections required.

DP-L1.0 - Landscape Plan: Can you provide a limit of disturbance that minimizes the amount of tree removal to the minimum? As shown, the limit of disturbance is fairly wide, and not certain why. Correction required.

DP-C6.4, DP-C6.1, DP-C6.0, DP-C5.1, and erosion and sediment control plan sheets: Show the extent of tree removal and clearing activities within the stream buffer. Only limited tree removal and limited clearing is allowed without a waiver. Show the extent as clearly as possible. Corrections required.

Sheet DP-C3.0: The limit of disturbance shown on this sheet is too wide in relation to the bridge. Please narrow this down to the absolute minimum needed to install the bridge. Correction required.

Sheet DP-C6.4: 8 inch water main is shown on profile view near the western bridge pier, but this should be noted as a sanitary sewer line. Correction required.

Cost estimate required prior to formal approval. Informational comment.

Miscellaneous Correction

Inadequate information to complete review. Provide the following: Complete grease trap designs. 9/20/24 - Deferred per request.

Excessive slope greater than 3:1 on west side of detention basin, east side of detention basin, and north side of detention basin. Correction required unless accompanied by geotechnical report with field sampling.

There are numerous instances of excessive slope greater than 3:1. Correction required unless supported by geotechnical report with field sampling.

Refer to comment #3 in previous applicant letter dated Aug. 12, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant letter"). The stormwater study did not discuss the emergency spillway. Correction to the text of the stormwater study required.

Refer to comment #4 in the previous applicant letter. No analysis of the downstream receiving system to a point(s) as identified by the engineer were provided in the text of the report. Typically, we have seen other engineers use the 10% rule. Regardless of how this is analyzed, the engineer of record shall provide the point(s) of interest to analyze to ensure detention is not creating an adverse effect to downstream peak flows. Correction required.

Jurisdictional determination for "Waters of the United States" shall be submitted prior to formal approval of the plans. It is understood this is in progress in accordance with the report entitled "Waters of the United States Delineation Report - Proposed Pedestrian Bridge Lee's Summit Medical Center" dated May 2, 2024. If the findings of the jurisdictional determination require modification to the plans, then the Final Development Plan shall be modificed accordingly.

Sheet 6.3: The grading within the detention basin has now changed from the previous submittal in terms of geometry. You were showing curvilinear grading, but are now showing abrupt intersection lines where grading is to take place, and this does not appear practical. Correction required to a more curvilinear grading.

In reference to the above comment, routing calculations and the stage/storage relationship shall be updated to reflect the decrease in storage when using the curvilinear grading. Correction and revision to the stormwater study and routing required.

Are you certain an 8 inch discharge pipe is sufficient to carry the 100 year flow from the primary spillway? It appears this pipe is not large enough. In accordance with Section 5608.4(E)2, the discharge from the detention facility when inflow is equal to or less than the maximum design storm under the required strategy shall be via the pimary outlet system which includes the discharge pipe. If appropriate, correction required.

Refer to comment #10 of the previous applicant letter. The 100 year nominal and 100 year clogged/zero available storage elevation were not shown or called-out on the plan view in graphical format. Dimensions from the graphical callouts of these elevations were not shown to property lines (i.e., a minimum of 20 feet is required from the clogged/zero available storage condition). Correction required.

Refer to comment #11 in the previous applicant letter. Are you certain the hydraulic grade line for the 8 inch line is correct? According to my cursury calculations, this line is not large enough. If appropriate, correction required to upsize the pipe.

Pond setup table appears to show a circular riser, but plans show a rectangular riser. Correction required.

Pond setup table in the stormwater study shows an elevation for the 6 inch wide rectangluar weir which is significantly different than what is shown in the plan. Correction required.

Pond setup table shows an elevation of the emergency spillway which is significantly different than what is shown on the plans. Correction required.

Refer to comment #14 in previous applicant letter. Response to comments stated the calculations are included on Sheet 8.0. No such details were provided on the sizing and dimensions of rip rap on Sheet 8.0. Rip rap sizing shall be shown on the plan view where appropriate. It shall callout the size of rip rap, the length, width, and depth, and callout the use of geofabric beneath the rip rap. It shall be based on calculations you have provided elsewhere in the plans. City inspector or contractor shall not be required to look up the sizing based on a table. Corrections required.

Pedestrian bridge shall not be approved until a separate plan is provided signed and sealed by a design professional registered in the State of Missouri. Informational comment only.

General Comment on Bridge: Wouldn't it be better to place the bridge piers closest to the stream bank at an angle to the stream, more in line with the stream? Correction required if appropriate.

Refer to comment #17 in the previous applicant letter. KCMMB asphaltic concrete mix is required for all projects, whether public or private. It should be noted that KCMMB mix requires a minimum of 2 inch lift, so the surface course should be called-out as 2 inches rather than 1.5 inches, and the base course thickness of KCMMB mix called-out as 4.5 inches or 3.5 inches if heavy duty pavement or light duty pavement. Correction required.

Refer to comment #17 in the previous applicant letter. Geogrid or chemically-stabilized subgrade is required beneath the 6 inch aggregate base layer. Correction required.

Refer to comment #18 in the previous applicant letter. A site-specific plan for the ADA-accessible ramps was requested, but was not provided. A site-specific plan for the ADA-accessible ramps shall be provided that addresses all aspects of comment #18 in the previsous applicant letter, including the ADA-accessible route across the commercial entrance. Correction required.

In regard to above comment, do not include "wings" or "flares" on the ADA-accessible ramps. ADA-accessible ramps shall be constructed so "wings" or "flares" are not required and not desired at this location, and grading to the ramp will be sufficient. Informational comment for use in preparation of the site-specific ADA-accessible ramp plan.

Will the retaining wall along the parking lot require a fence? It appears the height of the fence and proximity to the pedestrian walking surface will require the installation of a fence. Correction required.

If not designed by your firm, retaining wall shall be designed and sealed by a design professional registered in the State of Missouri. This shall be a condition of approval of the plans. Informational comment.

Refer to comment #19 in the previous applicant letter. Sheet C5.1 calls out a note which refers the reader to standard detail for sidewalk construction. No such detail was included in the plan. Recommend City detail on this sheet to make it easy to distinguish between that which is shown internal to the project with woven wire fabric, and that which is required by the City. Correction required.

Refer to comment #21 in the previous applicant letter. Specific slope callouts, dimensional callouts, elevation callouts, and ADA-accessible routes across drive aisles are required within the parking lot, and the ADA-accessible route to the building(s). Maximum slope within a parking lot in any direction is 5.00%, and the ADA-accessible route to the buildings include requirements for cross-slope maximum being 1.50% and a maximum 5.00% running grade. Corrections required.

Refer to comment #22 in the previous applicant letter. Water main is not shown on the landsape plan, but it appears trees are located directly on top of the water mains. A minimum of 5 feet distance is required from trees to the outside of the water main, as measured from the mature tree trunk to the outside of the water main. Water main shall be shown on the landscape plan based on survey, and trees located as per above requirements. Correction required.

Pedestrian bridge is proposed over an existing sanitary sewer line with inadequate space above the grade to perform maintenance. Bridge abutment appears to be located within the easement. The location of the bridge at this location appears to prevent any maintenance to the sanitary sewer line and bridge abutment is encroaching within easement. Recommend a re-design in terms of geometry to eliminate the conflict at the west end of the bridge where the height prevents future maintenance to the sanitary sewer line, and all structures such as bridge abutments are outside limits of easement. This could be managed by extending the fill towards the stream, contingent upon the depth of the sanitary sewer line being less than 20 feet of depth to the flowline after fill.

In regard to above comment, the sanitary sewer line was missing on the profile view. Show the sanitary sewer on the profile view in relation to the bridge.

In lieu of reconfiguring the bridge as per the above comment, it is possible Water Utilities may grant a waiver to the encroachment. It is recommended, however, to raise the bridge at the west end as high as possible to create a more accessible area beneath the bridge to perform maintenance on the sanitary sewer line. Informational comment.

A SWPPP is required due to the disturbed area being greater than 1 acre. Provide a SWPPP for the project.

A cost estimate prepared by a design professional licensed in the State of Missouri, or a signed and itemized contract for the work shall be required prior to formal approval of the Final Development Plan. The plan shall include all sitework necessary to construct the project, including retaining walls, bridge, parking lot, sidewalk, grading, detention basin, stormwater, sanitary sewer, water lines, etc. Please do not include the cost of any buildings, lighting, or landscaping.

Development Services is awaiting a response from Water Utilities on their desired strategy in regard to the bridge encroachment. Antipated schedule for decision is Sep. 27, 2024.

Miscellaneous Correction

Inadequate information to complete review. Provide the following: - Light pole base detail. 9/20/24 - Detail provided is incomplete. Structural information required. - - - Complete grease trap designs. 9/20/24 - Deferred per request.

Miscellaneous Correction

Provide and post a SE Cumberland address, or something different from the existing address for the hospital parking lot.

Jurisidictional determination for the stream shall be evaluated and completed prior to approval of this project. It is our understanding this jurisdictional determination is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The stormwater report entitled "Drainage Design Summary" dated Jul. 24, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as "the stormwater study") did not appear to meet the Comprehensive Control Strategy adopted by the City of Lee's Summit. The Comprehensive Control Strategy requires release rates for the 2, 10, and 100 year events to be less than or equal to 3.0 cfs, 2.0 cfs, and 0.5 cfs per acre of drainage area respectively. Please evaluate and revise the methodology as appropriate.

The stormwater study did not address the emergency spillway in accordance with Section 5600 of the Kansas City APWA, which the City has adopted by reference with modifications. Please review Section 5600 for the emergency spillway design standards, and revise as appropriate.

The stormwater study was missing an analysis of the downstream receiving system to ensure the installation of a detention basin meeting the Comprehensive Control Strategy will not create increased peak flows downstream. Recommend an analysis to a downstream point to be identified by the engineer to ensure this does not occur. If it is shown that detention meeting the Comprehensive Control Strategy will create an adverse situation (i.e., see above), water quality measures such as a dry detention basin or other measures listed in Section 5600 to manage the 90% mean annual event will still be required. Please analyze and revise the stormwater report as appropriate.

The stormwater report should present definitive statement that the basin meets the Comprehensive Control Strategy within the body of the report. Please revise as appropriate.

A waiver to the stream buffer shall be required for the piers supporting the pedestrian bridge. Standard template form shall be forwarded separately from these comments. Staff shall support the waiver, but please be aware the City Engineer is the City representative responsible for granting waivers.

Sheet C6.3: Is there a particular reason the emergency spillway is shown with a concrete bottom? Typical installations within the City are grass-lined.

Sheet C6.3: A bold note shall be shown on the detention basin sheet stating that "DETENTION BASIN SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARKING LOT", and "AN AS-GRADED AND AS-BUILT DETENTION BASIN PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY OF LEE'S SUMMIT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION" or equivalent language.

Recommend re-naming Sheet C6.3 to "Detention Basin Detail Sheet" or equivalent language.

Detention basin detail sheet shall include the following items as in aid in creating the post construction as-built: 1) Top of dam elevation, 2) Emergency spillway elevation, 3) All weir and orifice elevations that are part of the outlet structure, 4) 100 year nominal (i.e., design) storage volume, 5) Bottom of basin elevation, 6) Bottom of basin slope callouts, which may be less than 2% to achieve water quality objectives (i.e., we have seen as little as 0.5% in some instances to achieve water quality objectives), 7) 100 year nominal (i.e., design) water surface elevation (WSE), 8) 100 year clogged/zero available storage WSE, 9) Graphical limits of the 100 year clogged/zero available storage WSE (i.e., shown on the plan view with callouts), along with dimensional callouts from property lines and buildings to ensure a minimum 20 foot setback, 10) Typical section view of the outlet works and dam, along with elevation callouts for the 100 year nominal and 100 year clogged/zero available storage to ensure there is a minimum 0.5 feet freeboard between the nominal condition and the crest of the emergency spillway, and a minimum 1.0 feet from the clogged condition/zero available storage and the top of dam, 11) Location and callouts showing the emergency spillway, and a clear path that is not directed towards buildings or other other vulnerable features. Please revise as appropriate.

A profile view of the outlet pipe serving the detention basin shall be required. Please provide a profile view of this line, along with the 100 year HGL on the profile view in graphic format.

The small water quality orifice at the bottom of the outlet structure does not appear to meet standards due to the small diameter. Normally, a perforated riser with small orifices is required when the diameter is small. Please evaluate and revise as appropriate, and ensure there are measures for allowing for future maintence (e.g., raking the perforated riser to remove debris, accessway to to the outlet structure, stairs if appropriate, etc.).

It did not appear any proposed grading was shown from the outlet structure rip rap to the receiving creek. Please show how the discharge from the detention basin will be directed towards the creek.

Rip rap calculations and sizing were not shown. Please provide calculations of rip rap, and please include the sizing of the rip rap, depth of rip rap, width of rip rap, length of rip rap, and notation concerning the use of geofabric under the rip rap. Please analyze and revise as appropriate.

It would appear that discharging stormwater from the parking lot towards "curb cuts" (i.e., flumes) is not an appropriate method for stormwater management in this particular instance. Recommend curb inlet(s) and pipe(s) directed to the bottom of the detention basin. Discharging this volume of stormwater at a 3:1 slope will create backcutting issues over time. Please revise as appropriate.

Bridge general layour references "structural plans". It does not appear we have these "structural plans". Are you intending to submit these after approval of the Final Development Plan in the form of a material submittal similar to retaining walls? If so, bridge shall be designed and sealed by a registered design professional registered in the State of Missouri. No portion of the bridge shall be allowed to be constructed prior to this submittal (i.e., the final design signed and sealed by a design professional registered in the State of Missouri).

Asphaltic concrete pavement sections do not meet the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements in terms of pavement thickness, base, or subgrade stabilization/geogrid. The typical sections shown in the plans reference the geotechnical report, but the geotechnical report states the pavement design is beyond the scope of the geotechnical report. Therefore, the City standard UDO is considered a minimum requirement unless a new geotechnical report is submitted with actual field sampling. If this is desired, there are criteria that will need to be submitted to you to use in your design. If not, the UDO standard design shall be acceptable. The UDO standard design for asphaltic concrete pavement is 1) heavy duty where emergency vehicles and trash trucks will have access is 6.5 inches of KCMMB asphaltic concrete over a minimum 6 iniches aggregate over a chemically-stabilized subgrade base or geogrid, and 2) normal duty asphaltic concrete shall consist of 5.5 inches KCMMB asphaltic concrete mix over the same items descibed for subgrade and base for heavy duty ashphaltic concrete (see above). Please review and revise as appropriate.

A site-specific plan for the PUBLIC ADA-accessible ramps on Cumberland Dr. is required. This plan shall provide elevation callouts, slope callouts for the longitudinal and transverse directions, and truncated dome callouts with dimesions from the truncated domes to the ADA-accessible entrance. No more than 7.5% running slope (i.e., longitudinal) is allowed, and no more than 1.5% cross-slope (i.e., transverse slope) is allowed, with construction allowance up to and including 8.33% and 2.00% respectively. No more than 5.00 feet shall be allowed between the end of the truncated domes and the "travelled-way". Please update plans as appropriate.

Sidewalk that is part of the public sidewalk system in the right of way shall not include reinforcement. Please do not use welded wire fabric. In addition, the note on the sidewalk standard detail says "2% max, 1% minimum" is not correct. The City has adopted more stringent design standards that go above and beyond PROWAG. The maximum design cross-slope is 1.5%, and 7.5% for running slope. If the as-built condition shows less than 8.33% and less than 2.00%, they will be accepted. Please revise the plans as appropriate.

Why is there a minimum cross slope of sidewalk of 1%? We have seen instances where the cross slope is 0% with a running slope of 1%+/- to manage stormwater flows. There is no reason to include a "minimum cross slope" unless the sidewalk will not drain. Please revise as appropriate.

Parking lot plan is incomplete. Please provide a plan that includes ADA-accessibility. This shall include elevation callouts, slope callouts, dimensional callouts, and and all other information necessary to perform a review of the ADA-accessibility of the parking lot. ADA-accessible spaces shall be clearly shown with details. Please review, revise, and update as appropriate, and ensure there is an ADA-accessible route from the parking lot to the final destination.

Landscape Plan: It is difficult to determine where the City sanitary sewer line is located in relation to trees, as well as City water main. Please show the location of City-owned utilities on the project including sanitary sewer, water lines, and storm lines. Ensure there is a minimum of 5.0 feet from the outside of the mature tree trunk to the outside of any storm line, sanitary sewer line, and water line or sanitary sewer structure or storm structure. Please be aware this does not apply to small ornamental shrubs. Please evaluate, revise, and update as appropriate.

Prior to formal approval, an itemized and sealed Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs is required. Please do not include the cost of buildings used in the hospital campus, lighting, or landscaping.

Please provide lighting elevations

Please provide signage in new parking lot directing public to location of ADA parking stalls, since no stalls are proposed as part of expansion. Add note to plans that this signage is required/will be put in place.

Sheet DP-C5.1 - The ADA on the east side of the bridge is not marked.

There are 2 signs at the crosswalk across the driveway are not labled.

Please remove the painted crosswalk at Cumberland Dr.

Signs should installed in the new lot directing drivers to ADA spaces in the main lot.

Miscellaneous Correction

Inadequate information to complete review. Provide the following: - Light pole base detail. - Water/DWV pipe sizes and materials. - Specify type of connection at sanitary main. - Complete grease trap designs.

Miscellaneous Correction

Provide and post a SE Cumberland address, or something different from the existing address for the hospital parking lot.