[1:54] afternoon like to call to order the

[1:58] public works Finance and Safety

[2:00] Committee meeting of March 16 2020 first

[2:03] item on the agenda is approval of the

[2:05] consent agenda and we have no items so

[2:07] it's not necessary and we have public

[2:10] input this is the time set aside for

[2:12] anyone to speak if they wish

[2:14] see no one here we'll move to item 4

[2:17] approval of the agenda we'll have a

[2:19] motion by Y and a second by read em Ski

[2:23] I think any discussion all those in

[2:26] favor signify by saying aye those

[2:29] opposed signify by saying nay motion

[2:31] carries

[2:32] item 5 is the regular agenda item a is

[2:36] council consideration of a bid award for

[2:39] the 2020 pavement management system

[2:41] schedule a milling and AC mat

[2:44] construction project 2002 - Donna kink

[2:47] in the amount of nine hundred

[2:49] forty-three thousand nine hundred thirty

[2:51] five dollars motion my long one and a

[2:55] second by Bueller and I'll ask public

[2:59] works director city engineer he thought

[3:01] I to tell us about this please

[3:03] absolutely thank you mayor the bit of

[3:06] war before the council this evening is

[3:08] related to the 2020 pavement management

[3:10] system schedule a this is our annual

[3:14] milling and asphalt overlay construction

[3:17] project we have a pretty good map of

[3:21] locations throughout town of streets

[3:24] that need to have this kind of surface

[3:25] treatment performed on them and a couple

[3:30] things to note with this bid the budget

[3:31] for this was in the amount of $900,000

[3:35] this bid did come in over budget at nine

[3:37] hundred forty three thousand nine thirty

[3:39] five but I'll also note too that a

[3:43] recent bid award for the crack seal and

[3:45] fog seal project came in approximately

[3:49] forty one thousand dollars under budget

[3:52] and fifteen thousand dollars of that

[3:55] awarded project are coming out of the

[3:57] airport fund for some airport crack

[3:59] sealing so long story short I think that

[4:02] we're in a good place to award this bid

[4:05] as far as the overall 212

[4:08] capital improvement plan a project fund

[4:12] that we have and in review these bids we

[4:15] looked at the pricing in the the asphalt

[4:17] out compared to last year the 2019

[4:21] project cost for asphalt on the millet

[4:23] overlay project was $79 a ton this year

[4:27] they've done ik has bit us a price of

[4:31] eighty two dollars and seventy five

[4:32] cents per ton since there's a little bit

[4:35] of a inflation in in this year's price

[4:39] which is expected from here a year we

[4:42] looked at also pricing within the region

[4:44] we found that you know the regional

[4:46] pricing can vary anywhere from seventy

[4:48] dollars a tonne all the way up to ninety

[4:50] dollars a tonne sometimes a little more

[4:52] depending on the type of work that

[4:53] you're doing and the scope of work that

[4:55] goes along with it so after reviewing

[4:57] all that staff was comfortable and

[4:59] continuing forward with this with this

[5:01] bid award and recommending so to the

[5:03] council all right thank you

[5:05] are there any questions come on you said you had a kind of a do you have

[5:13] a map of where it's gonna be done at

[5:14] we're located at for this year what's

[5:17] our focus area we do have a map and if

[5:24] my screen is not pulling up very well

[5:26] through the software today for some

[5:28] reason but yeah that's it one of the

[5:33] primary streets is 12th Avenue north

[5:36] just west of highway 81 there's a number

[5:40] of blocks here that B will be mill and

[5:42] overlaid another more prominent location

[5:45] is 11th Street East there's work to be

[5:54] done there as well you can see all the

[5:56] blue highlighted areas on the map here

[5:57] then there's several smaller segments

[5:59] out on the westerly in a town south of

[6:02] third Avenue east of 21st Street West

[6:06] several blocks in that neighborhood in

[6:09] that area of town that need to be

[6:10] milling overlaid and then there's a

[6:12] three block stretch of Broadway as well

[6:15] from 2nd Avenue South to 1st Avenue

[6:19] North

[6:21] the way these streets are selected are

[6:24] in part based on our pavement management

[6:26] system software that we've obtained back

[6:30] in 2017 in that software it provides

[6:34] recommendations for surface improvements

[6:36] to certain roads based on their pavement

[6:39] condition index that software is used by

[6:42] the assistant city engineer in

[6:43] combination with engineering staff in

[6:45] the streets superintendent along with

[6:47] real field knowledge you know what are

[6:49] the boots on the ground show as far as

[6:51] these street conditions are concerned

[6:52] and then that's how we prioritize and

[6:55] incorporate these into these different

[6:58] types of projects that we run thank you

[7:02] he's do you have any indication as to if

[7:05] they're gonna plan on on opening the

[7:07] plant earlier so we can get started

[7:08] earlier than we did last year being that

[7:10] the where there's been a more favorable

[7:13] yeah no that's a good question I

[7:15] personally have not had any

[7:16] communications or heard anything about

[7:17] that I don't know if the street

[7:19] superintendent has heard anything Rob

[7:20] Bane is in the crowd today no no last

[7:32] year we seemed a little bit later it was

[7:35] late last year there's no indication

[7:37] that it's gonna be early this years what

[7:39] Rob said we can hope cops will be lower

[7:46] heath when did we when did we open those

[7:49] bids for this particular project was let

[7:55] me double-check February 19th

[7:59] what what risk do we have either from

[8:03] our timing or from Dunning's

[8:06] cooperation or so resubmitting if we

[8:08] were to rebid this where I'm coming from

[8:10] is I don't feel that price increase is

[8:13] justified from $79 last year to eighty

[8:16] two and three-quarters this year I mean

[8:19] look what all prices have done it and

[8:21] that's a big driver for asphalt prices

[8:23] that what's the risk if we were to rebid

[8:26] this well you know there was those

[8:29] questions come up when you see

[8:31] activities like this across the nation

[8:33] you'll see in my RCA I noted the the oil

[8:35] pricing last year started out low at 46

[8:39] dollars a barrel and then increased

[8:41] throughout the year through the end of

[8:42] 2019 up to 61 dollars a barrel well now

[8:46] in 2020 it's exact inverse of that we

[8:49] started out at 61 and now we're down to

[8:51] about $30 if not even less at this point

[8:53] now I can't tell you that the

[8:55] contractors bids they're not necessarily

[8:58] focusing on real time oil prices there are a lot of times paying for

[9:02] material that's already on hand are

[9:04] already bought on separate contracts

[9:06] under other pricing so if we were to

[9:08] push this off that may not benefit us if

[9:11] that is the case and these guys is

[9:13] circumstance which I assume it might be

[9:14] that they're basing their bid off of

[9:17] material that's been purchased by

[9:19] contract under a price that's may or may

[9:23] not be within the market today I guess I

[9:25] can't speak to that any other questions

[9:31] or comments all right I'll look for

[9:34] action all those in favor signify by

[9:35] saying aye those opposed signify by

[9:38] saying nay okay

[9:41] need a roll call okay just say yeah okay

[9:54] Albertson yes

[9:55] Bueller Hoyer is absent or is he okay

[10:02] absent hélène absent l'olam yes manty

[10:07] absent redeem ski yes

[10:09] Roby all right bill our know why motion

[10:15] carries thank you item B is council

[10:19] approval of a bid award for the

[10:21] wastewater treatment Administration

[10:23] Building project number 1917 to gray

[10:26] construction in the amount of three

[10:28] million five hundred ten thousand

[10:29] dollars Albertson and I would like Heath

[10:38] to tell us about this one as well thank

[10:40] you mayor this this particular bid is

[10:43] for the new structure out of the

[10:44] wastewater treatment facility

[10:47] on that complex as councils aware we are

[10:50] building a new administrative building

[10:52] out there I've gone through a lengthy

[10:55] design process and a process to obtain

[10:57] and srf funding through the state for

[11:00] this project and all the appropriate

[11:02] check offs for that funding have been

[11:04] gone through as far as this bid is

[11:06] concerned we are required to submit the

[11:08] bids to the state for their review and

[11:10] approval before we award the bid that

[11:12] process has all been taken care of and

[11:15] with help from our consultant HDR and

[11:18] we're at a point now where we're glad to

[11:22] report the bid in this case came in at

[11:24] just over three and a half million and

[11:28] the engineer's estimate of probable cost

[11:32] for engineering and construction was a

[11:35] little over five million now you'll see

[11:38] a subsequent action to this one we do

[11:39] have an engineering services contract on

[11:41] for tonight but the two of them combined

[11:43] is still well under that five million

[11:45] dollar budget that we had targeted and

[11:48] engineering and our consultant HDR and

[11:51] the wastewater staff Mike Berger

[11:53] wastewater superintendents here this

[11:54] evening are all more than comfortable in

[11:56] recommending this bid award to gray

[11:58] construction for the building of the

[11:59] admin building out the wastewater

[12:00] treatment facility all right thank you

[12:03] questions

[12:05] constable Harr heathyr Mike was was the

[12:08] and this is a pleasant surprise I mean

[12:10] compared to what the estimate was I mean

[12:12] it was the estimate just that much on

[12:15] the high side or were there things cut

[12:16] out that were in the original estimate

[12:19] that weren't bid at ultimately or just

[12:22] surprised at the big difference in

[12:24] numbers yeah I think that this my

[12:27] understanding from the consultant is

[12:28] this was just a reflection on the market

[12:31] at the time we've got our bid out was

[12:33] strong in our favor that these building

[12:35] contractors or we're looking for work at

[12:38] that time I would note that this bid was

[12:40] pretty comparable to the other couple

[12:43] two or three more that were received so

[12:46] it's not like this was an underlayer by

[12:48] any means it was a million or two off it

[12:50] was a fairly close bid between the next

[12:54] low bidders between the three that we

[12:56] received okay and okay we could borrow

[12:59] up to what

[13:00] million dollars for the project so we'll

[13:02] be borrowing some one lesson I assume is

[13:04] that the case yes we will continue to

[13:07] wade through that with of course one

[13:10] final project costs once everything's

[13:12] built and and put into consideration

[13:16] along with the engineering costs and

[13:17] work with christened closely on that we

[13:20] do also have a clarifier needs out there

[13:23] at the plant two that have to come from

[13:25] wastewater cash reserves as well so

[13:27] we're trying to keep all that in check

[13:29] as we wade through the loan amount okay

[13:31] thank you any other questions or

[13:35] comments all right I'll look for action

[13:39] all those in favor signify by saying aye

[13:41] all right there's a post signify by

[13:43] saying nay motion carries

[13:45] item C is council consideration of a

[13:48] professional services agreement for

[13:51] construction administration associated

[13:53] with the waste water treatment facility

[13:54] administration building

[13:55] with HDR Inc in the not to exceed amount

[13:58] of three hundred sixty nine thousand

[14:00] nine hundred sixty five dollars motion

[14:04] and a second by Bueller Heath tell us

[14:07] about this please yes thank you mayor as

[14:10] I mentioned this is related to the

[14:12] affirmation to action item that was

[14:14] discussed and this is for the

[14:17] construction and inspection services the

[14:20] construction engineering that's involved

[14:22] in a in a project like this as you can

[14:24] imagine it's pretty extensive to have

[14:27] full-time engineering inspection

[14:30] services when required on a structure of

[14:32] this magnitude and so that is a function

[14:37] that we can't perform in-house and have

[14:39] to consult out HDR being the design

[14:42] engineer on this project makes sense to

[14:43] plug them in as the construction

[14:45] engineer for inspection services and

[14:47] they've provided a contract here with us

[14:49] just under three hundred and seventy

[14:52] thousand dollars and again and that

[14:54] amount in combination to the recently

[14:57] discussed bid of a little over three and

[14:59] a half million that total brings us to

[15:02] three million eight hundred and seventy

[15:04] nine thousand nine hundred and sixty

[15:06] five dollars for those two construction

[15:09] and engineering services again well

[15:11] underneath our tart

[15:13] five million dollars that we had on

[15:14] budget great thank you

[15:17] questions or comments real hard I should

[15:21] have asked this last I thought the last

[15:23] item relatives alone is that interest

[15:26] was that interest rate fixed when we

[15:28] could it was okay okay so that the I

[15:33] mean interest rates I'm the fifth cut

[15:35] the rate to zero and now so that won't

[15:37] affect it won't affect ours learn okay

[15:42] fair question any other questions or

[15:47] comments all those in favor signify by

[15:49] saying aye all right as opposed signify

[15:52] by saying nay motion carries right item

[15:56] D can I see the agenda here okay it's

[16:00] still on there I thought that have been

[16:03] removed so item D is council approval of

[16:05] resolution number 20-11 requesting the

[16:09] d-o-t higher infrastructure design group

[16:12] to perform the 2020 bridge inspection

[16:14] services and we're not ready for that is

[16:17] that true no we are mayor and since it's

[16:20] still on here I can go ahead and quick

[16:21] touch on this one too before we get into

[16:23] the engineering design standards I was

[16:24] gonna just post pulling this to the

[16:26] regular council meeting for discussion

[16:28] but we can discuss it here since it's on

[16:30] their council council it is on the full

[16:32] council agenda

[16:33] okay so I get a motion before we mostly

[16:39] l'olam and a second by Radomski all

[16:43] right Heath go ahead

[16:45] so this item relates to every year we

[16:48] have to pass a resolution and related to

[16:50] our relation to our bridge inspections

[16:53] that are performed annually those annual

[16:55] bridge inspections come from funding

[16:58] from the Federal Highway Administration

[17:00] that's a minister down through the

[17:02] state's do t South Dakota do T recently

[17:07] sent us a reminder that they need our

[17:08] annual consultant selection made they

[17:11] need that made by function of a

[17:13] resolution through the City Council and

[17:16] what we're proposing with staffs

[17:18] proposing to the council tonight is that

[17:20] we recommend idg infrastructure design

[17:24] group as our consultant to performer

[17:26] bridge inspections for 2020 if you

[17:29] recall we have 10 structures that are on

[17:31] the inspection lists and those are

[17:34] alternated every other year we have a

[17:36] group of five each year that we perform

[17:39] the inspections on and I thought I had a

[17:48] map here show you but it's not showing

[17:49] up anyway so well we'd be performing the

[17:52] five bridge inspections that are due

[17:55] this year through the consultant through

[17:57] the do T's funding program and that's

[18:00] what the resolution helps accomplish to

[18:02] get that started all right thanks so

[18:04] this is an annual thing we do the last

[18:06] few years we've used infrastructure

[18:09] design group so they've they've been

[18:12] consistently reviewing these same

[18:14] bridges every year any questions or

[18:17] comments Cosmo no he does this go out to

[18:22] a bit as well or do we just went in if

[18:26] so is there any other bids that were

[18:27] submitted no that's a good question this

[18:29] the d-o-t sends us a letter and on with

[18:32] that letters and attachment of approved

[18:34] consultants they simply ask the

[18:36] community to select one of those

[18:37] consultants off that list idg is one of

[18:41] over a dozen probably that are on that

[18:43] list there's state qualified consultants

[18:45] to perform bridge inspections under this

[18:47] funding program and of course within

[18:50] being a local it's been convenient to

[18:52] have Vanessa perform that work for us

[18:53] right here in Watertown the last couple

[18:56] I believe the last two inspections idg

[18:58] is performed did anyone else provide a

[19:02] bit no no okay

[19:05] we don't get a bid and Vanessa was doing

[19:08] the inspection when she worked for Clark

[19:10] engineering and we had Clark engineering

[19:14] doing it at that time and then when she

[19:15] switched over to IDG we switched with

[19:18] her to get the same inspector so it's

[19:21] consistent and that's an 80/20 cost

[19:26] share is that correct that we only pay

[19:28] 20 percent of the cost and the d-o-t or

[19:31] the state pays 80 percent yes that's

[19:33] correct

[19:33] and the total cost for this inspection

[19:35] work as has been training a little under

[19:38] $14,000

[19:39] so not a huge expense but it is a cost

[19:42] share between the state and ourselves we

[19:44] pay 20% of that of that overall bill

[19:47] councilman bill how are your correct any

[19:50] other questions all right all those in

[19:52] favor signify by saying aye aye

[19:54] as opposed signify by saying nay motion

[19:57] carries

[19:59] item E is council approval of resolution

[20:01] number 20-12 adopting the 2020

[20:05] engineering design standards for the

[20:06] city of Watertown providing the

[20:08] technical design criteria to be required

[20:11] for certain infrastructure improvements

[20:13] being proposed for construction within

[20:15] the city a motion by a bill power and

[20:19] the second by l'olam and a long time in

[20:23] coming

[20:24] so we'll ask heath to go ahead and tell

[20:28] us about this

[20:47] Thank You mayor I couldn't ask my

[20:58] esteemed colleague Dave Peterson to join

[20:59] me up here and I'd like to start out

[21:05] just by acknowledging the work that has

[21:07] gone into this document that's that I'll

[21:08] present here this evening these are the

[21:12] draft engineering design standards for

[21:14] the city Watertown and the the work

[21:21] that's gone out of this initiated long

[21:22] before me coming to Watertown there's

[21:25] been I think at least two prior city

[21:27] engineers that's put work into these design standards along with

[21:32] assistant city engineering staff

[21:35] the mayor self is a former assistant

[21:38] city engineer my former colleague Kellen

[21:40] Paulson and his work that he's put into

[21:42] him and then as of recently a lot of the

[21:44] brunt of the work to wrap this up I'd

[21:46] have to give the gentleman sitting asked

[21:47] me here a lot of credit for that

[21:48] former city engineer himself Dave

[21:51] Peterson who's been helping fill in part

[21:52] time due to some vacancies and positions

[21:55] in the engineering office right now so

[21:58] with all that effort and all that work I

[22:00] also want to express the interest that

[22:03] the development community has and seeing

[22:06] he's adopted the development community

[22:09] has spoken recently through a committee

[22:14] that they've established on how to help

[22:16] foster some proficient productive

[22:21] development review processes this I

[22:23] think was apparent to them was one of

[22:25] the missing links it was needed for the

[22:26] city water tone which I agree with to

[22:30] implement some standards that give their

[22:33] consultant their design engineers a

[22:35] standard to go by when they're compiling

[22:36] their plans and specifications for their developments so with all that

[22:41] being said I think there's a long waited

[22:43] document here that we've got before the

[22:45] council tonight and I've got a good

[22:47] handful of slides here some of these

[22:49] sections and the design standards I'll

[22:51] kind of breeze through and a couple of

[22:53] them of focus on a little more heavily

[22:54] because of the the stature of them as

[22:57] far as how they stand out and all the

[23:00] effect and some of the basic

[23:02] construction components for some of the

[23:05] developments that we see so when we talk

[23:10] about engineering design standards the

[23:11] first thing we look at and references

[23:13] are ordinances and I just wanted to

[23:15] point this out that our city ordinances

[23:18] do currently reference our engineering

[23:20] design standards in a couple of places

[23:22] the two places I want to site

[23:24] specifically rate relate to the use of

[23:27] design standards and then also the

[23:29] reference to a professional licensed

[23:31] engineer to perform the design work

[23:34] chapter 24 in the city code is probably

[23:38] the most related section of city code in

[23:41] relation to how it ties into the use of

[23:44] these engineering design standards

[23:45] chapter 24 are the subdivision

[23:48] regulations for the city and it gets

[23:50] into detail about how land is subdivided

[23:54] how it becomes plaited how it what it

[23:57] takes to get a building rights on that

[23:58] land and all the sequencing and

[24:01] processes that have to go through one of

[24:03] the components in that development

[24:05] process is to submit and have approval

[24:08] of construction plans that's really the

[24:11] heart of what these engineering design

[24:12] standards do they help steer the design

[24:14] that goes into those construction plans

[24:16] for public infrastructure that's going

[24:20] to be built on any subdivision or

[24:21] development for the city water talent so

[24:24] you see a couple sections there in

[24:25] chapter 24 that reference the

[24:26] engineering design standards already now

[24:29] what we've been doing since these aren't

[24:31] formally adopted yet I've just been

[24:32] using commonplace engineering standards

[24:35] which as you can imagine helps it

[24:40] doesn't help the review process it kind

[24:41] of enters it because one common

[24:44] engineering practice that I'm a

[24:46] reference might not be the same on the

[24:47] last City Engineer referenced which

[24:49] might not be the same one the design

[24:51] engineer is referencing so you can see

[24:53] there became some disconnect along the

[24:55] way which causes confusion and

[24:57] frustration through the design review

[24:58] and permitting process now once we adopt

[25:02] our own standards there that are

[25:05] comprehensively summarizing a lot of

[25:07] these regulations that puts everybody in

[25:10] the same level playing field and

[25:11] everybody knows what to expect on the

[25:13] cement

[25:14] through the review and through the

[25:16] construction phases so it'll be great a

[25:18] great asset for the community these are

[25:22] the 15 sections that they're that make

[25:25] up the engineering design standards they

[25:29] some of these are very short only a

[25:31] couple pages long

[25:32] some get to be a little bit more lengthy

[25:35] up to I think maybe 20 pages or more in

[25:37] some of these sections and some of them

[25:40] refer to existing design standards that

[25:42] we already have adopted like the

[25:44] stormwater best management practices and

[25:47] some refer to our sister agency over at

[25:50] the Watertown municipal utilities who

[25:52] regulates the design of our water

[25:54] systems for example so I'll breeze

[25:57] through these sections just by title and

[26:00] I'll pull out some highlights as we go

[26:02] here but chapter 1 is generally just

[26:05] kind of your typical kickoff information

[26:08] as far as what these standards are doing

[26:10] what they're trying to accomplish who

[26:12] they're applicable to who has the

[26:15] enforcement responsibilities I will note

[26:18] that the City Engineer is designated as

[26:20] the enforcement responsibility of these

[26:22] design standards for the cities of

[26:24] Watertown as it is currently drafted it

[26:28] touches on the necessity for review

[26:30] process prior approvals are not negated

[26:34] by the adoption of these standards so if

[26:36] they are adopted tonight the regular

[26:37] council meeting that doesn't mean that

[26:39] we negate all permits that we just

[26:41] issued yesterday those are all still

[26:44] withstanding and then it talks about the

[26:46] relationship with other standards

[26:49] variances that's important to note as

[26:51] well to have a variance from any of

[26:53] these design standards and I keep

[26:56] pointing over here but I'm referencing a

[26:57] printout version of them of a rough

[26:59] draft but any variances to this document

[27:04] have to be submitted in writing and

[27:06] justified in writing to the city

[27:07] engineer for their review and

[27:09] determination of whether it's something

[27:11] that can be approved or not and you'll

[27:14] see that fairly common you know when it

[27:17] comes to variances on other documents

[27:18] they sometimes go to different boards

[27:20] sometimes all the way to the level of

[27:22] City Council when it comes to a

[27:24] technical document like this most

[27:25] communities will leave that very in

[27:27] Surrey

[27:27] you on the shoulder of the city engineer

[27:29] just because of the technical nature of

[27:31] it some it'll review and approval

[27:37] procedures in chapter 2 this talks about

[27:41] the reports and plans that are required

[27:44] for review and how those get approved

[27:47] and then the revision process so if the

[27:50] plans and reports come in and we make

[27:53] red line comments on them red lines a

[27:57] common nomenclature that we use in our

[27:58] review process they get red line that

[28:01] gets turned back to the consultant or

[28:03] their agent and then a final plan is

[28:07] eventually turned in reviewed and a okay

[28:09] good to go and gets noted as such that

[28:12] is the final approved construction set

[28:14] and should then in theory be the plan

[28:17] set that the contractor is using in the

[28:19] field so there's not discrepancy there

[28:23] permit procedures and requirements these

[28:27] upfront sections I want to again remind

[28:29] you that these these fall in line with

[28:32] one of the things Dave did a great job

[28:33] with along with other staff

[28:35] Marcion and brandy and planning and

[28:38] engineering wanted to make sure that

[28:40] whatever we're stating in here is either

[28:42] referencing chapter 24 the city

[28:45] ordinances the subdivision regulations

[28:46] or stating the exact same things we were

[28:50] consistent and so some of these upfront

[28:52] sections like this on the permit

[28:54] procedures and requirements this

[28:56] outlines some of the different permits

[28:58] that we require to construct certain

[29:01] things throughout the community and then

[29:04] talks about the bonding that's required

[29:06] for the contractors to perform that work

[29:08] and the different construction

[29:11] specifications and traffic control that

[29:14] they need to be mindful of and other

[29:17] responsibilities when constructing

[29:19] things within the city chapter 4 talks

[29:24] about utility easements and utility

[29:27] locations

[29:28] it requires that all public utilities be

[29:30] in an easement if they're not already

[29:32] located within the right-of-way

[29:33] it identifies a minimum width of those

[29:36] easements depending on the type of

[29:37] utility it is

[29:40] you know our common utilities that we

[29:42] see are drainage easements we have

[29:47] sometimes we'll have water line

[29:49] easements that run outside the right

[29:50] away sanitary sewer easements that again

[29:53] run outside the right away but this

[29:56] section really covers a lot of those components chapter five we get

[30:02] into Street access and parking lot

[30:05] criteria this is one will focus a little

[30:07] bit on it I've got a couple take out

[30:08] graphs from the chapter that we'll talk

[30:10] about the first item in chapter 5 talks

[30:13] about traffic studies we do not require

[30:15] a blanket traffic study for all

[30:18] development in in Watertown I don't

[30:21] think we've required one for any

[30:23] developments since I've been here what

[30:25] this the adoption of these standards

[30:28] will do is it gives a threshold on when

[30:29] a traffic study will be required and if

[30:32] you recall I think there was right

[30:34] before I started here in Watertown

[30:37] there was approvals for apartment

[30:39] complex over on 19th 19th Street and a

[30:44] lot of discussion about the traffic

[30:45] impact from that apartment complex these

[30:47] standards will now give us reference to

[30:49] some criteria to use when to trigger the

[30:52] developer to submit a traffic impact

[30:55] analysis to us to make sure that the

[30:58] traffic is handled appropriately

[30:59] according to the findings in that

[31:01] traffic impact study so that's one of

[31:03] the components I wanted to point out of

[31:05] this section I would just like to add

[31:07] that development would not have

[31:10] triggered a traffic study but it would

[31:13] have come really close so it's good to

[31:17] have a cut-off point so we can speak

[31:22] authoritative Lee and this is a common

[31:26] design standard used by other

[31:28] communities it is and it's typically

[31:31] triggered by your peak hour factor of

[31:35] vehicles that are accessing your

[31:38] property either a daily traffic count or

[31:43] a peak hour traffic count is usually

[31:44] what will be used to trigger that and

[31:46] that's based of course on the

[31:47] anticipated use of that land whether it

[31:50] be high density residential commercial

[31:53] just real things of that nature access

[31:55] control that's an access design that's

[31:57] the one I wanted to get into here with

[31:58] these next two diagrams here I have

[32:01] table 5.1 from the design standards this

[32:06] table correlates directly and I'll flip

[32:08] back before between these two I

[32:09] apologize for the hazy appearance of

[32:13] Figure 5.1 but this is essentially

[32:17] diagram of an intersection if you can

[32:20] imagine the street being out here on the

[32:22] far right side of this diagram and then

[32:24] on the bottom of it and these are just

[32:27] multitude of configurations of

[32:29] approaches or accesses out onto those

[32:31] streets and in here you have several

[32:33] variables that are noted that are then

[32:37] given minimum numbers or maximum numbers

[32:41] on this chart one of them that I

[32:43] highlighted here is related to driveway

[32:47] dimensions and the maximum allowable

[32:50] residential driveway on either a local

[32:53] or collector Street as you see in the

[32:56] draft we have 36 feet as a maximum

[32:58] allowed now it's important to note when

[33:03] you set that maximum allowed it's not

[33:06] always the default that a home builder

[33:07] will go to for instance if they're

[33:10] building a two stall garage it's likely

[33:12] they're not gonna want to put in a 36

[33:14] foot wide driveway but they could and it

[33:16] is the maximum allowed so it does open

[33:20] the door for those things to happen

[33:22] where they may put in a little wider

[33:24] driveway than was necessary for the

[33:26] garage that is trying to accommodate I

[33:29] can tell you that other communities use

[33:32] anywhere from 30 to up to 36

[33:35] I usually don't see much more over 36

[33:38] for residents with driveway widths as

[33:40] far as common numbers and I just want to

[33:46] touch on that one because what a 36 foot

[33:48] wide driveway does do is it helps

[33:49] accommodate three-stall garage and so if

[33:52] you have residential single-family

[33:54] subdivision being built out and a lot of

[33:57] three stall garage configurations

[34:00] this helps to accommodate that in the in

[34:03] the contractors the home builders

[34:05] perspective it makes for an easy

[34:07] straight-line drive way up to that

[34:10] garage now

[34:11] in my previous community I've talked

[34:13] about this 36 feet because that's what

[34:15] we had adopted there and how if you were

[34:18] to lessen it to say 32 or 34 you can

[34:23] still accommodate for a wider

[34:24] three-stall garage you just have to

[34:26] taper out that driveway on the property

[34:29] once you get through the right away you

[34:31] widen that driveway out and then you

[34:33] have your 36 feet to approach into that

[34:35] third stall so that's another thing you

[34:38] know that the council could contemplate

[34:39] here in this scenario if we didn't feel

[34:42] that 36 feet was appropriate another

[34:44] thing to note the wider this is like 36

[34:48] feet I wouldn't recommend going in wider

[34:50] but the wider this number is the less on

[34:54] street parking you presumably have in a

[34:56] residential subdivision because it's

[34:58] taken up by driveway access curb cuts

[35:02] I'm wondering if this conflicts with our

[35:05] r1c section of ordinance that we

[35:10] recently passed which has 50-foot Lots

[35:12] and you if you allow a 36 foot wide

[35:16] driveway on a 50 foot lot there's not

[35:18] enough room for an on street parking

[35:20] slot and I believe we addressed that and

[35:24] limited that we might want to put a note

[35:27] that it isn't automatic that you would

[35:30] get 36 feet that that would be the

[35:33] maximum but it might be the city

[35:37] engineer would say less than that if you

[35:41] have a lot that is smaller or you know

[35:45] whatever the situation is so we do have

[35:48] quite a few Lots in our community that

[35:51] are less than 75 feet which I mean a 50

[35:59] foot lot and a 36 foot wide driveway is

[36:02] telling the neighborhood there's no on

[36:05] street parking our to a and yes our to a

[36:10] as a 50 foot lot with minimum so I think

[36:15] you want to make sure that that isn't

[36:18] construed to mean that anyone can have

[36:22] 36 feet of driveway width and another

[36:25] thing I would like to point out is that

[36:26] we have very firmly held to not allowing

[36:31] driveways on collectors and arterials

[36:34] and for residences and this so states

[36:40] that when they're there they have a

[36:42] maximum of 36 feet that I don't want to

[36:47] give the impression that you can plant a

[36:50] lot with a 36 foot wide driveway on a

[36:54] collector route because that goes

[36:56] against what we've been practicing for

[37:01] maybe a couple decades so we say it

[37:07] somewhere I think that driveways are

[37:09] [Music]

[37:13] frowned upon on collectors somewhere not

[37:19] sure where would that be in our

[37:20] subdivision ordinance no access directly

[37:24] on to collect your routes yeah no that's

[37:28] a good question mayor I don't know if

[37:30] I've come across that language in any of

[37:32] our other regulations as far as I know

[37:34] that that's been discussion since I've

[37:35] been here we've been astute to you know

[37:39] making sure that those residential

[37:41] accesses are limited or prohibited on

[37:44] collector routes I do know at times

[37:49] particularly in existing circumstances

[37:51] there are obviously residential lots but

[37:55] collector routes throughout our

[37:56] community and I also know in research

[38:02] that the community who these regulations

[38:05] are modeled after I should have noted

[38:07] that my introduction here but the city

[38:09] of Brandon utilizes these regulations

[38:11] and I think they actually narrowed their

[38:15] residential collector down to 30 feet

[38:18] residential driveway on a collector down

[38:20] to 30 feet but did still have a number

[38:22] in there for that use if it were to

[38:25] occur well I want to just put out a think we want

[38:32] to make sure that we're consistent we

[38:36] don't want to mislead people into

[38:37] believing that because there's a

[38:39] driveway dimension given on collectors

[38:41] in this table that that implies that

[38:44] they get to have access on to collectors

[38:48] I think this somewhere in this section

[38:49] should say that we don't want driveways

[38:54] we'd prefer not to have driveways

[38:56] directly going on to collect routes

[38:59] it's like 19th Street north the north

[39:02] part of 19th Street which was plaited

[39:04] after the 1980s doesn't have direct

[39:09] access from driveways and the southern

[39:12] part of it which is older does have some

[39:15] and that has been a bone of contention

[39:18] for people wanting to develop in there

[39:22] that's something we can handle with new

[39:24] subdivisions within our development

[39:27] agreements and that sort of thing but be

[39:30] nice to be consistent so we're I just

[39:35] want to echo what Sara said and I was

[39:37] gonna use 19th Street as an example

[39:39] exactly for that reason the southern

[39:41] portion of that there's a lot of

[39:43] approaches and cutouts in there and

[39:44] there's not that many on the north part

[39:46] I don't think anybody maybe at the time

[39:48] understood 19 could be such a busy

[39:50] street but as we plan future collectors

[39:52] let's not make that mistake again let's

[39:54] make sure that that collector is serves

[39:57] that purpose to drive traffic and we

[39:59] keep those driveway cutouts to a minimum

[40:01] I agree with that yeah thank you Mary

[40:06] do we have a minimum frontage do because

[40:09] if you should we said a minimum frontage

[40:11] amount the width for a 36 foot driveway

[40:14] you know maybe that number 75 feet but

[40:18] that's something you may want to

[40:19] consider if we haven't done that already

[40:20] and our r1c code in the title 21 does

[40:27] talk about that that you in a way that

[40:31] you can have a driveway with that allows

[40:33] for at least 120 foot my parking space

[40:38] per lot I think is how that's listed

[40:41] so if you have a big r1c lot that gives

[40:46] you enough space to have an on street

[40:49] parking spot then you can have a wider

[40:53] driveway as long as you're leaving

[40:55] enough space so that we still have on

[40:58] street parking so I think we went

[41:00] through that pretty carefully when we

[41:04] proposed the r1c zone because a 50-foot

[41:09] lot is a very small narrow lot and we

[41:12] didn't want to have subdivisions without

[41:15] on street parking in residential areas

[41:17] so that would be a good place to

[41:19] reference how to word this for the

[41:22] future I mean I think it's great that

[41:24] we're getting this out there and we can

[41:27] make modifications anytime we want to

[41:31] make it better yeah and I think those

[41:34] are a couple simple ones that actually

[41:36] you know we could make upon the adoption

[41:38] of this is to put a note in here to add

[41:41] clarity to the 36-foot in a collector or

[41:45] whatever width and a collector on

[41:47] residential areas you know those are to

[41:51] be determined at the discretion of the

[41:53] city engineer and that future

[41:55] development of course our goal would be

[41:56] and we could put a note here to that

[41:57] extent that our goal would be that

[41:59] future development would prohibit or

[42:02] drastically minimize unless there's an

[42:04] extreme case prohibit any residential

[42:07] access onto collect or else we don't end

[42:09] up with 19th Street issues yes I mean we

[42:12] have lots of collector routes in our

[42:13] city where the lots of jacent have no

[42:16] other choice but together driveway it

[42:18] right onto that collector out so we need

[42:20] to have a standard but we just don't

[42:23] want people to take away from the

[42:25] standard that that's permission if

[42:27] there's an alternative sorry it didn't

[42:32] mean a railroad

[42:33] as of now are we okay with that 36 in

[42:37] this in this document as it stands and

[42:40] are there any proposed reduction to that

[42:44] number here this evening

[42:48] I like Bruce's idea I just don't want to

[42:52] see lots where it's all the right way

[42:54] there's no parking in the street so your

[43:01] proposal man would be 56 feet then if

[43:04] you needed an additional 20 feet of

[43:06] space what you're saying I would say

[43:08] that instead of saying a width that

[43:11] there has to be at least 20 feet or

[43:14] whatever we said in the Arwen see I

[43:16] could probably pull it up can you pull

[43:18] it up to allow for at least one on

[43:22] street parking slot per lot and 20 feet

[43:28] is I mean that's a pretty skinny lot of

[43:33] vehicles can't fit in a 20-foot slot

[43:37] that's a bare minimum if if there's

[43:40] language in that r1c mayor the Dave and

[43:42] I could reference we could incorporate

[43:43] that as an amendment here why don't we

[43:51] continue on great so that was really the

[43:55] highlight of this section 5 I wanted to

[43:58] talk about access control the other part

[44:00] on this diagram the C value here is the

[44:05] offset of a driveway from an

[44:08] intersecting street and now that's an

[44:10] important number to that really I'm glad

[44:14] to see that we'll have some numbers to

[44:16] administer this there and I should also

[44:19] note to some of these numbers are

[44:20] derived by standards that come from the

[44:23] American Association of State Highway

[44:25] Transportation officials Asheville and a

[44:32] lot of times there's unique cases that

[44:35] come up where there may need to be

[44:38] reference to those manuals to guide us

[44:40] through what the right number is what

[44:42] the right offset from an intersection is

[44:44] but we have had recent

[44:46] commercial development come in on a

[44:49] corner lot

[44:50] and they want their approach a lot

[44:53] closer to the intersecting street than

[44:56] they realize is appropriate because of

[44:59] the impact on the driving lanes of the

[45:02] side street the closer that driveway is

[45:06] to this intersecting street that creates

[45:08] all kinds of traffic maneuver conflicts

[45:12] if there's a traffic signal here and you

[45:14] have stop cars backed up and this

[45:17] traffic cannot turn into that driveway

[45:20] that becomes an issue there's all kinds

[45:22] of issues like that so we want to make

[45:23] sure that that design is done

[45:24] appropriately to help minimize those

[45:25] conflicts in the future and you can all

[45:27] probably think of a location in town

[45:28] where there's a access very close to the

[45:31] intersection and you've driven through

[45:33] there and felt a little awkward what are

[45:35] you gonna get hit or not that's what

[45:37] we're trying to prevent by having these

[45:39] kind of regulations in place and on new

[45:41] development it usually is pretty easy to

[45:43] accommodate these kind of numbers so

[45:45] that because they're starting with a

[45:46] clean slate and they can really help do

[45:50] that through these commonly applied

[45:53] standards moving on chapter six talks

[45:57] about geotechnical reports when they're

[46:00] required when we do soil exploration

[46:02] again this isn't a report that we see a

[46:05] lot of but there are times when it when

[46:07] it is necessary and should be done and

[46:09] that's what this section outlines

[46:10] chapter 7 talks about grading and the

[46:13] grading requirements for subdivisions

[46:15] you'll see both of these sections are

[46:16] fairly short in content only a couple

[46:19] pages each chapter 8 another big one

[46:22] that I wanted to point out this is a

[46:23] longer section almost 30 pages long but

[46:26] it talks about Street design and

[46:27] pavement thicknesses and the couple of

[46:30] components that I'll skip right to here

[46:32] are right away widths and roadway widths

[46:36] now these are two components that are

[46:39] typically one of the the most that are

[46:42] upfront and present in the public you

[46:44] know once something gets built and

[46:45] everybody's driving to and from it

[46:47] whether it be a residence or a new

[46:49] commercial development this is usually

[46:51] one of the first impactful things that

[46:53] the community observes feels and can

[46:58] relate with because it's it

[47:00] it's tucked that way for quite a while

[47:02] however wide those roads are when that

[47:04] developed development got built is how

[47:06] why they're gonna be for quite some time

[47:07] so we want to make sure we get this part

[47:09] right to in reference to roadway widths

[47:12] right away widths our comp plan we did

[47:15] reference that to see and make sure we

[47:17] were consistent with it and it does say

[47:19] for local streets we have at least sixty

[47:21] six foot of right away that number grows

[47:24] as you get up into a collector in

[47:25] arterial functional classification of a

[47:28] roadway of course larger the roadway the

[47:31] larger the right away needs are so

[47:36] that's how we have drafted that with the

[47:38] right away with roadway widths what

[47:41] we're proposing is just over a thirty

[47:44] nine foot back of curb roadway with as a

[47:48] minimum this this would allow for two

[47:52] eight foot wide parking lanes and two

[47:56] eleven foot wide driving lanes and that

[48:00] number of course also grows as you get

[48:02] into industrial zoned areas and on

[48:06] collector and arterial streets those

[48:08] minimum roadway widths wide now I wanted

[48:11] to show you a handful of slides here and

[48:13] then we can talk through the

[48:15] appropriateness of these numbers and

[48:16] whether we should be a little an error

[48:17] on these minimum widths or not here's an

[48:22] example of a street that's only 28 feet

[48:24] wide this is a pretty hill circle it's a

[48:27] cul-de-sac some communities will allow

[48:29] their cul-de-sacs to be narrower the

[48:33] city Brandon does for example and their

[48:34] standards what this 28 foot wide

[48:37] this is face the curb to face a curb so

[48:41] the effective use of the road because

[48:43] obviously once you get back to the the

[48:46] curb you're not having any use of that

[48:48] area so but a 28 foot face to face

[48:51] leaves to eight foot parking lanes and

[48:54] 112 foot drive lane in the middle I

[48:58] would note that the fire regulations in

[49:01] the AFC would require us to mark one of

[49:04] these sides of streets is not as no

[49:07] parking because of the fire apparatus

[49:10] minimum width drive aisle requirement

[49:13] for emergency response and so this is a

[49:18] narrower example that we wanted to

[49:20] include in here this is a 34-foot face a

[49:23] curb so face a curb what you pretty much

[49:26] do is you add another foot because you

[49:28] have approximately six inches of curb

[49:29] width and that's your back up curve

[49:32] width so this is approximately a 35 foot

[49:35] back occur with street that allows four

[49:37] to eight foot parking lanes and to nine

[49:40] foot driving lanes this is another same

[49:44] situation a little bit different area of

[49:46] town you can see where it gets congested

[49:48] in a hurry when there's a lot of traffic

[49:49] there to nine foot driving lanes and to

[49:52] eight foot parking lanes there's where

[49:56] we get a little bit wider now this is a

[49:57] 38-foot that provides four to eleven

[50:00] foot driving lanes and to eight foot

[50:02] parking lanes this is effectively what

[50:04] our regulations would require our

[50:07] residential streets to be built to at a

[50:09] minimum this is another example of the

[50:12] stream street so again here's the the

[50:14] Barron this this looks a lot wider until

[50:17] you get some traffic on it and see how

[50:20] that impacts the flow you have two

[50:22] parked vehicles and then the one driving

[50:24] through now you could meet somebody had

[50:26] to adhere and presumably have plenty of

[50:28] room to both drive through and not have

[50:30] to stop and wait for the other vehicle

[50:33] with those two eleven foot driving lanes

[50:36] here's a more extreme case of 40-foot

[50:40] face the curb the face curb that allows

[50:42] for two 12-foot driving lanes more than

[50:45] I think is necessary especially in a

[50:48] residential subdivision so those are some of the examples that we

[50:54] have that I wanted to display the other

[50:57] thing I wanted to note so this this

[51:00] slide right here would show a typical

[51:02] street with according to how these

[51:06] regulations are drafted at 39 feet back

[51:08] occurred the one thing we don't have

[51:11] pictures of I thought we did but we

[51:12] don't and I apologize but in snow

[51:16] fighting season when the plows go by as

[51:19] we all know the gutter pan can often

[51:20] accumulate with snow and that's no

[51:23] accumulation of the gutter pan

[51:25] is sometimes dependent on the type of

[51:27] snow removal that's occurring in that

[51:28] neighborhood it's dependent upon whether

[51:31] there's snow gates being used or not the

[51:33] presence of snow gates allows for all

[51:36] the more snow accumulation in that

[51:38] gutter pan so what I'm getting at is in

[51:40] our winter seasons here we do have an

[51:42] effect of narrowing of our street with

[51:44] or usable street with for both parking

[51:47] and the travel lanes and something I

[51:50] just want make sure that everybody's

[51:51] sensitive to and and acknowledges when

[51:54] we set this number

[51:56] whether it's 39 feet or less as far as

[51:59] our minimum Street with I'll go back to

[52:04] that chart now and here's where that 39

[52:06] feet is three and I feet four inches

[52:08] because of the the the standardized curb

[52:11] width that we use that's just what the

[52:13] calculations end up being to provide to

[52:16] 8-foot parking lanes and to 11 foot

[52:18] driving lanes your back a curb width is

[52:20] 39 feet 4 inches Dave and I have talked

[52:25] about this I've referenced other

[52:27] communities minimum widths some will go

[52:30] as low as 36 37 feet some go as high as

[52:33] 39 to 44 minimum street widths and this

[52:41] is another number to that I would

[52:42] appreciate any kind of input that the

[52:44] council might have I I would like to

[52:48] point out that more recent subdivisions

[52:52] have used a narrower standard than this

[52:54] and I just to pull it off the top of my

[53:02] head when what are the most recent

[53:05] subdivisions that we've done I haven't

[53:08] checked lately but I I know that Prairie

[53:11] Hills up there is less was this one of a

[53:16] mayor that the developer spoke to you on

[53:18] behalf of I don't recall okay I know one

[53:24] of them that was built I know that even

[53:25] the developer came back later and

[53:27] thought well if that was the first the

[53:29] cul-de-sac that you showed okay we're

[53:30] gonna have to so I'm you're saying and

[53:32] if we want to be compliant with fire

[53:34] code we're gonna have to mark this one

[53:37] side Park

[53:38] correct yes otherwise we'll be out of

[53:45] that I don't think we want to do for

[53:47] sure that's we would want parking on

[53:50] both sides of a residential street in a

[53:52] neighborhood we'd want to comply with

[53:54] the fire code what would that be a

[53:57] minimum were compliance with the fire

[54:00] code with parking on both sides 32

[54:03] anything over 32 so from 26 feet up to

[54:07] 32 feet the fire code says no parking

[54:10] allowed on one side okay so we should be

[54:12] posted we would want that to be at least

[54:15] 32 feet on a cul-de-sac and what what

[54:18] did you say your cul-de-sac you said 30

[54:22] 33 and four inches yeah that's so that's

[54:29] 32 essentially face a curb to face a

[54:31] curb so that complies with the fire code

[54:38] the the wider standard for a through

[54:41] residential street is the one big

[54:45] question that developers have requested

[54:46] a narrowing of that and I I want to say

[54:50] I think we went 36 feet face a curb to

[54:53] face a curb which would be 37 and just

[54:58] so the council knows we've been all over

[55:00] the place on these and whatever we

[55:04] require is what we own and maintain

[55:06] forever so we don't want to have excess

[55:09] asphalt to have to keep up that's that's

[55:14] an issue

[55:15] so what we're what we're saying in the

[55:19] table is pretty generous but it does

[55:23] allow you to open your door if there's a

[55:25] big high snow bank to a little bit more

[55:27] comfortably than the narrower streets if

[55:30] you have snow piled in the boulevard

[55:33] people are going to park a little bit

[55:35] farther out into the road and you're

[55:37] gonna end up with one lane Kozma Bueller

[55:41] question when you talk about called a

[55:44] sec the width for a road to a call to

[55:46] sack is there is it a one block length

[55:49] is that the

[55:50] maxximum where you would go with a

[55:52] narrower rotor because if you've got say

[55:54] you got six block stretch that comes to

[55:57] that cul-de-sac does that make a

[55:58] difference and I just want to go on the

[56:01] record I I think that because we are a

[56:04] snow snow load country I think we really

[56:08] got to be careful with this one

[56:09] I don't I know the mayor like kind of

[56:12] likes the neighborhood street widths and

[56:14] I agree that this is more to maintain

[56:15] it's more to install there's more

[56:17] expense but I think there's a lot of

[56:18] safety issues that surround this - you

[56:21] know how you can react to somebody

[56:23] pedestrian coming out from behind a car

[56:25] somebody who doesn't park right next to

[56:28] the curb all the time there are a lot of

[56:29] different things I think that come into

[56:31] play but I just want to go on record

[56:33] from my planning experience and some of

[56:35] the things that I've seen that I think

[56:37] that we need to to stay with the wider

[56:40] streets

[56:43] councilman Bueller to your question on

[56:45] Cola sack lengths yeah that's something

[56:48] I've seen communities handle differently

[56:49] some will set that length of the maximum

[56:52] cul-de-sac length allowed according to a

[56:54] sheer number of lots you know no more

[56:57] than 20 Lots on a cul-de-sac let's see

[56:59] others will relate it to the length of a

[57:03] dead-end fire main and so that water

[57:07] line going down to that end of that cola

[57:10] saken's a dead ending and not looped in

[57:12] to the rest of the water system which

[57:15] typically isn't good for the water

[57:16] system depending on what kind of

[57:17] turnover will be in that line so that's

[57:19] another driving factor that comes into

[57:21] play with the length of a cul-de-sac and

[57:23] it's kind of all over the board that

[57:25] you'll see some will just put an

[57:27] arbitrary length to it you know no colas

[57:29] act longer than 500 feet so there's

[57:33] those few factors that go into that I

[57:34] haven't seen anything necessarily

[57:36] correlated with the width in relation to

[57:38] the length and any of the standards that

[57:40] I've applied in the past not saying that

[57:42] we couldn't create one or have one but

[57:44] it's usually just basic street with

[57:49] criteria irrelevant or not considering

[57:52] the the length of a cul-de-sac

[58:03] say 500 foot maximum from cross street

[58:07] to the end of the cul-de-sac I was gonna

[58:09] ask that where is that Dave do you

[58:12] remember where that is

[58:14] I'm not sure exactly where that is but

[58:17] yeah I think it is in this section

[58:50] so chary driving 27th Street I just drew

[58:54] up the approved plans we have a 35.3

[59:02] back a curb to back a curb which is

[59:06] considerably narrower

[1:00:25] well as Dave's looking for that you know

[1:00:30] the other components in this chart there

[1:00:33] are several it talks about the type of

[1:00:35] curb that we allow which is all six inch

[1:00:37] vertical curb we currently don't allow

[1:00:39] any what they call model Bowl or

[1:00:41] rollover curb where you can essentially

[1:00:45] just drive over it some communities do

[1:00:48] allow that we we require six inch

[1:00:50] vertical curb in our standards and which

[1:00:54] creates the need to form a formal curb

[1:00:57] drop for each a driveway or approached

[1:01:00] again in snow country I think that that

[1:01:03] six inch high back curb is a little more

[1:01:07] accommodating to the snow removal

[1:01:08] equipment and and the snow storage

[1:01:14] let's see any other highlights from this

[1:01:16] chart again we referenced the ash toe

[1:01:20] standards for some of the horizontal and

[1:01:22] vertical alignment control first Street

[1:01:25] design that's pretty well the highlights

[1:01:30] from all the sidewalk I'll point that

[1:01:32] when I'll quick to as well

[1:01:34] sidewalk width we've we went to a

[1:01:36] straight five foot wide sidewalk

[1:01:39] throughout town whether you're in

[1:01:41] residential or commercial some towns

[1:01:43] will split that out and you'll be five

[1:01:46] foot wide and commercial areas but only

[1:01:48] four foot wide and residential the state

[1:01:51] I believe has gone to a default five

[1:01:53] foot wide sidewalk and that's what kind

[1:01:55] of spurred us to fall in line with them

[1:01:59] and just use a five foot wide standard

[1:02:02] Center if there's any concerns with that

[1:02:04] but that's another number that we could

[1:02:06] modify as well I think that's that's

[1:02:08] good to bring up the ad a requirement is

[1:02:11] four feet and a lot of our sidewalks in

[1:02:14] town are four feet wide but it's

[1:02:15] difficult for two adults to walk

[1:02:18] side-by-side on the four foot wide

[1:02:19] sidewalk five foot is what a DA

[1:02:22] recommends are and no they recommend we

[1:02:25] do five did you want to say something

[1:02:27] cause one well is that if I put maximum

[1:02:29] or is that five foot minimum

[1:02:31] that is uh that is a minimum 5 foot

[1:02:35] standard sidewalk with so eda is 4 foot

[1:02:40] we're pulling in 5 foot a DA recommends

[1:02:44] rise they recommend 5 but they require a

[1:02:48] minimum of 4 so if anyone's replacing

[1:02:52] current or they gonna have to follow new

[1:02:55] requirement we do have a no ik you'll

[1:02:57] see a note 3 here on our sidewalk

[1:03:00] we're sidewalk is attached to curb

[1:03:02] sidewalks will be one foot wider

[1:03:04] sidewalks that are being constructed or

[1:03:07] replaced adjacent to existing sidewalks

[1:03:09] may be the same width as the adjacent

[1:03:11] sidewalks with the approval of a city

[1:03:12] engineer so if you have a four foot

[1:03:14] sidewalk on a replacing one lots worth

[1:03:17] of it we won't necessarily make them go

[1:03:19] in and put five foot in for that one lot

[1:03:22] with it would make sense in that

[1:03:24] scenario to match the four foot on both

[1:03:26] ends I found where we limited the

[1:03:31] cul-de-sacs it's in Section eight point

[1:03:33] seven point six to five hundred feet and

[1:03:36] that will get we'll get some pushback on

[1:03:39] that I think we we did away with that

[1:03:43] when there was controversy people want

[1:03:46] them to be longer I thought it's not

[1:03:48] good to be longer because snow removal

[1:03:50] is difficult and we don't want to have

[1:03:52] cul-de-sacs period anywhere but

[1:03:55] sometimes you do have to have them it's

[1:03:57] not practical to do something else at

[1:04:00] least we limit the length I don't know

[1:04:04] dude did you want to weigh in on that

[1:04:06] Rob the street superintendent

[1:04:09] I'm the maximum length for a dead end or

[1:04:13] a cul-de-sac til the sacs are not snow

[1:04:19] removal you know as long as we have a

[1:04:21] turn around at the end like Kristen

[1:04:24] Street up there on 7th Street there's nothing to turn around it's

[1:04:28] about maybe a thousand foot but as far

[1:04:31] as the length that call the sax I think

[1:04:33] it's fine as long as we have something

[1:04:34] at the end of turnaround

[1:04:36] okay so I really don't have any input

[1:04:38] other than that

[1:04:39] you know the other component to that that I'll put in provide input for

[1:04:49] that I've talked to rob about is just

[1:04:51] the presence of a cold the sack does

[1:04:54] compound or snow removal efforts because

[1:04:57] of the necessity to haul is snow out of

[1:04:59] those areas but that's just whether

[1:05:02] there's one there or not that's not

[1:05:04] necessarily anything to do with the

[1:05:05] length of it so that is something we're

[1:05:09] also being mindful of as subdivisions

[1:05:11] continue to submit us designs that's one

[1:05:15] recent one that we've reviewed we've

[1:05:16] commented on that they've modified

[1:05:18] they're designed to accommodate our

[1:05:20] request to help minimize cul-de-sac

[1:05:22] installations which was good to see so I

[1:05:25] think that there's merit in that as well

[1:05:27] okay I'll jump forward here this is

[1:05:34] another one I wanted to touch on quick

[1:05:35] minimum pavement thicknesses we have two

[1:05:39] types of pavement that can go down on

[1:05:40] our streets it's Portland concrete

[1:05:43] cement that's the white stuff and we

[1:05:44] have the asphalt concrete pavement

[1:05:47] that's the black stuff so ACP and PCC is

[1:05:53] how they're known in the industry both

[1:05:56] have the term concrete in them and so

[1:05:58] technically that's what they're called

[1:06:00] but that often times causes confusion

[1:06:02] because we usually think of concrete

[1:06:04] just being the white pavement that's out

[1:06:06] there long story short the concrete

[1:06:09] section we're requiring a minimum of six

[1:06:11] inches on six inches of pavement on top

[1:06:14] of six inches of aggregate base course

[1:06:16] for local streets commercial and

[1:06:20] industrial and collector streets we're

[1:06:22] requiring eight inches on eight and

[1:06:24] arterials eight inches over twelve and

[1:06:28] again the top number is the pavement

[1:06:30] thickness the bottom numbers the base

[1:06:31] course the granular

[1:06:33] the gravel base course that we haul in

[1:06:35] and Bill our street pavement on the

[1:06:37] asphalt streets four inches on twelve

[1:06:40] four local residential streets six

[1:06:43] inches on twelve for commercial

[1:06:45] industrial or collectors and then six on

[1:06:48] twelve again for arterioles we should

[1:06:50] probably have a note in here for

[1:06:52] arterioles

[1:06:53] related to a shto design standards for

[1:06:57] special street sections that are need to

[1:07:00] accommodate heavy traffic loadings you

[1:07:03] know having amount of truck traffic

[1:07:04] again some of this will be specific to

[1:07:06] the road being designed for and the

[1:07:09] design engineer can oftentimes come up

[1:07:13] with different numbers and we're showing

[1:07:15] here and there might be some streets

[1:07:18] where we may want to require more than

[1:07:19] this but these are the minimum payment

[1:07:23] thicknesses required for the street

[1:07:25] section velar he thought of these how

[1:07:28] did these compare with areas that we

[1:07:31] have had trouble I mean Northridge for

[1:07:32] example a great question I know the base

[1:07:36] course has been sparse and fluctuates

[1:07:41] quite a bit in some of those areas of

[1:07:42] town that we've gone back in and

[1:07:43] reconstructed here recently some of

[1:07:45] those neighborhoods like Northridge

[1:07:47] where we saw premature failures where we

[1:07:49] didn't get a full expected lifecycle out

[1:07:51] of the pavement I think we had anywhere

[1:07:53] from two to three inches of pavement on

[1:07:56] top of zero to eight inches of base it

[1:08:01] really did fluctuate quite a bit so this

[1:08:03] does tighten that up or strengthen that

[1:08:06] considerably then it does and one thing

[1:08:09] I'll point out this 12 inches of base

[1:08:10] course in our building conditions so

[1:08:14] many of our areas of town have a high

[1:08:16] level of high presence of groundwater

[1:08:18] and that of course fluctuates from year

[1:08:20] to year and from season to season but

[1:08:23] that that base course layer is a really

[1:08:26] a drainage layer to help protect and

[1:08:28] preserve the pavement surface and with

[1:08:31] the more adequate base course layer the

[1:08:33] better drainage that pavement structure

[1:08:34] is going to have to keep that water

[1:08:36] drained out and down and away from the

[1:08:38] pavement surface and help minimize some

[1:08:41] of those impacts that that freeze-thaw

[1:08:43] cycle can have I was going to comment on

[1:08:48] that - I think this is chapter eight one

[1:08:50] of the most important things you've

[1:08:51] rather worked on so again come on

[1:08:53] I commend the department - Dave thanks

[1:08:55] for helping out and everybody that

[1:08:56] because this is important we get this in

[1:08:58] place I want to comment specifically on

[1:09:00] this when we accepted those streets up

[1:09:03] north is the ones that

[1:09:04] and mention we should have accepted

[1:09:06] those that's really what it comes down

[1:09:08] to Seoul in the future when a street

[1:09:10] it's it gets built then it comes to the

[1:09:13] point where the city's got it accept it

[1:09:15] are we testing for this how do we

[1:09:17] prevent that from happening features

[1:09:18] that cost the city a lot of money what

[1:09:20] happened up north yes so councilman Roby

[1:09:24] to your point the inspection process and

[1:09:27] the acceptance process for these

[1:09:28] subdivisions what we're following to a

[1:09:32] tee as a written in the subdivision

[1:09:34] regulations part of that includes a

[1:09:36] final walkthrough inspection with the

[1:09:38] contractor and/or the engineer and/or

[1:09:42] the developer or all three parties and

[1:09:45] we look for things such as you know

[1:09:49] early signs of pavement distress and

[1:09:50] things like that that may have occurred

[1:09:52] trench settlement things like that

[1:09:53] cracked curb and gutter now during the

[1:09:56] construction is when the most opportune

[1:09:59] time to catch what thicknesses are going

[1:10:01] down for these two types of materials

[1:10:02] and that's something to that we've been

[1:10:05] shifting to improve upon and the

[1:10:07] engineering staff is to be out there and

[1:10:09] have more of a presence during the

[1:10:10] construction phase to perform inspection

[1:10:13] on things like these to ensure that

[1:10:15] they're being done to the approved

[1:10:18] construction plans and that will go a

[1:10:20] long way to help prevent those things

[1:10:23] from happening if we happen not to be

[1:10:25] out there during construction we do

[1:10:27] always have the option to go back and

[1:10:28] core the street section if if we have

[1:10:32] doubts that there's the minimums require

[1:10:34] these standards require cores Heath have

[1:10:41] a question on the four inch there on the

[1:10:43] asphalt concrete is that thick enough

[1:10:46] even though it's a residential is it

[1:10:48] thick enough to withstand you know it's

[1:10:52] our weather that gets us and so it

[1:10:54] seemed like I don't know maybe six would

[1:10:57] be better just because we have all this

[1:11:01] water that freezes and a little crack

[1:11:03] and all of a sudden doesn't take much to

[1:11:05] get four inches deep to break that up

[1:11:08] yeah no that's a good question

[1:11:10] councilman Albertson I think that it is

[1:11:12] a pretty standardized thickness for

[1:11:14] residential streets to see that from

[1:11:16] most communities you go

[1:11:18] to that our size are bigger I think a

[1:11:21] lot of those components to that go into

[1:11:23] the street section design you know

[1:11:25] whether there's edge drain whether

[1:11:26] there's adequate base course all that

[1:11:28] adds up to whether that Street is going

[1:11:30] to function like it should

[1:11:31] along with you know what section what

[1:11:34] thickness of pavement that you have but

[1:11:36] I do think that four would function well

[1:11:38] as long as we get the adequate base

[1:11:39] course underneath it and in a lot of

[1:11:42] cases we'll be looking at requiring edge

[1:11:44] drains as well as long as they can

[1:11:46] daylight out somewhere that helps get

[1:11:48] that water again out and away from that

[1:11:50] pavement surface and drained out into

[1:11:53] the storm sewer system Cosmo Buehler

[1:11:57] thank you

[1:11:59] just a question who signs off who's the

[1:12:02] ultimately the sign-off person would

[1:12:04] that be the city engineer that signs off

[1:12:06] on the testing and is there a way to

[1:12:09] track who signed off on what do we have

[1:12:13] documents that show that so for the

[1:12:16] testing itself that's all up to the

[1:12:18] developers engineer to perform as far as

[1:12:21] compaction tests and concrete testing

[1:12:24] and things of that nature the inspection

[1:12:26] that we perform would more be to a

[1:12:28] visual and just to make sure that the

[1:12:31] grades look appropriate thicknesses look

[1:12:33] appropriate and things of that nature so

[1:12:35] we don't we don't necessarily check off

[1:12:38] and any of that testing but the

[1:12:40] developers engineer should be signing a

[1:12:45] confirmation statement that they did

[1:12:47] follow all the construction

[1:12:49] specifications requirements and perform

[1:12:51] testing where needed and necessary

[1:12:53] throughout the construction so we've had

[1:12:57] these issues you know so at some point

[1:13:01] is there someone that is responsible for

[1:13:03] that within the city I would say our

[1:13:07] responsibility lies on ensuring that

[1:13:09] we're getting the right check offs from

[1:13:11] the developers engineer I don't know as

[1:13:12] though we've done that in the past very

[1:13:16] regularly with some of the records that

[1:13:18] I've looked at or tried to find

[1:13:21] information in if we're consistent with

[1:13:23] this process and and the developers

[1:13:25] engineers checking off providing

[1:13:27] certification and we've got knowledge by

[1:13:31] our field inspection

[1:13:32] that the appropriate things happened as

[1:13:34] per the approved plans I think that

[1:13:37] that'll go a long way and help prevent

[1:13:38] some of these issues that we've had in

[1:13:40] recent past I would I would think what

[1:13:49] Bruce is trying to get is that someone

[1:13:50] from our and be the one that comes out

[1:13:52] and certifies that versus someone from

[1:13:55] the developers and that we're thinking

[1:13:57] oh no I understand I mean I I know

[1:14:00] that's what we've done but I think at

[1:14:01] the end of the day somebody here has to

[1:14:04] okay and that those processes have been

[1:14:07] carried out and they've been carried out

[1:14:08] properly

[1:14:09] yeah because because we can always I

[1:14:11] mean this could happen again and again and we just say well you know

[1:14:14] Joe's construction they apparently

[1:14:16] didn't do it as good a job as they

[1:14:18] should have when they did the testing or

[1:14:20] whoever they had independently test that concrete or compaction that kind of

[1:14:25] thing so it's all I'm saying is that

[1:14:27] there's somebody that that is

[1:14:29] responsible for that within our city

[1:14:32] government not you know just yeah it

[1:14:35] looks good it's okay that guy said it's

[1:14:38] good so there we go

[1:14:39] yeah we're citing the design standards

[1:14:42] Heath I mean I think it's for us to be

[1:14:44] going out there and making sure that the

[1:14:46] design standards are set and that

[1:14:48] they've been met by what we feel versus

[1:14:50] you know by the you know nothing against

[1:14:53] a in developers but by what their

[1:14:55] engineering firm has said or whoever

[1:14:57] built it I mean I think we are the ones

[1:14:59] that are ultimately responsible for

[1:15:00] signing off and we're gonna get the bill

[1:15:02] at the end of it you know one for years

[1:15:04] to come so yeah for us I personally

[1:15:07] rather see one of our guys go down you

[1:15:10] know spot check in here and there yeah

[1:15:12] and so there are communities that

[1:15:15] embrace that concept and they do City

[1:15:18] perform inspections I can tell you that

[1:15:20] in Watertown that would take a pretty

[1:15:22] significant staffing change for us

[1:15:25] probably the tune of at least two

[1:15:27] engineering technicians if we were going

[1:15:28] to perform full-time inspection on

[1:15:30] developments so other communities do it

[1:15:33] like we have been where we do rely on

[1:15:35] the developer and their engineer to make

[1:15:37] sure that we're following the processes

[1:15:39] they give us a signed certification

[1:15:40] saying they sign that they perform those

[1:15:43] processes and then our checkoff really

[1:15:45] becomes you know the final walkthrough

[1:15:47] and and the random inspections that we

[1:15:49] can get out there on to make sure that

[1:15:51] things are being constructed

[1:15:53] appropriately so do we run core samples

[1:15:55] so do we or do we look at core samples

[1:15:59] that they have done for us I mean they

[1:16:02] don't like the state if the state builds

[1:16:04] a road they have to take samples of

[1:16:05] bridge they have things samples under

[1:16:07] that kind of create that sort of thing

[1:16:09] that they can present for inspection to

[1:16:11] the state yeah under the new standards

[1:16:13] we will be but have not to my knowledge

[1:16:16] been doing that the ability to they they

[1:16:21] can do a nuclear test as well which is

[1:16:24] non invasive testing but you have to

[1:16:27] have specialized equipment and training

[1:16:29] to use a Knick nuclear test gauge

[1:16:34] otherwise coring is the standard and we

[1:16:38] require it in these standards councilman

[1:16:41] Villar I just like to weigh in to what

[1:16:44] Bruce and you and Adam are saying I've

[1:16:47] been on that committee that that you're

[1:16:49] you referenced earlier Heath as was or

[1:16:53] as is a read Helene that this is a bone

[1:16:57] of contention around the table as we

[1:17:00] listen to and I get him yet I I was

[1:17:02] definitely a lay person there that did

[1:17:04] not talk Turkey like like most people on

[1:17:08] the table but this was one of the bones

[1:17:10] of contention that felt like did a lot

[1:17:12] of duplication of effort because you

[1:17:14] were already asking that the engineers

[1:17:16] the professional engineers who have

[1:17:18] standards to uphold to sign off on it

[1:17:20] and then the the rough comes when they

[1:17:23] felt like city was holding up the

[1:17:25] process by effectively duplicating what

[1:17:28] the engine the earth of the developers

[1:17:30] engineers had done and as an accountant

[1:17:33] coming from the auditing world I know

[1:17:35] exactly where they're coming from I mean

[1:17:36] it's it would be a duplication of effort

[1:17:40] as I see it as I've worked with audits

[1:17:43] over the years in my profession so that

[1:17:46] this I hear where you're coming from I

[1:17:48] don't disagree but I think when the cost

[1:17:50] when you look at the cost involved and

[1:17:52] what does the timeliness of a project

[1:17:54] I think though what you're explaining

[1:17:56] Heath makes sense to me in what we're

[1:17:59] trying to accomplish here well let me

[1:18:02] kind of clarify so sorry

[1:18:05] you know I'm thinking that it's an audit

[1:18:07] process you know and if they're doing

[1:18:09] core samples that we have an opportunity

[1:18:11] to look at those core samples and know

[1:18:12] what location they're from I'm not

[1:18:14] saying that we would duplicate what the

[1:18:16] engineering group is trying to do that

[1:18:17] works for that developer I'm saying that

[1:18:20] because what's going to keep us from

[1:18:22] having this happen again but it's that's

[1:18:24] the Buddha would be out on a limited I

[1:18:27] mean you're right if you any determining

[1:18:29] and I did it definitely be a sample and I think it would be a relatively

[1:18:33] small sample what satisfied we're trying

[1:18:35] to accomplish

[1:18:38] all right Council under demske heathrow

[1:18:41] these engineers do these inspections

[1:18:44] that we rely on when they sign off on

[1:18:45] the paperwork are they required to carry

[1:18:47] any kind of insurance in case this road

[1:18:49] does fall apart before you know the

[1:18:51] expected life expectancy so this burden

[1:18:53] doesn't fall back on the city short

[1:18:59] answer is yes all engineers have you

[1:19:02] know certain levels of liability

[1:19:03] insurance some of the things we also

[1:19:05] require is bonding of our contractors

[1:19:08] any contractor doing work in the

[1:19:10] community has to have a certain level of

[1:19:11] bonding put up with the city finance

[1:19:14] office and and when they obtain their

[1:19:16] license to do work in the city now when

[1:19:20] it comes to failures after we've

[1:19:24] accepted it that's where it becomes a

[1:19:26] lot more challenging you typically once

[1:19:28] that acceptance has been made we've done

[1:19:32] a final walk through the year warranty

[1:19:34] has expired

[1:19:35] we've gotten to a point where we've

[1:19:36] accepted it it's the cities to own and

[1:19:38] maintain in perpetuity once we get past

[1:19:41] that point it becomes very difficult to

[1:19:45] pull those parties back in if the road

[1:19:46] blows up on us I can't say I'm a gonna

[1:19:49] see it can't happen but it does become

[1:19:51] more difficult that's where having the

[1:19:55] right procedures in place ahead of time

[1:19:57] really do help prevent those instances

[1:20:00] from occurring

[1:20:01] if you have the right design standards

[1:20:04] if you have the right check offs during

[1:20:05] construction and then you have the right

[1:20:08] inspection process at the end the right

[1:20:11] acceptance procedure the warranty period

[1:20:13] those all those things really do help

[1:20:16] mitigate some of the things that we've

[1:20:17] seen like from the north end of town and

[1:20:19] some of these subdivisions I guess I

[1:20:23] can't speak exactly to how that would

[1:20:26] come into play a you know get more of a

[1:20:28] legal interpretation of what the

[1:20:30] development agreement says how the

[1:20:32] developer could be held responsible

[1:20:34] and/or their engineer and/or their

[1:20:37] contractor I think that the connection

[1:20:39] we would have would be through that

[1:20:40] development agreement right great

[1:20:47] discussion

[1:20:49] I'll quick breeze through these next few

[1:20:51] sections sanitary sewers this is a

[1:20:54] mike's world right here pretty

[1:20:55] straightforward stuff it all flows

[1:20:57] downhill and that's how we want to keep

[1:20:58] it go on so now it does get into some

[1:21:02] lift station design criteria and and

[1:21:05] things of that nature but it's a pretty

[1:21:06] straightforward section there's a

[1:21:08] minimum pipe slope requirements minimum

[1:21:10] pipe size requirements minimum manhole

[1:21:12] requirements and all those pertinence is

[1:21:14] that are related to the sanitary sewer

[1:21:15] system chapter 10 like a referenced

[1:21:18] earlier this simply refers to Watertown

[1:21:21] municipal utilities and their design

[1:21:22] standards for water mains chapter 11 has

[1:21:26] talks about storm sewers this gets into

[1:21:28] some of the design criteria that are two

[1:21:31] documents that we've already adopted

[1:21:32] back in 2008 or 9 the post-construction

[1:21:37] stormwater best management practices

[1:21:39] manual pretty much that outlines our

[1:21:43] detention pond requirements and things

[1:21:46] of that nature the measures that we need

[1:21:48] to put in place that stay there for the

[1:21:51] long term after construction is complete

[1:21:53] all these sections the design standards

[1:21:55] kind of get built on top of that and

[1:21:57] talk about really a lot of the things

[1:21:59] similar to the sanitary sewer section

[1:22:02] minimum pipe sizes pipe types minimum

[1:22:05] pipe slopes all the things of that

[1:22:07] nature the next section is stems to

[1:22:11] stormwater as well that's the erosion

[1:22:13] and sediment control section this this

[1:22:17] refers to that second document that is

[1:22:19] talked about

[1:22:20] our best management practices manual for

[1:22:22] erosion and sediment control that we've

[1:22:24] already adopted years ago we've

[1:22:26] incorporated that by reference in this

[1:22:28] section along with saddens some other

[1:22:31] additional language in there

[1:22:32] chapter 13 is construction plans what's

[1:22:36] required in the construction plans this

[1:22:38] is verbatim I think pretty much out of

[1:22:40] the chapter 24 subdivision regulations

[1:22:43] so everything that we require and the

[1:22:45] subdivision regs is carried over into

[1:22:48] the design standards 14 and 14 it also

[1:22:53] mimics what's in the subdivision

[1:22:55] regulations this talks about the

[1:22:57] acceptance process that we just hit on

[1:22:59] with this infrastructure what does that

[1:23:02] final acceptance process look like what

[1:23:05] are the developer warranty

[1:23:07] responsibilities and the things of that

[1:23:10] nature and then chapter 15 talks about

[1:23:13] inspection and testing and the

[1:23:16] submittals and this talks to councilmen

[1:23:19] Beeler's point and Councilman ville

[1:23:20] harbors point you know they're required

[1:23:22] to provide submittals in regards to the

[1:23:24] inspection and testing to provide us

[1:23:27] with the testing schedules were or are

[1:23:29] on a project and then again all those

[1:23:34] majors that help us ensure that they've

[1:23:36] followed the proper procedures to build

[1:23:39] soundly within the city wrapping this up

[1:23:43] really four pillars of success in

[1:23:48] administering design standards I think

[1:23:51] that these really hit home to why these

[1:23:53] are needed why they're gonna be a great

[1:23:55] thing for Watertown why the developers

[1:23:58] or engineers the city staff will all be

[1:24:00] able to work together because each and

[1:24:02] every one of us that are stakeholders in

[1:24:04] this are going to have guidance we're

[1:24:05] gonna have consistency we're gonna have

[1:24:07] efficiency and we're gonna have

[1:24:09] longevity to the products that are built

[1:24:11] out there and I think that this really

[1:24:13] it's only intent to these standards to

[1:24:16] provide these four things for this

[1:24:17] community that brings me to the end of

[1:24:22] my time and my presentation I'd gladly

[1:24:25] field any more questions any more

[1:24:26] changes we want to make before the the

[1:24:29] adoption consideration in the next

[1:24:30] meeting we do have it as an action item

[1:24:32] to adopt these in the next

[1:24:34] and we've glad to make any tweaks or

[1:24:36] modifications in conjunction with that

[1:24:38] okay quick question I know you got input

[1:24:42] from the developers on this I hope this

[1:24:44] is received well by them because I think

[1:24:47] a lot of things we've heard is we just

[1:24:49] want to know what the rules are you know

[1:24:51] and though we've had things published

[1:24:53] before I think the fact that you've

[1:24:54] formalized all this I think is gonna go

[1:24:57] a long way to prevent you what was

[1:24:59] happening and that was a lot of things

[1:25:00] ending up in the council we found

[1:25:02] ourselves negotiating developer

[1:25:04] agreements we should not be in that

[1:25:05] position rarely if ever so again thanks

[1:25:09] the department Dave thank you for coming

[1:25:11] on to help out and the whole group that

[1:25:12] did this is important yes councilman

[1:25:15] robing to your point we have indirectly

[1:25:19] received some input from the developers

[1:25:20] you're exactly right they want to see

[1:25:22] these adopted and thank you for

[1:25:24] reminding me because I wanted to point

[1:25:25] out that this is gonna be a living

[1:25:27] breathing document it's adopted by

[1:25:28] resolution what I've done in press past

[1:25:31] communities is we keep a running list of

[1:25:33] redline notes in our design standards

[1:25:35] book of things that aren't working well

[1:25:37] and don't fit the community well and

[1:25:40] we'll continue to do that I'll make sure

[1:25:42] we do that our staff does that here in

[1:25:43] Watertown we've even collected input

[1:25:46] from consultants engineers or design

[1:25:48] engineers for the developers throughout

[1:25:51] the year and I would estimate with this

[1:25:53] being brand new you know a year out we

[1:25:55] might have a good handful of

[1:25:56] housekeeping items you want to update

[1:25:58] but then once we get settled into a good

[1:26:00] document I've seen a good cycle of every

[1:26:03] four to five years you do a little bit

[1:26:04] of a facelift to these things and just

[1:26:07] to make sure you're knocking the dust

[1:26:09] off and getting rid of the things that

[1:26:10] don't work real well so I got a question

[1:26:15] I recommend that we recommend to that

[1:26:19] the full council meeting that we approve

[1:26:21] this but will what we have tucked is a

[1:26:23] lot of time here now well we have more

[1:26:24] just a chance to discuss this thank you

[1:26:27] cuz I got a few questions and comments

[1:26:29] I'd like to make to and that time comes

[1:26:30] so but I would recommend that we

[1:26:32] recommend it for approval right at this

[1:26:34] point yeah we have a motion

[1:26:36] second on the floor for ready to take

[1:26:38] action to make that recommendation of

[1:26:40] the console all those in favor signify

[1:26:42] by saying aye aye opposed signify were

[1:26:45] saying nay motion carries

[1:26:47] okay is there any old business to

[1:26:49] discuss oh oh okay f is contribution of

[1:26:56] urban renewal loan funds to the

[1:26:58] Watertown Development Company for

[1:26:59] management of the loan program and I'm

[1:27:01] not looking for action on that because

[1:27:03] we're we're not ready for that one so

[1:27:06] sorry

[1:27:07] skipped over it so now old business none

[1:27:12] any new business we will not be going

[1:27:16] into executive session so look for

[1:27:19] motion to adjourn

[1:27:20] motion by Bill Haller and a second by

[1:27:22] Radomski any discussion all those in

[1:27:25] favor signify by saying aye okay all

[1:27:29] those opposed signify by saying nay

[1:27:31] motion carries we're gonna take a brief

[1:27:33] break and then we'll come back for the

Public Works, Finance & Safety Committee - Mar 16 2020

Transcript