[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