HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.D.1. Long-Term Planning Issues
CITY OF SHAKOPEE 4.D.l.
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC)
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Lou Van Hout, Utilities Director
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Long-Term Planning Issues
MEETING DATE: February 25, 2003
Introduction:
Shakopee's situation with respect to long-range planning is unique in that both the City and SPUC
have responsibility for long range planning. The City's responsibility for comprehensive (or long-
range) planning largely derives from the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Under that act the City
does have responsibility for planning for both surface water and future water supplies. As the
supplier ofthe City's water supply SPUC has engaged in its own long-term planning efforts that are
needed for the construction and maintenance of their utilities systems.
Over the past several years the City and SPUC have moved further in the direction of their
respective long-range planning coincided. Looking ahead, it may even be desirable to have the
long-range water plans for the City and SPUC being essentially one in the same. That could even
extend to the wellhead protection plan, which SPUC is currently in the process of developing.
Once completed, that plan could become an addendum to the City's own comprehensive plan, and
further help in the guiding ofland use and development decisions in the City.
Both City and SPUC staff have also been involved for the past several years with the Northern
Scott County Groundwater Work Group, which has developed a draft memorandum of
understanding regarding water supply issues and planning. In the future, these will need to be
reported to the Council and Commission for consideration.
In addition to supplying water, SPUC is also, of course, a provider of electricity. With future
annexations in the township area looming, SPUC will need to look at the potential expansion of
its service area. As potential annexations are brought to the City, City staffwill work with SPUC
staff to make sure it is clear what service areas are involved.
Action Requested:
The Council and Commission are asked to provide policy direction to City and Commission staff
regarding the long-term planning issues discussed above, or other issues that may be identified at
the meeting. Staff will be available to answer questions.
R-.f.A. C I pq~
R. Michael teek "
Community Development Director
C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLKE2A5\spucworkshop.doc
'~
i.; JIARCHITECTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION BUILDING
Conclusions:
. We do not recommend that the building be utilized by the City for the Police Department.
. The existing building needs major updating and the cost of this updating would be similar to that
. of the Public Services Building - approximately $1,300,000 to $1,500,000 for maintenance
construction costs.
. The site is in a great location for future city use.
Although the building could be utilized by the Public Works, we don't recommend this because
. The existing Public Works can be added onto with the existing site and
. The Police Department will be moving out of the existing Public Works building, leaving an
adequate space and. site for Public Works to expand into.
Bottom Line:
Consider the site for future Police Station use. In that event, we recommend that the existing Shakopee
Public Utilities Commission building would be demolished.
-
.
SHAKO PEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (SPUC) BUILDING
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
The main thrust of this study was to review the overall condition of the existing Shakopee
Public Utilities Commission Building, with consideration that this building may be vacated by the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission in the future and thereby becoming available for City use.
EXISTING SITE
. The site, in general, is a definite highlight. The site has good size, location access and
the overall site condition is good.
. One possible drawback to future development is that the site is adjacent to residential
areas. This concern should be able to be alleviated with proper design and the fact
that the site is of a size that offers a good deal of space for landscape buffers.
EXISTING BUILDING EXTERIOR
. There are a great number of concerns relating to the building, as indicated in the
Architectural and Structural analyses.
The major concerns include:
a. The structure is presently loaded to the maximum.
b. The building exterior finish materials, other than the roof and stone front, are
deteriorating and needs to be repaired or replaced.
c. Concrete frost stoops need to be installed at the exit doors and door hardware
needs updating.
d. The drainage from the roof onto the exterior veneer elements.
EXISTING BUILDING INTERIOR -
. The basic interior of the building has been well maintained. There are, however, a
number of upgrades that would be necessary if the building changed hands:
a. Accessibility upgrades
b. Sprinkler system installation
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (SPUC) BUILDING
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
JEA PROJECT NO. 1061A PAGE 1
- JIARCHITECTS
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (SPUC) BUILDING
ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING ANALYSIS
May 4, 2000
I. THE SITE
A. The existing SPUC site is located on the southwest corner of Gorman ~treet and 4th Avenue.
B. The site is approximately 4.1 acres in size with dimensions of 400' x 406' x 480' 400.
C. The eXisting building office area fronts 41h Street. There are 2 access drives from 4th Street. There is
parking off of 4th Street with drives and work areas on the south, east and west sides of tlie building.
D. The existing building footprint is approximately 200' x 150' = 30,000 square feet.
E. Site zoninq is 81 (highway business) and building setbacks are:
1. Front: . 30'
2. Rear: 30'
3. Side: 20
4. Side or rear from residential: 75'
F. Flood Plain: The site is not located within the flood plain.
G. Site Use Considerations:
1. The site is adjacent to the Public Services Building.
2. The site acts as a buffer between the B1 (highway business district) and residential districts to the
south. west and north.
3. The site is centrally located and has good access to (C.S.A.H. No. 17) Marshall Road.
-
4. The site is not screened from the residential area.
II. THE EXISTING BUILDING
A. Building Size:
Office 6,000 :!: SF
Heated storage 8,400 :!:SF
Unheated 15.600 :!:SF
Total 30,000 :l::SF
- . .~'....
B. Construction phases:
1. The building was built in the 1970's :1:.
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (SPUC) BUILDING
ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING ANALYSIS
JEA PROJECT NO. 1061A PAGE 1
'.
2. The interior upgrades were accomplished in 1985.
3. There has been reroofing completed within the last 3 years :t.
C. The construction consists of:
1. The building is a steel frame manufactured type building. '
2. The building consists of sloped standing seam roof, steel frame structure; walls are steel frame
with steel face brick or stone finish. The portion of exterior wall that has masonry and stone finish
would appear to have concrete block backup. The floor is concrete, foundation is concrete block
and footings are concrete.
3. The building is insulated at the roof. At the office area, there are furred insulated walls at the
exterior and additional batt insulation above the acoustical ceiling tile.
4. The interior walls are a mix of concrete block and metal stud/gypsum board.
D. Interior Finishes
1. The interior walls in the office are finished with vinyl wall covering or paint. The floors are maily
carpeted and the ceiling has the acoustical ceiling tile.
E. Building Code: The following are major points:
1. Building Classification: Band 52
2. Construction Type: 2 N
3. Allowable SF: 24,000, 36,000 to be verified.
4. The existing building does not have a sprinkler syst~m.
F. Handicapped Accessibility: The existing building does not meet ADA accessibility standards. The
following are major items for consideration:
1. The entrances are grade level and appear to meet accessibility requirements.
-
2. The restrooms do not meet accessibility requirements, but are adaptable;
3. The hardware and signage throughout do not meet ac~essibility requirements.
G. Hazardous Materials
1. The building will have to be tested for hazardous materials.
H. Existinq Buildinq Recommended Upgrades
1. Building Exterior
.~. -. ..~
a. There are signs of water penetration through the masonry walls to the interior (efflorescence)
throughout the building. (High priority)
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (SPUC) BUILDING
ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING ANALYSIS
JEA PROJECT NO. 1061A PAGE 2
.
'.
b. The facebrick needs caulking and tuckpointing. (High priority) .
c. Some repair is needed to the exterior metal on the west elevation. (Medium priority)
d. The exterior hollow metal doors and frames need replacement. (High priority)
e. The bollards are bent and damaged. (Low priority)
f. The east overhand canopy needs replacement. (High priority)
g. The masonry and stone have been installed without weep holes to allow drainage.. .'. (Low
priority) .
2. Interior
a. Accessibility upgrades are needed. (High priority)
b. The building exceeds the allowable square footage allowed per code, and therefore, a
sprinkler system should be installed. (High priority)
END OF ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT ANALYSIS
-
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (SPUC) BUILDING
ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING ANALYSIS
JEA PROJECT NO. 1061A PAGE 3
-t '._
..~..-<. '.,-'". """"t
.. .... ... - ....... . -~ ~
.,' - '. 'E/i.~1~.~:~~
"
: ,- . . " ~-<Ifii':' .,' . .~ -' ,,' ;\,
I . . !1IIi'! "~l' , '.
i : ~~.~Q...",,:
\ ~~ _.'~~'",
If"'"
~~;. ~ ~
~""".
ViJ:'--'
t\ 10;..
~\ - -' 1,);~'
". .'
...~'.,'- .
~. -.t
.' ....f., ' "
. '.". . "'," , .",t\
. .. ~".:::. .... .....
. ,
,~-::~:c ~~~;: 1':,. ... '
, . .
,
'..
.. .. . . . .. .
.. .
.. .. . . . . . . . .. . .
:. . . .
.
.
.\:
f. .~ ;i
~ );: II',/
!,"
"
:(
l:' ~ 'tti' L
,.. .-
t' '.
':;; .~'~ ":' ~';. .:.' .'
-
t~ ';i ,::; ~
.:. l..
il ~
,
TOP: SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION BUILDING - GARAGE
BOTTOM: SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION BUILDING - EXTERIOR CLOSE UP
.
EXISTING FACILITY STRUCTURAL SURVEY
SHAKO PEE PUBLIC UTILITIES BUILDING
.. SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Part I Summary of Structural Items:
The Shakopee Public Utilities building is a pre-engineered metal building. It is a single story
slab-an-grade structure. The north 30' -0" of the building has a lower eve height and is the
location of the offices. The balance of the building, the south seven bays, has a eve height of
approximately 16'-0".
The building is in fair condition. The metal building frames, wall panels, and roof appeared in
good condition. The problem area of this building is the block and brick exterior wall on the east
side of the storage/truck bay area. The block wall which is approximately 12'-0".high has a
considerable amount of efflorescence appearing on the inside face. The brick veneer on the
exterior has mlssing brick, deteriorated mortar joints and missing grout. The walk door frames
that are located in this wall are in very poor condition. Daylight can be seen between the frame
and the block and the frames themselves are rusting and in varying stages of deterioration.
The floor slabs have some minor cracks, however, there is considerable spalling of the concrete
slab-an-grade near the trench drains.
If the east wall of the building would be repaired which would include repairing or replacing the
brick veneer, replacing walk doors, cleaning the efflorescence from the interior faces, and the
buildings roof be extended to limit the amount of water that runs off the roof and over the
exterior block and brick walls, the building will continue to function adequately in its present
usage.
A couple other items that should be addressed is that a damaged wall panel in the southwest
corner of the building should be repaired to limit water infiltration into the building, and the
concrete floors at the floor trenches should be repaired and sealed to help stop the spalling
process.
It should also be noted that metal buildings.are typically designed for minimum roof and ceiling .
loadings. This building has already been re-roofed with a system that did not remove the ~
existing deck, therefore it is strongly recommended that no additional loads be supported by the
purlins or frames for any future remodeling, heating, or layout changes. Also existing wall cross
b.racing should not be removed.
Part II Building Evaluation:
"
This structure is a pre-engineered metal building with frame lines at 20' -0" to 25' -0" O.c. It is
- . not a rigid frame system so there are tW0~iilti;rior column lines, besides the columns on th.e
exterior wall,S. Roof purl ins span between these frames which pick up the roof deck. It was
mentioned that a new standing seam roof deck was applied over the original through fastened
.
deck. The west wall of the storage/truck bay portion of the building and the south wall are
constructed using through fastened metal panels which are connected to wall girts spanning
. between columns.
The northern approximate 30' -0" section of this building houses the companies offices. This
section has a side wall eave height 4' -0" to 6'-0" lower than the south section. The offices are
finished and no distress was seen in these finishes to indicate structural problems. The exterior
finish of the office area was stone veneer. There are no control joints in the stone, however, it
appears in good shape.
The wall separating the offices from the south truck/storage bays is constructed of masonry.
There were some cracks in this wall. These seemed to match the slope of the lower roof over the
offices. These cracks appeared to be caused by movement between the two different building
sections. A block wall also separated the south porti<niofthe building. This wall ran north-
south and is located on the east interior column line. "..
The west and south walls sided with metal siding looked in good shape except for some panel
damage on the south wall near the west corner. A liner panel approximately 10'-0" high was
fastened to the girts on the inside of the building on these two walls.
"The east wall of the truck/storage bays is in poor condition. This wall consisted of a block and
exterior brick wall up 12'-0". Above this wall a metal wall panel was used to fill in between the
top of the masonry wall and the eave. There appears to be considerable water infiltration in this
wall. This can be seen by the efflorescence on the interior block wall face and by the spalling
brick, loose mortar and missing mortar in the brick veneer. The door frames for the walk doors
in this wall are also severely deteriorated. They are rusting and gaps between the frame and the
block wall are present.
The floor has some cracks, but is in relatively good condition except at the trenches. Here the
concrete slab is spalling and cracking.
No frost stoops were seen at any doors to this building.
part III Recommendations:
-
1) Do not support any additional weight from the roof purlins or frames. Priority - high.
2) Repair and seal spalling concrete at trenches in floors. Priority - medium.
3) Repair damaged wall panel southwest comer of building. Priority - high.
4) Repair or replace brick veneer on east exterior wall. Priority - high.
5) Replace walk doors east wall. Priority - medium.
6) Clean efflorescence from interior block faces. Priority - medium.
7) Extend the buildings roof so water from roof does not run directly over brick veneer.
Priority - high.
8).t'roviCi~tiu5(.:;i:00ps as required. Priority - low.
"
"
. ....
. .
~< ~
-, ,,'
'-.'"
"~- ~ '<,:;.: .
<;".
~,
" ..v","
'. ":,~.f :''<;~_. . :.\.:,~,
,',. ...-
"-0~~~;J'
-
. . .
:"~T'
~
"\.
-
,
't . r
'f ~
" ;~
;.J
"'''''
~e :~
~
; ~f
, I~
"}"
, i~
""
is
J 1 "j
l .0 r
I'
.. '. :1"
;
.'
il .
i
.
. . .
. .
.. .:.
.:~;' ~
. . . . .
.
~':, \
~: ' \\
i ~ \
Ii ;.;\
'h' \ \
1 c,
-;[ ~ !" \
, "': ~ f.\'
.. ~ ~,~~- ~ ~':
5, - j' 1-.)"- i - - - "--- .--
, .::- H
'. .~~. i
~>'. -( ~ ~'""-\".
!~ ~~:: ~ -
~ ! --
2 ~
-.
'--
~;r;
. .."';"'"-,"
~".$;j,).j::C-'P ,
. . . . . .
.
~- . .-..... -."........-
._- _ ___~-'--.' , _'. _., '-' ~ :'. ~_ ~,.:t_.
;.~~~?}~'-~=;;x.. c
',~~ ,~'~;~4~_~~ ~~:~' ,-,,;,
5;i~t:;, .
.' IItr',fJf""m- -.,l...,. ".-. ..
1G,.Ji~:~J,_.::~,t,r:~:..._..
. . . : .
. M E ENGINEERING, Inc. 4580 Scott Trail, Suite 120 Office: 651-405-0912
Eagan, Minnesota S5122 Fax: 651-405.0929
1 Consulting Engineers E-mail: mne@usintcmet.com
Shakopee Public Buildings Evaluation
Shakopee,MN
MechanicallElectrical Evaluation
Site Visit Date: November 17, 1999
MitE Engineering Commission No. 19199
Report by: Dan MoultonIMccbanical
David HiersemanP .E./ElectriCal
0'
This re,port will cover four areas:
1. Existing conditions and systems.
2. High Priority items. (Typically code related)
3. Medium Priority Items to enhance the building pcrfonnance and save energy.
4. Changes required for other building to be converted to other uses. -
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC unLITIES BUILDING
MECHANICAL
Existing conditions:
The heating and cooling system for the office portion of this building is by (2) furnace units with
outside condensing units. Both furnaces are sealed combustion and one was installed in 1995.
So~ of the supply ducts are under the floor and some are above the ceiling. The returns are in
the ceiling. The new office area (remodeled in 1985) has an inline furnace with electric heating
coil. The vestibule bas a wall mounted electric heater. In the Locker Room (which is one large
room) there is one water cloSet, two urinals! one shower and circular hand wash basin. There is a
floor drain in the middle of the room. The fixtures are all in good condition. The wash"basin has
a cover piece missing. The electric water heater was installed in 1997.
In the Break RoOm, there is a sink and a stove. The stove ~ no hood.
There is a wall mounted mop sink in the. JanitorlElectric Room
The Meter Room has the water service and a floor drain. There is a two compartment laundry
type wall mounted sink in this room.
The storage/warehouse space is divided into two areas:
1. Truck Storage Maintenance and equipment storage. This area is heated with gas fired unit
heaters.
2. Equipment Sto~e area is unheated. This area has exhaust.
The heated portion has water and trench drains.
. ....
High Priority Items:
The building has been continually upgraded and there are very few items requiring code updates.
Ion
. There does not appear to be any ventilation air (outside air) to the furnace unit. This is
1.
required to provide outside air at 15 CFM per person. Cost $1,500.00
I 2. The building is not sprinkled.iThc cost would be $4.00-~5.00 per square foot to sprinkle the
building.
Medium Priority Items to Enhance Buildin~ Performance and Save Energy:
l. Unless some areas are not comfortable due to only 3 thermostats for control (each furnace
has a stat and where that stat is located determines heating or cooling for that area). there is
very little to improve this building. Thermostats could be relocated, but there are still only
three stats.
Changes Required for the BuildinG' to be CODVerted to Other Uses:
. 1. Very few changes required if the building were to stay as an office/warehouse facility, city ~..
public works fhoility or similar. It would be easy to heat the west side of the storage area
with unit heaters or radiant heaters. Trench drains and make - up aii/exhaust would be
needed in this area to store vehicles.
2. ConveI'8ion to an offi",manufacturing facility would require that the storag~warehousc area
bocamc a manufActuring area. There is waste and water in that space. Fire protection
sprinkleR maybe required. Heat and ventilation as required for occupancy. --
r-
ELECTRICAL
Existing conditions:
The electrical service into the building is at 12,740n200 volts. There is an indoor dry type
transformer, 225 KV A, three phase with a 1201208 secondary. The main secondary device is
1000 AMPS. There are various panelboaIds adjacent to this service. There is also one other
panelboard in ajanitor.s closet in office area. The traDsfonner ~d service is located in the back
storage area just behind the offices.
The office area is lit with 2 x 4 fluorescent with acrylic prismatic lens. The back loading dock
area is lit with fluorescent strips throughout. The remaining back storage area is lit with
incandescent.RLM domes on pendants..
There is an emergency generator by the electric service. It is a 5 KW, single phase. gasoline
. driven unit. with it's own self-cootained gas tank. It is inside of a. container to contain any
leakage of oil and or gasoline. The generator is connected to nonnally offlight fixtures located
throughout the office area. These are on only when the generator is on.
Telephone service is into the building near the service transformers. There is a computer
network, with the network patch panel and routers located in a wall mounted cabinet in the break
room. on the waUl at 6' above the finished floor.
High Priority Items:
1. Exit lights need to be added throughout the building. Provide LED type with emergency
battery packs. Approximate cost of $150.00 each exit light, $900.00 total.
2of3
.
; 2. Provide emergency battery pack lights throughout the building to provide egress lighting.
Approximate cost of$150.00 each, $1,500.00 total.
Medium Priority Items to Enhance Building Performance and Save Energy:
1. Revise the back storage room incandescent lighting to an ffiD type or fluorescent strip type
lighting. Approximate cost of $8,000.00.
2. Revise fluorescent lighting to T8 with electronic ballasts. Approximate cost ofS35.00 each
light fixture, $1,500.00 total.
Chan~esRequired for the Building to be Converted to Other Uses:
1.. As presently used, there is no need to revise the electrical systems. However, if it is revised
into a more office spaces throughout the loading dock and storage area, more distribution of .....
panelboards will be required throughout the space to acconunodate the additionalligbting
loads and HV AC lOads. Further enhancement of the telephone system would also be
required. The data network would also have to be expanded. The existing electrical service
may have to be increased in capacity.
,
300