Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.D.1. Preliminary Design on the New Public Works Building IS: f), I, CITY OF SHAKO PEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Preliminary Design on the New Public Works Building DATE: December 7, 2004 INTRODUCTION: This item is to discuss the revised preliminary design of the Public Works building project, from the August 10, 2004 City Council work session, and to obtain input from the Council as to the design to date prior to moving to final design approval. BACKGROUND: On August 10, 2004, City Council did have a Council work session to review the design ofthe Public Works building expansion project. This project is being designed by Oertel Architects with input from the City's Building Committee consisting of Michael Hullander, Public Works Supervisor; Dave Rutt, Street Supervisor; Bill Egan, Park Supervisor; Gene J eurissen, Mechanic; Jeff Oertel, Oertel Architects; Deb Brandwick, Oertel Architects; and Bruce Loney, Public Works Director. On August 10,2004, City Council directed staff to continue working on the Public Works building project, as presented, along with the modifications that were raised that evening and bring back a firmer cost estimate. , Attached to this memorandum are the following documents for Council review of this project: . An August 5, 2004 cost estimate from Oertel Architects, based on the current design at that time, and an updated project cost known in the design process. . A revised December 1, 2004 cost estimate, based on the latest proj ect costs known at this time, and firmer figures based on the design that has been done to date. . Drawings of the preliminary design of the proposed expansion floor plan area. At this time the City has bonded for the Public Works building project in the amount of 6 million dollars. In the Capital Improvement Program, additional funds will be provided from the Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Funds in the amount of$600,000.00 for this proj ect. The total project cost has been estimated to be 6.6 million dollars, which includes the land purchase from Shakopee Public Utilities, site work, equipment, the actual building and interior work in the old building. Staff is also attaching, with this memorandum, the list of questions from the August 10, 2004 City Council work session on the various items raised by the City Council. Jeff Oertel answered many of these questions at the August 10th meeting and he will be available to further clarify the questions raised. at the August 10th meeting or answer other questions that the council may have on the project. The revised cost estimate does include increased costs due to the price increases of steel and concrete, which have increased drastically. in 2004. The revised cost estimate does include a contingency of $100,000.00 and an allowance of $150,000.00 for exterior fac;ade upgrade/landscaping of the existing building. The changes. from the August 5th cost estimate to November 29th cost estimate is as follows: New Building mcrease by $45,000 in the building costs Old Building Decrease by $100,000 in the exterior fac;ade upgrade Sitework Decrease by $160,000 in the sitework and fill due to firmer numbers in the plan Equipment Increase by $45,000 with increase in the lifts and crane estimates Land & Soft Costs Stayed the same Contingency Increase by $50,000 to a total of$100,000 One of the questions that staff would like City Council to provide direction on is the amount of upgrade to the existing fac;ade on the existing building. Staff also has prepared, along with Oertel Architects, a list of items that .could be considered as alternates including the fac;ade upgrade to stay within the 6.6 million dollar budget. Typically on building projects, with the volatility of bidding, the bid package will include the base bid for the building with several alternates, which could be accepted or rejected depending on the bids. City Council will also have an opportunity to review the alternates with the final plan approval later in February, 2005. With this agenda item, staff is updating the Council as to the preliminary design based on the comments received from the Council at the previous work session and a revised cost estimate. based on the current cost in the building industry. Staff would like direction from Council on the exterior fac;ade upgrade for the existing building and also which alternates Council may feel appropriate to include in the future bid package. At this point of time, the preliminary design is done and the architect team is well under way into final design plan preparation for bidding with the goal being to have final plans to City Council at the. first meeting in February. It is anticipated that bids will be received and brought back to City Council at the 2nd meeting in March with a spring start if bids are acceptable. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Review the current layout and building design, with cost estimate, and provide staff direction as to the exterior fac;ade upgrade to the existing building and on which items should be included as alternates in the future bid package. 2. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend Alternative No.1, to discuss the building layout and design, with revised cost estimate, and provide direction to the fac;ade upgrade to the existing building and on which items should be included as alternates in the future bid package. With Council direction, final plans will be prepared for a final approval in February and a possible bid award in March for a spring construction start. ACTION REQUESTED: Review the layout and building design, with cost estimate, and provide staff direction as to the exterior fac;ade upgrade to the existing building and on which items should be included as alternates in the future bid package. ~ne Public Wo BUpmp ENGRlEMPLOYEEFOLDERlPPENNINGTON/COUNClIlUPDATEPWB ,~ - OERTEL ARCHITECTS 1795 SAINT CLAIR A VENUE, SAINT PAUL, MN 55105 TEL: 651/696-5186 FAX: 651/696-5188 DATE: August 5, 2004 TO: Bruce Loney FROM: Jeff Oertel RE: City of Shakopee Public Works Expansion Cost Estimate MEMORANDUM The following is a summary of the costs associated with the project, based on the current design and project goals as we stand today. The last cost estimate that we prepared was on January 12 of this year. As we have discussed (not counting the utility relocations associated with SPUC) there have been three distinct items that have impacted the budget and overall project cost since that time. This includes the increased cost of certain construction materials, the increased size of the vehicle maintenance area and the desire to import a considerable amount of fill for the project site. Otherwise, the project costs remain consistent with our January estimate. As discussed, the costs of certain materials have risen dramatically, particularly for the first four months of the year. Since then, the costs seemed to have stabilized. Specifically, steel products Goists, structural steel, decking, plumbing pipe, conduit, etc.) as well as drywall and wood products, have gone up approximately 20% relative to the end of the 2003 calender year. Concerning the increased size of the building, the office area, operations space, vehicle storage and related items have remained relatively constant since the initial design. During our many discussions and working sessions, it was requested by staff that the design and size of the vehicle maintenance area be expanded by about 2,000 square feet. Note that the expanded size of this maintenance space will now meet the city's needs well into the future. We can eliminate a bay from this space to save on costs, should council choose to do so. I point out, however, that adding the additional maintenance bay in the future, to account for growth (say 10 to 15 years), will be quite complicated and costly since this area is complex and involved. We can discuss this in detail at the council meeting. 1 Concerning the added site costs, during our more detailed review of the site conditions, discussions with the Watershed District, soils exploration and related site analysis, we determined that a superior plan would be to import fill, to raise the grade of the building by 2' to 4'. Doing this accomplishes many positive goals. Since the Watershed requires a specific minimum size and depth to the pond, we wduld avoid excavation of bedrock. In addition, this raised elevation would allow us to be at the level of the old public works building. Finally, because of bedrock so close to grade, coupled with the need to mine for the below-grade infrastructure, we would be ,better able to lay pipe on bedrock without excessive excavation of rock. It also goes without saying that the presence of the building would be that much stronger in the el~vated plan. The increase in construction costs in unavoidable. The increased maintenance area and the importing of fill to raise the building are items which we can omit, if first cost is considered critical by the council. I have itemized the costs for these should council choose to scale-back our proposed design. Note that it helped our overall project cost to eliminate the drive-through automated wash. We deducted $125,000.00 from the previous budget. The following, then, is an estimate for the entire project. I also itemized specific utility costs that may not necessarily be a cost to the project and the City. First, note the following related to the assumptions and costs: 1. The exterior upgrade to the facade of the old public works building is mainly for the east facade. Not all the exterior will receive new improvements. 2. Only a minimal amount of work is estimated for the old building. From a code standpoint, if we do too much, we will need to upgrade quite (which may place more of the budget into this category than desired.) When we talked to council we de-emphasized renovation of this building. 3. Costs are in 2004/2005 dollars. If the project is not to be bid for several years, we would need aninflation factor. 4. These numbers are estimates. I do feel very comfortable with the cost projects and I am confident we can design and building this project for these amounts. The exact costs, however, will need to be determined when the bids are actually received. 5. The bond fees are an estimate provided by the City. 2 COST ESTIMATE New Building Office, operations, lockers, 7,500 s.f. $ 900,000.00 Vehicle Maint. 1 Mezzanine 17,000 s.f. $1,850,000.00 Vehicle Storage 18,000 s.f. $1,250,000.00 subtotal 42,500 sf $4,000,000.00 Old Building Interior work $ 100,000.00 Exterior facade upgrade $ 250,000.00 subtotal $ 350,000.00 Sitework Base earthwork, pond, landscape, demo $ 300,000.00 Raise building, import fill $ 250,000.00 Utilities $ 70,000.00 Paving $ 75,000.00 Fencing $ 35,000.00 Fuel island equipment upgrade $ 60,000.00 Gas island canopy and island $ 60,000.00 subtotal $ 850,000.00 Equipment Lifts $ 90,000.00 Cranes $ 40,000.00 Car wash (al t.) $ 40,000.00 Furniture and fixtures $ 60,000.00 Telecommunications $ 20,000.00 Automation, computers, etc. $ 25,000.00 subtotal $ 275,000.00 Land Land purchase cost $ 725,000.00 Soft costs 3 AlE fees, interior design fees $ 400,000.00 Additional Engineering cost for new design $ 35,000.00 Surveys, soil borings $ 25,000.00 Expenses $ 30,000.00. Special inspections $ 20,000.00 Bonding costs $ 25,000.00 subtotal $ 535,000.00 Other items Unknown or contingency $ 50,000.00 Total of all categories $6,510,000.00 POSSIBLE DEDUCTS FROM THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT 1. Import of fill to raise grade (net after excav. costs): $ 200,000.00 2. Eliminate a full bay from maintenance: $ 250,000.00 3. Eliminate the gas island canopy and island work: $ 60,000.00 POSSIBLE ADDS TO THE PROJECT FOR UTILITIES 1. Relocation of buried telecom line: will not affect project cost 2. Partial relocation of water main: $ 25,000.00 3. Relocation of elevated electrical line: $ 70,000.00 We can discuss any of the items in more detail at the council meeting. JLO 4 ,. . OERTEL ARCHITECTS 1795 SAINT CLAIR AVENUE, SAINT PAUL, MN 55105 TEL: 651/696-5186 FAX: 651/696-5188 DATE: November 29,2004 TO: Bruce Loney FROM: Jeff Oertel RE: City of Shakopee Public Works Expansion: Total Project Cost Estimate MEMORANDUM New Building Office, operations, lockers, 7,500 s.f. $ 870,000.00 Vehicle Maint. / Mezzanine 17,000 s.f. $1,775,000.00 Vehicle Storage 18,000 s.f. $1,400,000.00 subtotal 42,500 s.f $4,045,000.00 Old Building Interior work for new wash bay $ 100,000.00 Exterior facade upgrade I landscaping $ 150,000.00 (allowance) subtotal $ 250,000.00 Sitework Base earthwork, pond, landscape, demo $ 250,000.00 Raise building, import fill $ 150,000.00 Utilities (see alternates below) $ 70,000.00 Paving $ 75,000.00 Fencing $ 35,000.00 Fuel island equipment upgrade $ 60,000.00 Fuel island canopy $ 50,000.00 subtotal $ 690,000.00 1 Equipment Lifts $ 130,000.00 Cranes $ 45,000.00 Car wash $ 40,000.00 Furniture and fixtures $ 60,000.00 Telecommunications $ 20,000.00 Automation, computers, etc. $ 25,000.00 subtotal $ 320,000.00 Land Land purchase cost $ 725,000.00 Soft costs AlE fees, interior design fees $ 400,000.00 Additional Engineering cost for new design $ 35,000.00 Surveys, soil borings $ 25,000.00 Expenses $ 30,000.00 Special inspections $ 20,000.00 Bonding costs $ 25,000.00 subtotal $ 535,000.00 Contingency Contingency allowance $ 100,000.00 Total of all categories $6,665,000.00 POSSIBLE DEDUCTS FROM THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT 1. Gas island canopy at fuel island $ 50,000.00 2. Reduce FFIE allowance $ 20,000.00 3. Provide fewer improvements to old fa<;ade: $ 100,000.00 POSSIBLE ADD TO THE PROJECT: 1. Provide storm sewer in alternate location: $ 30,000.00 (Note: base bid locates sewer between old and new buildings.) JLO 2 ~ "'. <!' ; .. , . SHAKO PEE CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 10th, 2004 Council Member Matt Lehman's Question to Bruce Loney: "The vehicle storage is turned from the original design, what is the reasoning for that? Bruce: It seems to fit the lot better, long lot. Easier for expansion in the future. Council Member Joe Helkamp's Question to Jeff Oertel: Regarding the holding pond: You talked about treating the storm water onsitebut you also talked about bedrock. Are you going to make that pond deep or are you going to punch through the bedrock or is there any bedrock there? Jeff: The bedrock unfortunately, council member, is I think a foot and a half down. It's very close to grade and we're going to have to do some blasting or mining to remove the stone... about five to six feet. The intent is to put in. a liner there is an overflow height, there is a bottom of pond height and there . is the height of the berm. The pond liner would be approximately four to six feet down from the height of the overflow. At anytime there will be water within this pond and occasionally it will likely have to be cleaned out- from the sediment and that sort of thing. Council Member Terry Joos Question to Jeff Oertel: Regarding ADA accessibility Jeff: There are several factors: We have to provide an accessible route for driving so that anybody driving in is able to get in without any impediment. Within the building all the spaces- the access next to the door, the restrooms are totally ADA accessible. The only area that one could not get to of one were challenged would be the mezzanine area on top of the mechanics. But that's an industrial purpose and does not fall under the accessibility code. Council Member Terry Joos Question to Jeff Oertel: One of the concerns I have when I look at the doors, the bays on both sides, is the energy costs. I guess I would like to see some modeling or some analysis on what the energy is going to cost. Because it's a tall building and there is a lot of potential for a lot of heat loss. I know our building currently is very, very expensive and I just mentioned to Bruce that this is a big concern we need to make it as energy efficient as possible. Especially if we are developing something for 50 years down the road. I'm assuming that the energy costs are not going to stay flat and that they are going to escalate. So we need to have a good efficient building for the long term. Jeff: Yes, I would like to address that because it's a major concern for a number of reasons. First of all we have a number of overhead doors and doors on both sides of the building and you can imagine on a cold day if you are operating a lot of vehicles, wind is going to blow through. But just as important, by code we have to turn that air around mechanically 2-4 times an hour. And that cost alone, without opening the doors up when you are operating vehicles, is a huge cost. What we have tried to do to offset that is the following: # I Weare proposing to use infloor radiant heat. Not within this area, but within the mechanics bay. And by doing that we've created this mass of heat right where we need it, at our feet and our backs. So we,. are pretty confi<ient that will help. I I . #2 Weare proposing to use a heat exchanger as a part of a system that has an upfront cost of probably about a quarter of a million, which is included in the price estimate that we have. But the payback on that unit is estimated at about three years. And basically what it does as your bringing in all that cold air when there are a lot of vehicles in operation and the sensors go off... it's drawing air from one to another and basically trying to draw down the heat from the exhausted air through the incoming air. It's a very efficient system. We've provided that design at the University and that in combination with a heat wheel really has helped reduce those costs. #3 You're likely familiar with hose reels being used and we want to design that system so it's extremely easy to use. So that the vehicles are exhausting into the hose reels and out of the building and therefor the sensors don't go off and kick off that make-up air unit. I think there is going to be a lot more energy related to the make-up air unit than the opening and closing of the doors. Council Member Matt Lehman's for Jeff Oertel: Is there a possibility to use waste oil as heat since we generate so much of it onsite? Jeff: We could look at that again, in relative terms you are not using a real large volume of . waste oil to make the dollars work from a payback standpoint., MnDOT has done quite a few buildings with that type of design and I've contacted them. They are not doing it for cost saving measures but because it's a good thing to do. But I promise you that we will look into that further. I just received some information on it last week that I had sent for. So the question is very timely. Council Member Matt Lehman's for Jeff Oertel: Regarding the possibility of using the multipurpose area for public use. I'm kind of seeing it as an employee lunch room. I don't know how well that would work for the public at night for a function but I'm thinking more of kind of like the police department has where they have that conference room area with the kitchen in this design is right next to it. I'm thinking that the conference room would be public use with a door going into that kitchen area. Jeff: That's possible too. Your neighbor in Prior Lake had a setup in 96', we designed that building, and they have a setup with their lunchroom and a little prep kitchen off of a side entry for the public to use and that gets used a lot. But you can imagine that there are going to be times when a community group is going to schedule that room for 7:00 and there could be a snow event at 3:00 & 4:00 and the crews want to come in and take a break and so there is a potential conflict. But more often than not there wouldn't be a conflict because the crews generally wrap up at 3:00- 3:15 and these rooms would tend to be used in the evening. But that is totally at your discretion, I would just offer that as an option. Council Member Steve Menden's Question for Jeff Oertel: You had mentioned expanding the vehicle storage area. Would that be expanded the whole length of the building? Jeff: The plan... we're trying to look well into the future. Probably beyond my lifetime. We're trying to make this facility grow with the city and not have limits. And so we're certain that the first phase of expansion would be that exact size (points to plan). And were going to design the concrete tilt-up panels so that they can be lifted off and set in the same exact position farther off to the west. Beyond that it's anybody's guess as to what you are 2 . going to need. Whether you choose to keep and renovate this building to a greater extent in the future or just decide to tear it down. So technically, this building could come out that far (points to end of existing building if it were to be torn down). And in relative size, comparing this to the city of Plymouth, which is pretty much built-out now...they've got a very large facility approaching a 100,000sq. In relative size, there facility comes out to about that long (points to plan) Council Member Steve Menden's Question for Jeff Oertel: Part ofthe reason that I ask is that I like the fact that the exterior wall could be knocked down. .But I was kind of curious why the different size doors. The main entrance into that is 20' and the side door is 18' and I'll even move to the vehicle maintenance and I like idea ofthe ability to drive these vehicles straight through if needed... and I guess I see some 12' 's and 16' 'so Is there a rational reason why they aren't all the same size? Jeff: Believe it or not there is a logic to it all, and I'll explain; Starting a vehicle storage, to exit the building we need no more than 18'. We felt with the wings on the trucks we did need that 18'. At the entry to the building, because we immediately want to start getting the trucks into their parking stalls we felt that we needed that extra 2' of elbow room. Within the maintenance area, the bay up front that has a larger door would be the full bay that would serve to drop off a rec. vehicle and so that why that door is larger. From an architects perspective, aesthetically, I'd much rather have every door the same size but practicality is driving that plan. And of course at the back of the building on the west side we've got the larger doors for the large vehicles and we need not have a larger door than we do for squads. So every door has a reason for it's size. Council Member Steve Menden's Question for Jeff Oertel: Lining the storm water pond. Are we talking a synthetic liner or clay liner? Jeff: We haven't decided yet to be honest with you. Steve: I guess why I am asking,.ifyou give consideration to a synthetic liner it's potentially possible you wouldn't have to excavate down quite so far into the bedrock. I'm not sure what type of volume you need to pick up there for storm water capacity. Jeff: We haven't made a decision and I should point out that even though we've got a lot of illustrations and notes and details on the plans but we still anticipate this changing 5% or so. But we've kicked around the idea of using clay and a liner and we haven't really nailed one or the other down yet. Council Member Joe Helkamp's Question for Jeff Oertel: Regarding the infloor radiant heat. Did you give any consideration to a geothermal heat pump as an energy source for heating that slab? Council Member Joe Helkamp's Question for Jeff Oertel: I see only one shower in the men's locker room. Am I not looking at that right? Council Member Joe Helkamp's Question for Jeff Oertel: Back to the conference room Matt touched on the proximity of the kitchen to the conference room. I would think that a pass through would be quite handy to have and I see you have the screen there for the projector so I don't know how your going to architect your way around that, but somehow to 3 . access that kitchen so they can use that for conferences. And as far as the public use for any of the rooms in here I don't think we ought to bother with that primarily because we have the library set up that way, the police the department and fire station out on _ so we can do that, we have an opportunity with the city hall to do that. I think we can just pass that up this time around. Council Member Terry Joos Question to Jeff Oertel: One of the areas that I think is overkill is the mechanics office and parts room. The things that I see, and I'm involved a lot in the industry... the things that I see are less and less of parts. More companies use less and less inventory everybody's keeping very small quantities. They find a lot of it ends up dead and dusty on the shelves and you end up throwing it away 20 years from now and its taking up valuable space. This seems like a lot. I've seen companies service 30-40 times what they are going to service here with less space than this. The mechanics things get down to a computer and a desk, just like the other offices, and you are twice the size as the supervisors office- those are people that will be in their offices more. That space could be better utilized as vehicle maintenance rather than offices. Council Member Matt Lehman's Question for Jeff Oertel: Is there a possibility if you shorten up the parts area and move the mechanics office over that you could free up for a future bay? Right where the mechanic offices are now? Council Member Joe Helkamp's Question for Jeff Oertel: The parts room being big might be a good idea because mechanics never throw any thing away. So the need to>store all those parts for 30-40 years.... But the other thing is I'm not seeing the air compressors or compressor room how did you deal with the compressed air? Mayor John J. Schmitt's Comment to Jeff Oertel: So what you are saying is there is probably a 16'x 40' mezzanine that runs east to west from the west wall to the back of the parts office which is both equipment and future storage possibilities. Mayor John J. Schmitt's Question to Jeff Oertel: In the vehicle maintenance area, that seems to be... if these are not necessarily drive through except for the one, there seems to be a lot of core wasted space in the middle of that building running from north to south in the squad area. I understand getting a squad in and out, but it just seems overall to be a lot space through the right to left in the middle. Mayor John J. Schmitt's Comment to Jeff Oertel: And were basically handling all of our equipment up through the fire boom and utility boom trucks and all of those kinds of things can be handled within the confines...? Mayor John J. Schmitt's Question to Jeff Oertel: Question regarding how many people in the building. What's the, I'm going to discount the drivers and the like, but the administrative area is designed to handle how many folks? 4 , , Council Member Steve Menden's Question for Jeff Oertel: It looks like we have the capability to expand the building both the maintenance and the storage but I don't necessarily see an area to expand the office space should we need additional people. Mayor John J. Schmitt's Question to Jeff Oertel & Bruce Loney: As our roads multiply 2-3 times as many miles we can see that they will probably have something in there (in regards to the library/ joint space). Council Member Matt Lehman's Question for Jeff Oertel: About the office space, I can't remember the consultant that we hired, but we talked about the future as we grow going to shifts. 1St, 2nd, 3rd type setup which would double or triple our office use by turning it over to the next shift. Which would triple use of what we already have. I was curious about the center area of the shop. Where you have your oil change reels and your squad car setup area... If you've got these vehicles parked waiting for parts doesn't it seem like the fast service area would be in the center? How do they get in and out? Matt: Being in the industry, if these are truck hoists are they in ground or above ground? Matt: Will a car drive over the top of a heavy truck hoist, an above ground truck hoist, in a down position? Council Member _ Question to Jeff Oertel: The wash bay, that's the small vehicle wash bay, the large vehicle wash bay is where? Council Member Terry Joos Question to Jeff Oertel In regards to the doorways, we've looked at or I'm assuming we've looked at larger fire trucks and some of the larger things that other departments have so that we will be comfortable and don't have to knock anything out. That's been taken into account? Council Member Steve Menden's Question for Jeff Oertel: How long is our ladder truck and can we pull that into this building for maintenance? Council Member Matt Lehman's for Jeff Oertel: The east elevation that you showed, can you pop that back up? The name that you've got on the building.. .it's going to be different color that stands out I would assume. Council Member Joe Helkamp's Question for Jeff Oertel: Did you give any consideration to being able to take vehicles directly from cold storage into the shop without having to go outside? Joe: But I was talking about the cold storage at the new building. Or (I mean) the vehicle storage, directly into the shop. Mayor John J. Schmitt's Question to Jeff Oertel: It looks to me that the way that this is set up is that the vehicle staging is to the west side of the building, correct? The west side of the whole building. Because there really isn't anything on the east side. There is limited parking outside of the employee parking along the east side of the building. So that any 5 . . . small vehicle, sedan! pickup and the like, would probably have to be staged elsewhere and brought to the site. Mayor John Schmitt: Because I can see some staging in that northeast corner without wanting it to be that way. It's semi large and it would be conducive to... Mayor John J. Schmitt's Question to Jeff Oertel: Is that fuel pump going to be moved or is that a flip/flop yet at this point? Mayor John Schmitt: Where it is now, it's actually in a well. And if you leave it go 10 years and then decide you want to build that other unit, it's going to cost about you about 3 times as much to move it, given inflation and the like. Mayor John Schmitt: It means repaving or paving additional areas because if you are going to have a canopy you actually would block the pathway north to south if the second building was there in a 10 year time frame. Again that really needs to be dealt with as well. Mayor John J. Schmitt's Question to Jeff Oertel: Do you have some comments you want to make on what's done with the rehab of the other facility? As part of the completion of the project? Mayor John Schmitt: What about internally? What's going to remain in that building once we go into that new one? Bruce, maybe that's a question for you? Mayor'John Schmitt: What's the feeling on when the decision should be made on the old building? (As far as how it is going to be used inside.)............ Because we should not loose sight of that. Mayor John Schmitt: Well my concern is, obviously, that this floor as well as the one upstairs doesn't have too much push/pull room left in it anymore. There's not a whole lot of room for potential staff expansion. Which talks to planning, which talks to engineering, which talks to any of those and the question is should we be considering that because we are still looking at 2/07, 2/08, 2/09 (?) for city hall. And we've got some other things we'd like to do in the process. Is there a way that we can balance those requirements over time? Council Member Matt Lehman's Question for Jeff Oertel: Under the recommendations in the packet it says discuss the building layout and design. I like the layout, I like the flexibility of expansion in the future. I think we hit on a couple of little things that could be looked at in a little more detail. So I think we covered that pretty well. Number two, I would really like to get into and discuss the budget costs & project costs. So I guess I'll jump into that. Exterior upgrades for the existing building, we're looking a $250,000.00 and I kind of round that to the upside with your contingency of $300- $350,000.00. I start asking myself if that is something we want to put into that building not knowing if future expansion is going to tear it down or what we're going to do with it so I guess... But the other side of me says, well maybe we do want it to look presentable on probably the east and the north side, when I drove by it today anyway. But I don't know if we are ready for that right now or not. I think we'll probably have a better handle on that when this building is half built or even done. That's just my opinion. You've got the car wash as an alternate. I take it that's an alternate in the bidding process? And you had a contingency amount that I thought was pretty low for the project given the fact with the bedrock and some of these unknowns. So I was thinking to try to keep as close to the six million or six and a half, that we think about holding off on the improvements on 6 ~ . . the old building until we have a better handle on what the new on is going to look like & what we are going to use the old one for. It still allows us to use it for cold storage and any other uses that we are using it for now. If we do decide to do something we can have a better handle on how we are going to pay for it. And that would allow us to increase the contingency a little bit and still be underneath the 6.5. .... I think we should do the city hall at the same time, as quick as possible, so we'll get it done and over with so that for the next 20 years we don't have any hidden costs out there. I only see the costs going up. Council Member Joe Helkamp's Question for Jeff Oertel: Regarding the building exterior. I'm going to differ with you on that. I think it's critical that we get that done as part of the new building. That building is an eyesore as it stands. If we put a shiny new building next to it, it's really going to look bad. So that's important to me to get the exterior of that building done. Again, we don't want to spend a whole lot of money on it and I liked some of the ideas you were throwing around. And the one you have up now is probably the one I like the best... that reflects that arch off the other building, kind of ties them together. I think that is a nice look. Council Member Steve Menden's Comment: Joe I'll add to your last comment. On the other side of the road we've got a new police building that I think a little decoration, so to say, on the old building there would help dress up the area. I'd like to have that done as cheaply as we can. I'll even suggest something: instead of quite so much on the building- possibly trees in front of it something to block the appearance of the building. One other question. In the latest estimate we have I don't see an area or cost for the truck wash. I'm not necessarily sure if that was something that we were kind of planning or something we were discussing to do in the future or if we wanted to do this as part of this upgrade. Mayor John J. Schmitt's Question to Jeff Oertel: So the 650 includes which option under equipment? The automated or the carwash?.. On your cost estimate for your new building there's equipment, lifts, cranes, heavy duty automated carwash... oh, I'm sorry I am looking at 2004. Excuse me. '" .Ok, I understand. Council Member Matt Lehman's Question for Jeff Oertel: Under your equipment for $25,000.00 automation, computers, etc. I know we talked about a program that would track maintenance and that sort of thing. Is this just a computer that would handle that program or does this included the program too? Matt: When I hear software... we talked about a system that documents at this mileage, on this date you did this service and so on and so forth. Bruce Loney's Comment to Mayor John Schmitt: What we don't have is the relocation of any electric or water lines. We can probably get around the telephone lines but we need to talk to the telephone company. They may be willing to move their lines. And of course we need to talk to SPUC (?) about their overhead power line and water line. Those lines are in the way of the design. Particularly the overhead line has to go. The water main, we can move a portion of that for this first go around. That is not in the $6.5. But the $725,000.00 land purchase cost is in there. 7 ~ , . ' . Council Member Matt Lehman's Question for Bruce Loney: Bruce do you have and estimate on relocation of some of these things? Bruce: SPUC estimated $70,000.00 for the overhead power line. Maybe $25,000.00 for the water main ~d probably another $25,000.00 if we had to pay for telephone relocation. But we are working with the telephone company. Council Member Terry Joos Question to Jeff Oertel: Personally, I like the design to a degree. I don't like that many bay doors. I think for long term that is going to cost us a lot of money. I've seen some other designs and actually the design is similar to the garage storage where you have the center island you drive in drive out and you have two doors. These doors are high maintenance, a big energy waster, garage door openers are high maintenance etc.. I would prefer to see something else, but I'm only one vote. Otherwise the storage looks good, I like the office area. I think that looks like it's expandable & I like that aspect of that. Council Member Steve Menden's Comment: I guess I like it. From Terry's perspective, I know you have a lot more knowledge and experience on that. I guess I'll waive that in lieu of what works best for the tasks that they (mechanics) have on hand. And if that is possible to do with a different layout I guess would be open to that. I do have one question from a general site location! elevation. How much would we have to raise the site, fill wise are we talking about to place the building? Council Member Terry Joos Question to Jeff Oertel: One thing I do not see on here is painting. I know there is some stringent requirements for paint booth for signs or blades. (ventilating) Obviously now we are not real compliant, I wouldn't think. Where is that going to take place? Council Member Matt Lehman's Comment for Jeff Oertel! Terry Joos: I do agree with Terry on the multiple doors. The problem that I see with this function is that the one door in and the one door out does work good in normal shops. The problem is if you have the one door in, one door out and you've got the tandem dump truck with the blade on it and the wing or the fire truck and you've got the little squad car, you've got such a variety of things down there. Council Member Joe Helkamp's Comment for Terry Joos: I know you are concerned about the energy with the multiple doors, but if you have a drive in! drive out and you bring in one snow plow and you drive to the other end. of the shop with the engine running, the sensors are going to go off and run the heat exchanger for probably 2-3 hours, which is like a whole months worth of opening those doors up. So I actually think that energy wise the smaller doors & less drive time in the building at the end of the day are going to be just as cost effective. 8 I I I i I : ~'~", ~" " I I I I I I I I I I ~ S1'AT\~ I , " I I .- j , ' i L "AA"~ \ \ \' ,::,:., I: t~rj,"~'~~:k~:'~}~t'i;f':_ I I \ ,." n --".. .. ,. ;.,. .' ..,.... . .. ,'. \, \ \ '," ' " , , ","'" ',,:, ,:"',"'" ,'/<,; '/ , \ \ _---.-1 ----, \ \ \ \ ' \ - \ ' ' -- ' ~J BUILDING- . . -j -- \ ' - I \ I I , \ I {"'IS"'" I , \ -- '0' L I \ -----.~- - \ _ ,... _ _-1 ... > \, ~ _ = ~=='--' "':":' ~~'2:::i(;::4i';;1,,, \ . : - - -0 '1 , i I \ \ I ; \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, ' , ' \ \ .' ' \ . \ . ;:'_ /' CD u,,' <'~" , o Ei'1lTIE" " " / n ,_ __ __ ' ,,0 "' C "LAN ..- \6 .-.J 1\ ~\" -- " . A"CH'TECTa V ~ ~ i-< I ,. 'I ,r ~/ r ,'. <0'4 " ", ~ ' ~JL"~ ',," .~.,' .,. ... _'0'.'''::::'''_:'''' ~' , -- r ' 'J ., (\ -.:: ..." .......n .. ' ," -- J ~" - IOS1l ....SIOB :. - - _.."~._"'. " : /"," '= = = = = :.:::: _",,:: t'~~:~;;;jii,:~1,~11-- TRS, DLB O<O<CIlr _'VIl: ~o ~ ~~ ~.....- --------------------- 1 ------------ -;~_;;L-Y_:;;,;~~H~-7---------~- -----------------=-.::.=-~-.~:;-.:::::._:--~_--~___________.______J _'-_____________ __________. NORTHEAST QUARTFR Of' THE . TH STREET~_----- --------------r---------- SOUTH'M:ST QUARTFR Of' AY UN. or 4 _-- T 1 ---- NORTHEAST CORNER Of' THE SFC7ION 6, TO""SHlP I1SN, RLY RIGHT OF W __----- STREE \ __..---..-- ---on NORTHEAST QUARTE:R OF THE: : RANCE 22 llfST. NORTHE _---- 4 TH . ----------- I SOUTH'M:ST QUARTFR Of'SECnON 6 I _----------- RIMr:1~':-~~~-- _....---------......-....- II TOWNSHiP 115N. RANGE 22 Kf"ST. ' I _--------------- -..------.<~------- '\ I r--------------------------------l--------') _--- I I ' I _---- I I I - I I I i I : : I I I I , I I , I I I I \ ' I I ' I _--------r- ~~~D I I I _------- I -\ CLECTRlCAL I : I __------ : I "tJ,~ND \ I : i OP77C : ' I : ~ 1 RfTAI~", \ i : I I ........ : ' : : I ,\-; I I I I I \ ~ I , I ' I i r .'_ .~ ~ II : ~ i : I I I .i~ \'1 I II) SIM MH I ~ I I I l... - .,:. .4) I R1M= 751.251 t:i : I I ' \ 'i is I ~ <: 1NV.-74516 I '" I I I r-"'" I ~ <<: I~ I I \9> ~ I' ;; I ~ ' I I I l..._ ~ cc I ~Q::: I I I r-'~).. \ \iIo10 \ I I I I I \" ~ \.,~ lis ' i I -l 0 ~~ ':\ "'I,-:~ ' I I I VfHICl.E I \ ~ I I <c I I I I _..J MAINT. L_ . ~ ! ,... Ii: : I 0 \ \ '" I I I __-----..L- /..- \ ~ I ~ : : _----------- .~. ,I)C : ~ I : .---- /' E:XIS7ING I & '- \ I).. , I . UNDFlIGROUND '" <: \ I ~ ' I FlECT. Ib~ \ I", I I ~ (.,) \ 115 : ' , I I I I'ITIUR!"'" C<O<. PAD I ~J::_ M 55.221 J..------------------------------_~-_______l__. .t; PAI/EMENT ~ INv'=7 6.29! : I LUBE 9TATI~ I I I , I ' r---- I I I : ..- I ! : MlJR."" -, @f{"J I I I I ~O ~ ~ I :8\ I : : I o.lD .0'.'-' I I U !!...J . ..., I : I I -..- \ ' I : I ---.-- ....- \ -~- Ii! I EXP. .-.. . -$-- I : i fUTURE .------- --.. \ -.-. I I I VE~ICLE pl:it-iG ....-'- . ___c. ! i : STORAGf '.-..-..... VeHlCLf .._fARKING\__~__.. : I I EXPANSION STORAGf..---- \_.._ I : : -.0 =-~_~~~~. f~ -:-~= ~=== I ! ! ~= ~ ARfA-- -fa. I \ I 1 .~, I txlSTlNGGAS --.- STM H. I I I '.' I5LAHD RIM= 753. Ofl I I TI EXlsnliJ:;;NoERGROUiiD"ffi:Efe .--.. ,J-- I~ INV.~ 47. 72 I I I I / ""-.--- I~: .-------------------------, : I ' - -- --H-- --~--j I I I I ,/ ,,//--\--f~~iil----.------- iilsri;io8;-WATi:Ri,i'Aiii . , : : L._____ / ' I' CB I I I (I / ..,/' c:=::: ,\ RIM= 52.62 () I I I EX:,B" 1-~ / IN"- 4B.84/ I I i ,::-<: #!~ /' , ~ I I ' ~/ / : g I: I 5~"'~/ I ~ : I I EXT.l0 <If'/'/ / r!. I, I ..( ,/,/ '" I' o.S.~_J; /' //" --I <:) : I II --if,/ I ~ I' .. I c:i I i I FXT..8 / ",ll ! -; : I . I (--\:' "'I- I 0.: 1: I I . I I I i I / l'J I \ : r . ' ~ I : 1 ~ j rl/ ~ I r-----------------------.J i I ! I I I : . 121" I : I I fJf I I ~ SITE PLAN i: i CD I' - 30'-0" North ! i ! I I I i . PROJECT NAME: REVlSIONS: PROJECT NU/.l8(R; SHEET NAME:: 04-06 1 HERmY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPAREO BY l.tE OR UNOER MY DIREct SHAKOPEE SlJlltFMSlQN A>>l) Tl-II>.'f I AM A. tl\ll.'t REGlSJEREf) PUBLIC WORKS BUI LDING OATE OF ISSUE: ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SITE PLAN OERTEL ARCHITECTS NOVEMeER 2, 2004 1795 SAINT CL.A1R AVENUE ST. PAUL., MINNESOTA 55105 DRAWN BY: SIGW<rtlRf Ie!!.,) 696-5186 TEL. (65 f) 696-51 SS F'AX SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA TRS, DL.e, SAS SJiE"UNO: WWW.OERTELARCHITECTS.COM M" AO.2 CH€CKEOftf; JL.O REGlSm.lTlON r ?~ ?CPr ~ 0f I 'I 'I' , ' , I, I, I I I ! [i I i ~I. ...i i i Ii! j ~j '1' ! , ~ _____----_----------------"- - I.~ I <I""'. -- -----------------1---------..v , ~~~ ' {) I I f-\eB ''''" ' I " 9)) ! ~ I I ' , I I (r,\ ' ~__, j_"______________________________________ ~d) ! _~ 0---- t-----------"--------------~---~--------- ~ c i j @ j J !=tl I I I : : ,I :: : r-- I I I I I I I I Li-~;-~.J . - ~ LVr\T p~,i ~E ( ~ n ," i X r . _ . [__ . I_it+- ST~TICNI ~ OIWN . I J \ \.. .\ I I I I Ll/' h )_~ i II ~ !e e I I I ~ ~ :):~, IHWSTRW. 'TAANSUICSn' ;~--.'=l . U E!ilJ ~)-t-- ClI<.f....n'!'. 0Im.,""" J'., , 0 e__ i\--~ I X I ~--i\ 'LEXlU j k ~ ~ Ixl ok-r: ! -- ~ I L~ I ~ " ~ ~ I r~-~ I-lOU>to4It J P\1NRI:un I rr' Pl.Alt$ "'., , 1 rnn .n.-'.'..I. II OCD9 r---i---- ~ ---- --~-----~----~-- ~ I L ' i i I I _ .-TON CPAH! I ! _. I ....y ~, K K--~ ! ~ - --- --'G\ I ...... I 1 < '!' 4. '~ III --\V I...... ',- ' ..; 'X,: --- ~ARM_../ I k ;, '$v' \",../ k_j! f'P.CUtNE I! I I : (>;.= e: I I t;J \ \ I I o I ,? II ! I t l I ,--l--=--=-_-_-_-i' Lc-----=---"--; ! ! I I I I I 12'TRENC>l I 1 I " : :! : WJN-TYP. : ,,! I I I I : : I: : !!! i i i i @-- -1- t "" ---------- I------------------~-----------~-----------~-------~---~-----~-T-------~ ! j ! i i i i !! ! ! i i i !! ! ! i i i , , , - t 6 cb cb cb cb ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i iI ~ ~ CD BUILDING PLAN ~ i a/a2' . 1'-0" ~ _ PROJ{CTN.M/E: 'A' Rr'I1SION$: PROJECT NuMBER: SJ-IEE'T NAME: .. t HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS OOC:UMENT WAS . 04-06 PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY OIRECT OERTEL AROHITECTS SHAKOPEE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING ""uu" NOVI!MaER2, 2004 :Jic':~~~C~Tirr~""g;c'M~~~~ BUILDING PLAN , ?QS SAINT C!LAII~ AVENUE ST. PAUL, MINNE8CTA ~Sl 05 DRAWN BY: m/LO.TURf: <551 l 59"-51 a,. TEe '''5' ) ,.9,..51 aa "AX SHAKOPEE MINNESOTA TRS, Ol-a, 5A5 'H<IT NO, WWW.OERTELARCHtTItCTS.COM/IlA7E All CliE"CKtl) BY, . JLO RroIS1RAnoN · LOH SltlPt"""" OllER OFFICE AREA FORIQ.IFT .6GGf59 S~ M!%%ANINi ...... ~ ~ """" BAY \.MmANI",\ CPai TO eacw ~ J.t4U:"'RIDGE SKYLJQ.IT &1Cl1OAGt TRAHSU.IC, ROOF PANaS VEl4Q.!.&T~ OPEH TO e.a.a-t ,. III V&l1CL.! f'WHT1!HAN2 ""'" ,.., l!aGI; ""'" LGW $.Gf'f ROOF MR Gf1'lU ..... ~:;o~ \.MmANINS\ ~ ""... I'''' tfaRM! 1 ~ ..'''' I fORIWFT ACC~ ~ Q'lAt;E ~INE ~ ~ ......"'" """"""'" Cl """""100 """"'"""'''''''' Cl ! , i ~ ! CD BUILDING PLAN 4- i S~2' - 1\-0" MEZZIo.NINE t.EVEL North . PR\:vECT NAME:: IWtlSlONS: PROJECT N1JMBtR: SHffTNAME, 04-06 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS OOCVMENT WM PREPAREO BY ME OR UNOER MY DIRECT SHAKOPEE PUBLIC SUPElMSl(\M HiD. 'fW.,T I .10M ,. ou\'Y REGlSTEREO WORKS BUILDING DATI: OF ISSUE: ARCHITECT IN THE STATE: OF' MINNESOTA MEZZANINE PLAN OERTEL ARCHITECTS NOVEMeER 2, 2004 1 '795 SAINT CLAIR AVI:NUI: ST. PAULo, MINNe:ecTA 551 01$ DRAWN BY: SIGNA1lIRt (651 ) eg~HSl 86 TEL ,e51 ) e'iile-51 sa F'AX SHAKO PEE, MINNESOTA TRS, DLe, 6A6 WWW.CE:R.TELARCHITEt:TB.COM SJ-lEE.T NO, CHECKED 9Y: "'" Al.2 Jt.o Ile:GIS1RATION S.7 7 J11~ A 5"'11' ~ 0 ~ 't .. SUP. .. ~ CfFlC! DiD ~ KITCH. i 0 @ ~ ~ 0 "I ... MIIl.Tl " .. - ~ 0 ~ ~ @ ~ ~ ~ ~ "I '\ " ..,. @ KITC~EN -!- "I ... ~ C " 3 ENLARGED PLAN 1I4".tl;"OIt ~ MENS ,,~ ~'-O' ~..,. LIlCI<fR~ "-..,.- DID ~ U6RART " ~;J CORR. em CORR. 00 0i!J " .. @ RESTROOM .- ~ ~ 2 ENLARGED PLAN 11411.,1:"'0" QQ ......""" @ LOCKER ROOMS 1/411..1'_OLl -I- ENLARGED PLANI . CD MAIN LEVEL -. 1 PARTIAL F,\.OOR PLAN 1I8U_I'_oM North f ! , I . ~ ~ i . PROJE;CT NAME~ REVISIONS: PROJtcr NUM€lER: SHf:rTNAME: 04-06 I HEREaY' CERTIFY TH.*.T THIS OOCl,Jt.ltNT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SHAKOPEE SUPEfMS!ON AND 'fJi.f.T I AM ,., DULY REClSTERE:O ENLARGED PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING OATEOfISS\J(: AACHIl€QT IN THe. SlATE Of" MINNESOTA OERTEL ARCHITECTS NOVEM6EFl. 2, 2004 FLOOR PLANS , ..,QS SAINT Cl-AIR AVENUE ST. PA,UI., MINNIt.OTA 551 05 DlU.WN BY: SIGNA1\/R!: (651 ) 6ge.51 Be TEL. 1651 ) 15ge-51 aa F"AX SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA TR5, DLa, 5A5 SHErTNO: WWW.OERTELARCHITECTB.COM ~~ A 1.3 CHECKEO,EN: JLO Il(GiS7RATIOU PR!F1NI$/W fiANDI~ SEAI1 METAL ROOF "M J, ---t +--- ---t ~ .'... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~i +--- 000 ~-_. t r t r ~ CRICKET "TYP. i r r ~ ~ (f}-=-~. ~~i 't l!i ~~i 1 ~ ~j ~ 1 ~ 't kW LJ~...I....l1J 1 " 12f1'" .'... Hi STEP 't~;' """"" STEP . &TEP STEP ""~ """" " """",,' ClQo4N .1 000 000 * ---t RD +--- ---t RD +--- ---t * t t W.~ W"",W.'...kl~...l .'''' LJ "'... l STEP t:lCI+4 ,I .sTEP OOWK ,I. STEP t:t('WN .1 .. STEP DOHN .1 STEP ",,"",' f ! , i . ~ CD ROOF PLAN ~ i i 8132- . 11-0" . PROJECT NAME: REl,IjSlONS, PRo.JECT NUMBER: SHrp NAAtE;, 1 HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS 04-0' PREPARED B"( ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERV!SlO/<t AND THAT , AM A DULY RECISTlREO SHAKOPEE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DATE OF ISSUE: ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OF' MINNESOTA ROOF PLAN OERTEL ARCHITECTS NOVEMBER 2, 2004 1 795 SAINT CLAIR AVENUI!: ST. PAUL., MINNIUSCTA 551 05 DRAWN BY: SIG~TIIR( (651 ) 696-51 ee. TEL. (651 } 6;16~51 SS F'AX SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA TR6, D~B, 6A6 Sl1rp NO: WWW.CERTELARCHITECTS.CCM ~rr A 1.4 CI1ECKEDBY: JLO REGIS1l1ATION ~ ~ ~ (1) BUILDING PLAN A~@I - J'-()' . IOOSTING North ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j 0 PRa.JECT/<WIE: RfVISIONS: PROJfx:rNU~ SHEEr NAME; 04-06 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1lllS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED SY ME OR UI'tDER MY DIRECT SHAKOPEE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING SUPElMSIOH AHO 1H4T I Ml A OlA.Y REClSlERED EXISTING BUILDING a.\l'EOFISSUE: ARCH~IN l1-lE STATE OF MINNESOTA OERTEL ARCHITECTS NOVEM6ER 2,2004 PlAN 1 795 SAINT CLAIR AVE,..UI!: ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 551 05 0RAwt/B'l': ~ (aSl ) 696-$1 S6 TEL (651 ) p96-51 sa F"AX SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA WWW.DUTEl.ARCHlTECTB.CO,", -"fRS, ,DL..8, $AS, Sllf:a__Nl), CHECl(E08Y: - Al.5 .lLO Rf_OOIl cp ""UPRSCAST T.Oa..~J~ EL.l'S"", _ED mc;.oT PANEL _ AUIM. WCH. JtleeEl) mcA&T PANEL. ......... <ONllEC11<>I ~~'~ ~.~~ PRUlNlSUED ALUM. S~ CD EAST ELEVATION 3/3211 . It-o- cpc( i ' T,Oa.~~ , ~'l~~ ~~.l~ T.o.~~ PREFIN, ALUM. WON. MOllIJLAR ORIC< ~T.O."'" ~:'~~ ~, I()OI.Q t.O.:.~~ @NORTI-l ELEVATION a/5211 . 1'_0'1 @SOUTl-l ELEVATION 3/a2Q . 11"'0~ ~~'~ T.O. P;: ~~, ~T.o...... a. ...-<' { (]) WEST ELEVATION 3/321\ . 11-0' ~ i < ~ ~ I e PROJECT NAME: RE\IISIONS, PRQJECTNtlM&R: SHEf:T NMlE: 04-0" I HEREBY CERTlF'f TliAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED f1'( ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT . SUPER\llSlOtl AND ~T I ~ A DULY REGIstt:RED BUILDING SHAKO PEE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING OATE: OF ISsue: ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OF' MINNESOTA OERTEL ARCHITECTS NOVEM6ER 2, 2004 ELEVATIONS 1 795, SAINT CLAIR AVENUE ST. PAUL., MINNEBClTA ~Sl AS DRAWN 11Y: SIGNAtuRe (eSl ) eg6~51 Sf! TEL. (1551 J ege-S1 se F"AX SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA TR5, D~6, 5A5 SI1WNO, WWW.OERTELARCHITEcrS.COM ~" A3.1 Cl1e:CKEOGY, J~O """'""" r . , r r 7 .I ~ ~1'.O.PRfC.AsT T.O.~~ l!L.~'-tO' T.O. P;: iz~~' ~1iD PRieMT 1l<$U~ "VEU. MAINT GQtC. HALL PNlfl.5 1'ttECA$7<:aIC. ~;;:., HAU.'p~ . iDID t.O._~ PREfIN.-' ."""""'7 a.'iJlOl~ :Oio.~~ ~t.O.SLAIl ~.~" a.. 100'..0- EXWAl.l$T t'OSE: REEl. _~.;WII1, -'-TYP e:b~~~ -TYP. OF m m. !LEV. CD BUILDING., SECTION $152" . -,1..011 C + T.O. 'P.C' HOW EL.12S'..,f r """"'7 C<lNC, ~ :'5~r;:; ",,^,,"y- ..t4ST eRG. INSUI.. P.e. ea4C. '- pJlNEt. ..sa! ELEV. FOR fiN. VEUICLl T.O. ~" $TiEL PLAT! . DOOR r~"1 ,\ StO!lAGE ~ PAJNT AU. ElCI'O$) em ~. HEAP '..PAINT iSTEEI. ..fYP. ~I;:;+ OM. DOOR ..PAINT , :cat:. eou.t1M i PROTECTGR 1 " [2b} .. ~T.O.SLAIl .1.. EL.. VARIES ~.::~ WIT. CONmUC. JCNNT ..sEe&1'RUCT. @ BUILDING SECTION 3/1,11 . "tl_OIl VEJ.IICI.E STORAGE I ~ .I ~ T.o. P.C. HAU. 1A ~~.;:;.~ EL.t2&'-4" ~ ~~~ BI~' ~ -;: ~" --.. IfEJ4ICLE IH!UATED PREGAST PANEl. MAllitENANCE -sEE ELE'{, FOR F.lNl$l mAL PIPE RAIL t ~TE DID ---- . -p- ._---, --- ---- ..--.-- ...~ .- -,~ ._.. ",_. --- -"----- OR DOOR .!'AIHT ...-."-.-. .---- .' ~" - ~." - --- -.. --- . -~.._..~_. ._- -.- - _'_'_' k_. ~.__._._- .--. ---- -...- $lEEL ruTl . DlXlR .-._~~ --~. .._._-""--~ - --'- ~. -_.~'"--" -~--"" -,,""--- ..-- -,-~ .IN'8! . ~eAD .pAINT --.--. ,,-_.... -.- --,.'" ~,. -.. ..--- _..~-_.,- .-- -'" - ..--.---. ---- --""- ------ .-, ---~---- -- _.._.,,--- ,. '"-"'-~.' ___n_.___ -.- ------_. ~ --.--.,. eo __.__ H .- -- ~- --,-.-.__. -~..- -,_..,.. ~7.0."'" ..- _. -- '-- ----- ~:.;:, a.. VARIES: { (3) BUILDING SECTION ::\/l~lI _11..()1I VF\.lI<"J, MAIMTFl!AN<:' 1 j . ~ ~ I . PROJECT NA~E: REVlSIONS: PROJECT" NUMBER: SNE:E;TIW,!E; 04.-06 I HER~, CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED 8Y ME: OR UNDER MY O:IRECt stJPEIMSlON AND TH.\T 1 AM AOUl't'RfGISTliRED BUILDING SHAKOPEE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DAT(OF"ISSU(: ARCHITECT IN THJ;: STATE OF -MINNEsOTA OERTEl:- ARCHI'TECTS NOVEMBER 2. 2004 SECTIONS 1 '7gS. SAINT CLAIR ~VIll:NUE ST. PA;UL., MINNESOTA 551 OS DRAWN BY: S~NAl'UR€ (651 ) 69;6-51 B6 TEL. (eal ) 696-51 se F'AX SHAKOPEE, MtNNESOT A TRS, DI.B, SAS SHffTNO: WWW..CERTELA.RCt-ll"~Cia.COM CHECKED.f1f: ~" A4.1 JI.O RrorsTRATIOIl