HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/1993 TENTATIVE AGENDA
CITY CCJNCIL/HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JOINT MEETING
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DECEMBER 14 , 1993
Location: City Hall, 129 Holmes Street South
Mayor Gary Laurent presiding
1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M.
2] Chaska Interceptor Agreement with the Metropolitan Council,
the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the Shakopee
City Council - bring memo 13g from 12/7 Council agenda
3] Rehab Grant Program Amendments - bring memo 4 from 12/7
H.R.A. agenda
4] Other business :
a]
b]
5] Adjourn
Dennis R. Kraft
City Administrator
H.R.A. Executive Director
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Rehab Grant Program Amendments
DATE: December 10, 1993
INTRODUCTION:
The City Council/HRA directed that this item be put on the
Committee of the Whole agenda for discussion at the December 14th
meeting. It is also the staff' s understanding that this item
should be discussed in conjunction with the disposition of the
buildings on the North side of First Avenue between Holmes and
Sommerville Streets. The Community Development Commission has not
yet formulated a recommendation to the Council on this subject.
Therefore it is recommended that this item be deferred until next
month at which time the Council will have benefit of the Community
Development Commission recommendations .
ACTION REOUESTED:
It is requested that the City Council evaluate this request and
provide staff direction.
P.S. Please bring memorandum #4 from the December 7th HRA agenda.
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Chaska Interceptor
DATE: December 14, 1993
For purposes of providing additional background information for the December 14, 1993
committee-of-the whole meeting for the Chaska Interceptor, I would like to provide a funding
synopsis of the various alternatives available to the Council.
Alternative No. 1
The MWCC constructs a gravity interceptor and allows the City to use it with no cost
participation by the City.
This alternative is not acceptable to the Met Council and MWCC representatives from
those agencies will explain their position on this alternative.
Alternative No. 2
The MWCC constructs a gravity interceptor and the City is allowed to use it with a
negotiated cost participation.
Basically, these are the costs listed in Attachment 1 which provides a cost participation
matrix based on amount of City flow desired and connection points to the system. Staff
will go through this matrix at the Council meeting.
Alternative No. 3
The City elects not to participate in this project, the MWCC constructs a forcemain and
the City would be required to construct our own trunk/interceptor lines to serve the areas
of the City outside the current MUSA.
The costs for this option are outlined in Attachment 2, which is a letter from SEH
regarding the impacts of this option. Basically, the letter indicates a no growth option
(Alternative A), a cost participation with MWCC option (Alternative B) and three
scenarios whereby the City will construct our own facilities (Alternatives C, D and E).
Again staff will go through these alternatives in greater detail at the meeting.
COST SUMMARY/FUNDING OPTIONS
Total cost estimate of MWCC project $23.35 Million
(gravity interceptor and forcemain
from Chaska)
Total cost estimate of forcemain
- $13.21 Million
Original proposal to the City for
$10.14 Million
cost participation was the difference
between those two.
WCC
Based on the City's position that this was an unreasonable
amount ootpirti iipateane ,in the
M the
prepared a series of fourteen funding alternatives for possiblePg
full $10.14 million to $3.5 million, not including the City's credit of$1.325 million. Based on
continuing negotiations,. these were narrowed down to the four options listed on Attachment
No. 1 (dated 12/7/93) which indicate the City's cost would range from $2.6 - $4.0 million (after
the credit) depending. on several variables.
If the City elects not to participate, the M\VCC has indicated that they would probably construct
a forcemain the whole way and the City would need to construct our own sewer facilities. If this
were the case, the City's costs would range from S3.8 - S7.0 million as indicated under Options
C, D and E in the 10'12193 analysis by SEH.
Staff will go through the funding alternatives at the December 14, 1993 Council meeting_ in
greater detail.
DEH/pmp
CHASKA
SHAKOPEE% OF FLOW VERSUS TOTAL FLOW IN INTERCEPTOR
MWCC ALTERNATIVES
CONNECTION
POINT 3A (17 cfs) 3B(17cfs) 3C (15 cfs) 3D (15 cfs)
A
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
B
10.60% 0.00% 4.20% 0.00% ,
C 13.40% 0.00% 7.30% 0.00%
D 15.70% 15.70% 10.30% 10.30%
•
E 24.10% 24.10% 18.40% 18.40%
F 24.10% 24.10% 19.20% 19.20%
G 36.20% 36.20% 32.40% 32.40%
H 39.30% 39.30% 35.20% 35.20%
0
I 40.30% 40.30% 37.30% 37.30%
-
I
R \ �ji\4,:,ti``,t-1A.t
,i..titts ;� iw
41.16,
p 'N E i %. .
. F`,� �A 6 ..A
ki t
8 i pvi,p4,,,': - • Aleig agmamict-i:016-..4,..1\114:\ .
Q
i ,7\
01 741,. i!:e.,\N 4.., \
° ,, \its.,.,,,j:..lc i ‘: . 1 .
\ .�'tiftiji • • �� 'Oro• 4 .
1 - -I="-- 7-----%,- ..L.: \.‘,41, v , .
td 1 t ; r4
lit
Ai n so P .
•
{ / ��E'Fi;&:{x,•,1,1:ui"fix i\ 1 f 1 ��
aill• ;at 1...,.,..-.4• -,,1, IN 11-,1 N'll •
Q nom V
w I • s �~�L?'�11't. i• '' 4
1 •
� ;t'.. :*; t�1,,,�:`Y,'.;. :ti l• '. !�Gjl. y4p .
1 ii il I 1 _#-h'-t`2_'•'"' ,?�' '1,':1ti,il'� �1 ..
y i ._'a• ✓rr Ilw l;',tot<±,M ,i:, ,1���.,i1:1_, .
. ..,.4
lAt ci ii i 6 PA
�►is�'�`t "�' y �'+ ;,'•�ittllt'+'.•_�l � .n.Iiy� .PL'1�'� .{j.,y III.
. .;, O
al I'll } . M ■Il �[[ I ";`i�lYf.�i ' sir:f r::�s: t ' 1
}i.l40+1 E �C":. 4Q °;".:;.6'.';':;',A!;L.''::1 tt'I,f'�atCi.-fi�>>•,�• t
�i ;1.
I_ p f�r '.ti'nn �14Ai 11t'� f Iv°;:.1‘Ni1
i 18 8 if Li 1\,\ ,j101,,, f,r,iii.F.- A.i,i---ii.-14• -- . t . . ..
3 i heat •.mt'4 .� I a f VV::Ili.*Iii )44 b.:a;'-51:-- \---9N‘
ill - t 111
,II,11111•11, ..i'Li'..,''';'/A'..,,ti�. ,'lippi.
1 iZ,ot PIO -.SI i \ ,y tt�i.
...r.ivi' . . •
: .
Ro!
., is i • 1-- _ r.,____,_......... i4rLi� S i
td 1: 7—
li Or . ,\ rec _ • i' - _., .
_______, i . r
: .
1. ,i, ,.. ‘
40 L r^ l
Cg E
Vi
t'/h. .'
•
t'1 _ .... ,,„„ li
5 i ...--1-1,1
' //////III
71, i g
'i. ,-. h .. .I'1 ki
� � , / /
y! ; A r;.
Q �_J �1-14 t EI 1
( ,Aillif i 4' 1 mow, ,.._ 44,7 . -- 12;;;-'
"'"I e fl::4',4f), ;4 . vo,s , iflizzli _ t 1
0 ,14.... ,_.4.,11 p _It!. .., . ir . ,
it , , . ., ..
,,,.....40x,.. ,,, A evil ......._
,—r— . Al ,t4414! ."11 1 . &. ,/i
f /i. )/ 1 I i
ef 4r! Z • r It• t t�
::,...
t "�
i i '
,---- 22 si A I•
a ,,... iiiii 71•1->,:i
`'- it 1/44 t�tt. -79 '
•. "
6141o` / /3
MWCC COST SHARING OPTIONS
VARIABLES
A - MUSA Plan 41 (17 cfs), 1st City connection @ Point B
B - MUSA Plan 41 (17 cfs), 1st City connection @ Point D
C - MUSA Plan 42 (15 cfs), 1st City connection @ Point B
D - MUSA Plan 42 (15 cfs), 1st City connection @ Point D
City Cost
City Cost After Credit
A $5.3 Million $4.0 Million
B $4.9 Million $3.6 Million
C $4.2 Million $2.9 Million
D S3.9 Million $2.6 Million
MUSA Plan 41 - Development from West to East
MUSA Plan 42 - Development from East to West
All options will receive a S1.325 Million credit for diversion sewers to avoid MWCC from
replacing their interceptor along T.H. 101 (7023).
See attached map for connection points to M\VCC Interceptor.
David E. Hutton
December 7, 1993
„4.4ii_e„04
4,1„.561
5909 6:KER ROAD,SUITE 590,PoflNNETONKA.MN 5535 612 931-9501 FAX c;2 931-1188
ANEW ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRA:SPORTATICI.
•
October 12, 1993 RE: Shakopee, Minnesota
Miscellaneous Services
Trunk Sewer Alternatives for South Shakopee
SEH File No.: SHAK02423.00
Dave Hutton, P.E.
City Engineer/Director of Public Works
City of Shakopee
129 South Holmes Street
Shakopee MN 55379
Dear Dave:
You had requested that SEH further explore what options might be available to the City of Shakopee should
negotiations with the MWCC and Met Council fail relative to cost-sharing of the gravity Chaska Interceptor.
Work done by SEH during the negotiations provided certain information. Cost estimates were also prepared
for a South Shakopee interceptor sewer system, along the TH101 Bypass from the Prior Lake Interceptor
westerly to County Road 17, as part of the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. With this information as
background, we further evaluated what options the City of Shakopee might have. The range of options
includes the following:
Alternative A
This alternative addresses service only to the current MUSA boundary. Urban residential land
demand would need to be satisfied by land use and zoning changes creating urban residential
property out of vacant industrial or commercial property already within the MUSA boundary. The
land within the current MUSA boundary can be serviced without using the proposed Chaska
Interceptor. Trunk sewer extensions need to be made (VIP and Rahr Malting) along with other
local extensions. In addition, the MWCC will need to upgrade Lift Station L-16 and the forcemain,
MWCC Interceptor 7024. As the area tributary to MWCC Interceptor 7023 (Shakopee
Interceptor) reaches saturation, this interceptor would become surcharged and would need to be
supplemented at a cost of S1.2 million as estimated by the MWCC.
The City would not need to construct the VIP diversion, but would need to construct a crossing
of the TH101 Bypass at County Road 17 to serve Sewer Districts VP-H and SS-I. The lift station
at the east end of 12th Avenue and the lift station at Secretariat Drive would need to be kept in
operation. An additional lift station servicing Sewer District VP-I north of CSAH16 and west of
Secretariat Drive would need to be constructed.
The components and approximately costs for Alternative A are listed in the attached cost
summaries.
_E _ - CLC.. _ 5 ..
•
Dave Hutton, P.E.
October 12, 1993
Page 2
Alternative B
In order to accommodate development of any of the Jackson Township property north of the
Bypass or any additional land south of the Bypass and west of the Prior Lake Interceptor,the VIP
diversion and additional trunk and interceptor sewers would be needed. Alternative B assumes an
MWCC gravity interceptor is constructed. This alternative would provide maximum service to the
County Road 17 area. The service area could extend southerly to include Sewer Districts SW-E
and SW-F, or instead of SW-E and SW-F, include part of Jackson Township south of the Bypass.
MWCC cost-sharing alternatives assume some service to Jackson Township. The City's cost for
a gravity Chaska Interceptor will be better defined upon completion of the Comprehensive Plan
and receipt of bids on the interceptor.
Alternative C
Alternative C assumes that the MWCC builds a forcemain all the way to the Prior Lake
Interceptor, with the City constructing the South Shakopee Interceptor Sewer as shown on the
April 5, 1993, "City of Shakopee Ultimate Trunk Sanitary Sewer System" map. This alternative
would serve the "ultimate" service area including Jackson Township, most of which would be
developed after the year 2040.
Alternative D
Alternative D is similar to Alternative C,but would not serve any Jackson Township property south
of the TH101 Bypass.
Alternative E
Alternative E serves the same area as Alternative D. However, this alternative uses a shallow pipe
making a lift station necessary to service approximately half of Sewer District SS-F and it does not
eliminate the two existing lift stations north of the TH101 Bypass. Alternative E is more practical
to construct than Alternatives C and D due to its shallower depth near an 8" gas main.
Alternative Comparisons
Some of the cost summaries are fairly accurate (feasibility study accuracy), while other cost
estimates are less accurate and were generated purely for purposes of this quick comparison. The
present worth analysis for the operation and maintenance costs on the lift stations is based on the
previous analysis done for the lift station at Secretariat Drive. The present worth for the
construction projects is the same as the project cost, indicating an assumption of all components
being constructed in the same year, or the interest rate matching the construction cost inflation
rate. No present worth was assigned for O&M costs on the gravity sewers. No easement costs
were included.
Dave Hutton, P.E.
October 12, 1993
Page 3
Review of Alternatives B, C, D, and E indicates that the present worth of Alternatives B and E are
the lowest and,for all practical purposes,the same. Alternative E has the lowest initial project cost
and the cost of constructing a lift station for Sewer District SS-F would be delayed until such time
as needed. However, there are negative impacts of ownership and maintenance of three lift
stations that do not show upas cost Reins. (y 4-4 /)
Alternative B removes any lift station ownership responsibilities and,in fact, most of the ownership
responsibilities of the entire interceptor system.
Considering all of the foregoing, it appears that Alternative B would be in the overall best interest of the
City. However, if negotiations on the gravity Chaska Interceptor should cease and the MWCC builds a
forcemain all the way to the Prior Lake Interceptor,Alternatives C, D, and E all provide for future growth,
with Alternative E being the most cost effective.
We'll be happy to meet with you or others to more fully explain the background information behind the
alternatives presented and the comments provided above. If you require anything further, please feel free
to call.
Sincerely,
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
Daniel R. Boxrud, P.E.
ymb
•
Alternative A
Service to Current MUSA
Item - City Costs Project Cost Present Worth
VIP Interceptor Extension $380,000 $380,000
L Rahr Forcemain 300,000 300,000
TH101 Crossing at C.R.17 200,000 200,000
O&M 12th Avenue L.S. NA 99,360
O&M Secretariat Drive L.S. NA 99,360
L.S. for VP-I 32,000 32,000
O&M L.S. for VP-I NA 99,360
VIP Diversion NA NA
SSIS, Prior Lake Interceptor to C.R. 16 NA NA
SSIS, C.R. 16 to C.R. 17 NA NA
SSIS, C.R. 17 to C.R. 79 NA NA
Sewer to Eliminate Secretariat Dr L.S. NA NA
L.S. for SS-F NA NA
O&M L.S. for SS-F NA NA
City Share of MWCC Alternative 3B NA NA
Less Credit for Diversions [S133,000J' 0 0
Total S912,000 $1,210,080
'This has not been discussed with Metropolitan Councl or MWCC. No joint City-MWCC
project to credit against, assume no credit.
Alternative B
MWCC Gravity Interceptor
Item - City Costs Project Cost Present Worth
VIP Interceptor Extension $380,000 $380,000
Z Rahr Forcemain 300,000 300,000
TH101 Crossing at C.R.17 NA NA
O&M 12th Avenue L.S. NA NA
O&M Secretariat Drive L.S. NA NA
L.S. for VP-I NA NA
O&M L.S. for VP-I NA NA
VIP Diversion 570,000 570,000
SSIS, Prior Lake Interceptor to C.R. 16 NA NA
SSIS, C.R. 16 to C.R. 17 NA NA
SSIS, C.R. 17 to C.R. 79 - �r�j�� ' 3a- 391,410' 391,410'
Sewer to Eliminate Secretariat Dr L.S. 130,000 130,000
L.S. for SS-F NA NA
O&M L.S. for SS-F NA NA
City Share of MWCC Alternative 3B 4,891,780 4,891,780
Less Credit for Diversions [1,325,863] [1,325,863]
Total $5,337,327 $5,337,327
•
.211
'Difference in estimated cost between MWCC Alternatives 3A and 3B.
' '
r. //J -
i
Jl:"
Alternative C
MWCC Forcemain with City Constructing
SSIS as Shown on April 5, 1993, Drawing -
Serves "Ultimate" Service Area
Item - City Costs Project Cost Present Worth
/ VIP Interceptor Extension $380,000 $380,000
Z Rahr Forcemain 300,000 300,000
? TH101 Crossing at C.R.17 NA NA
.1 O&M 12th Avenue L.S. NA NA
< O&M Secretariat Drive L.S. NA NA
(� L.S. for VP-I NA NA
? O&M L.S. for VP-I NA NA
r' VIP Diversion 570,000 570,000
SSIS, Prior Lake Interceptor to C.R. 16 (60") 5,300,000 5,300,000
SSIS, C.R. 16 to C.R. 17 950,000 950,000
SSIS, C.R. 17 to C.R. 79 (36") 700,000 700,000
Sewer to Eliminate Secretariat Dr L.S. 130,000 130,000
L.S. for SS-F NA NA
O&M L.S. for SS-F NA NA
City Share of MWCC Alternative 3B NA NA
Less Credit for Diversions [S1,325,8631' 0 0
Total S8,330,000 S8,330,000
'This has not been discussed with Metropolitan Council or MWCC. No joint City-MWCC
project to credit against, assume no credit.
= 7 . , .
Alternative D
MWCC Forcemain with City Constructing SSIS
as Shown on April 5, 1993, Drawing,
Except no Service to Jackson Township south of TH101 Bypass
Item - City Costs Project Cost Present Worth
/ VIP Interceptor Extension $380,000 $380,000
Rahr Forcemain 300,000 300,000
3 TH101 Crossing at C.R.17 NA NA
O&M 12th Avenue L.S. NA NA
C O&M Secretariat Drive L.S. NA NA
L.S. for VP-I NA NA
2 O&M L.S. for VP-I NA NA
VIP Diversion 570,000 570,000
SSIS, Prior Lake Interceptor to C.R. 16 (48") 4,400,000 4,400,000
p SSIS, C.R. 16 to C.R. 17 535,000 535,000
I! SSIS, C.R. 17 to C.R. 79 (18") 350,000 350,000
/Z- Sewer to Eliminate Secretariat Dr L.S. 130,000 130,000
L.S. for SS-F NA NA
O&M L.S. for SS-F NA NA
City Share of MWCC Alternative 3B NA NA
-' Less Credit for Diversions [S1,325,863f 0 0
Total $6,665,000 $6,665,000
'This has not been discussed with Metropolitan Council or MWCC. No joint City-MWCC
project to credit against, assume n credit.: _ 5 ?=>
Z , -1..
�/ /� ‘1 '
Alternative E
MWCC Forcemain with City Constructing a Shallow SSIS
to Serve only Shakopee and
not eliminate Two Existing and One Future Lift Station
Item - City Costs Project Cost Present Worth
/ VIP Interceptor Extension $380,000 $380,000
Z Rahr Forcemain 300,000 300,000
3 TH101 Crossing at C.R.17 NA NA
O&M 12th Avenue L.S. NA 99,360
O&M Secretariat Drive L.S. NA 99,360
L.S. for VP-I NA NA
7 O&M L.S. for VP-I NA NA
VIP Diversion 530,000 530,000
SSIS, Prior Lake Interceptor to C.R. 16 (36") 2,600,000 2,600,000
/0 SSIS, C.R. 16 to C.R. 17 535,000 535,000
/-' SSIS, C.R. 17 to C.R. 79 (18") 350,000 350,000 (
f Sewer to Eliminate Secretariat Dr L.S. NA NA
L.S. for SS-F 100,000 100,000
O&M L.S. for SS-F NA 150,000
City Share of MWCC Alternative 3B NA NA
If Less Credit for Diversions [S1,325,863j1 0 0 1
Total $4,795,000 $5,143,720
'This has not been discussed with Metropolitan Council or MWCC. No joint City-MWCC
project to credit against, assume no credit. /' /.:. -
,:c / _
•
•
• 'f / i. ./ ` /
COST SUMMARY OF SEWER OPTIONS (1. 7/•-•-/ i°/ /�9 .
S E/i`/jam e
AVAILABLE TO THE CITY
Alternative A - No MUSA Expansions $ 500,000
Alternative B - Alt. 3A by MWCC $4,000,000
w/City using Chaska Interceptor
Alternative C - No Chaska Interceptor $7,000,000
Alternative D - No Chaska Interceptor $5,400,000
Alternative E - No Chaska Interceptor $3,800,000
aValI
Icy
BUSINESS PARK December 13, 1993
Mayor Gary Laurent
Ms. Gloria Vierling •
Mr.Bob Sweeney •
Mr.Michael Beard •
Ms. Joan Lynch •
•
CITY.OF SHAKOPEE
129 South Holmes Street
• Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Shakopee/Chaska Interceptor Cost Sharing Agreement
- Draft 12193
Dear Mayor Laurent and Council Members
We have received a copy of the above-referenced and wish to.present a few
•comments based on our reading of the document. We have met with City Staff on
issues related to the design considerations for the interceptor project and believe
we have come to grips with additional items that need to be accommodated by the
MWCC:
1. Reconfiguration of the sanitary sewer pipe under the bypass at 12th
Avenue/Valley Park Drive at MWCC's expense.
2. South Shakopee Sewer District access at County Road 83 at the south side of
the bypass
In reviewing the document, we would suggest consideration of the following:
1.- Section 2.1 - This section defines the capacities that will be allocated to the
future growth of Shakopee. Historically, Met Council's growth projections
have been on the "light" side. If capacity is gauged on these projections (17
cfs), I would suggest that some "fudge-factor's be negotiated into the
capacity calculations to prevent the possibilities of reaching capacity and
still having additional development to accommodate.
2. Section 4.2 - The capacities on the various pipe sections will be defined in
this section alphabetically as cross-referenced to an SEH/MWCC Exhibit. In
reviewing that exhibit, it appears that the pipe sections are referenced by
the points where the trunk line can access the interceptor. It also appears
that two trunk points have not been provided for. We would suggest that a
5240 Valley Industrial Boulevard South •Shakopee. Minnesota 55379•Telephone: (612)445-9286• Facsimile: (6121445-93;2
•
Mayor Gary Laurent
City of Shakopee Council Members
Page Two
December 13, 1993
4-1 point will be necessary in the vicinity of County Road 83, on the south
side, then flowing north under the bypass to an intersection point with the
interceptor on the north side of the bypass. Additionally, there needs to be
a trunk connection point on the south side of the bypass, south of 12th
Avenue, the location of the previously installed Valley Green sanitary sewer
connection designed for the old south side interceptor.
3. Section 6.1 - This area defines what appears to be a variety of agreements
for land use and planning controls to be implemented by the City of .
Shakopee. Section A(1) has a stipulation as to the maximum number. of
acres to be defined by the City in its 2000 Urban Service Area. It defines net
developable acreages as "excluding lakes, streams or other water bodies,
wetlands, flood plains and other lands used for public purposes as mutually
agreed to by the City and the Council.". The current MDIF provides
parameters and policy for defining what type of land areas can be used;as
legitimate deductions in defining the net developable acreage available in a
municipality. It is my understanding that bedrock is usually an area that
can be considered for deduction. If I read the latter portion of this paragraph
correctly, it appears the additional 180 acres of residential MUSA land being
acquired because of the land trade with industrial on a 2 for 1 basis is
included in the 2,311 acres. I would think it would be more appropriate to
suggest that the 2,311 includes the 180 acres of industrial land being traded,
and that after the trade, the new Year 2000 Urban Service Area would have
2,491 acres within it.
Subsection A(3) - As previously referenced, historically the Metropolitan
Council's projections on growth in various municipalities has been lower
than what has actually been the case. Based on this, the number to be
inserted in this paragraph for annual average flow should be high enough so
that if the City of Shakopee experiences growth substantially beyond that
which is currently being projected by the Met Council, we will not be
constrained by this portion of the Agreement, which may in turn prevent us
from opening up additional areas of the City for development.
Subsection A(4)(a) - The Agreement eliminates any future subdivisions in the
rural service area that are not in conformance with the Met Council's Rural
Area Service Policy. We are hopefully protecting all the developers in the
community who are currently contemplating development of these types of
Mayor Gary Laurent
City of Shakopee Council Members
Page Three
December 13, 1993
lots. I would hope that anyone who is currently in the process of designing a
preliminary plat, but as yet not submitted to the City for approval, will be allowed
the opportunity to expedite their plans before this "window" closes.
Subsection C - The last sentence of this paragraph specifies that "the City further
agrees that it will follow Scott County's recommendations, if any, following the
County's review of plats for access to County Road 18." The wording here
appears to indicate that the City of Shakopee will-have no say in matters that
• they historically have had control in. The way this portion of the paragraph is
worded, I would suggest the County Road 21 realignment, which is a portion of
this County Road 18 project, is also what is being referenced as to the "spacing of
access" issue. To tie the City's hands on eland-planning issues within our city
boundaries would seem inappropriate.
- 4. -Section 6.2 - This paragraph addresses the possibilities of future urban service
area expansions.' .I would hope that if:the City of Shakopee obtains the growth
that Valley Green believes it is headed for, which would be substantially beyond
the projections of the Met Council, that the Met Council would be open minded
and willing to allow the City MUSA expansions to minimize constraining the
City's growth, which growth will be a result of the new Bloomington Ferry Bridge.
We understand that we have not been privy to the negotiations taking place between
the City of Shakopee, MWCC and the Metropolitan Council. .Lack of specific knowledge
of these negotiations limits our ability to comment on other areas we believe could have
been germane to these negotiations. Your consideration of our comments is
appreciated, and we stand ready to assist in these efforts, if appropriate.
Respectfully,
VLEY GREEN BUSINESS PARK
i
VoYky
Jon R. Albinson
Project Director
JRA:jmcx-114.4
cc: Dennis Kraft
Dave Hutton
Water Resources Management Part I
characteristics or municipal boundaries, a city or service is brought within the city's kk)
•
may desire to be served at more than one access boundary, or when timing of service is
point in the metropolitan interceptor system and moved forward for the convenience of the
the Council may consider such requests. The municipality, the Council will consider the
Council is not responsible, however, for providing financial implications and ask the
service at every location within a city;it is the city's community to share the cost of providing
responsibility to develop a municipal system that the additional service.
serves the local needs. The primary responsibility
of the Council is to provide service to the Implementation Activity
community's border. Another collection point
within the city could be selected if it is determined 1. Metropolitan Council
to be more convenient to the local collection
system and metropolitan interceptor. The Council will a) require all proposed new
interceptor extensions in future commission
One of the Council's roles is to take a metropolitan implementation plans to adhere to this policy;
viewpoint of controversial issues and to consider and b) notify local units of government
the entire population of the Metropolitan Area as preparing local comprehensive sewer plans or
its prime constituency. This important amendments of this policy.
consideration, plus the need to be equitable and
fair in dealing with all local government units, 2. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
outweighs the advantages of policy flexibility.
The commission will a) review local
A situation may occur where sewer system comprehensive sewer plans in light of Policy
improvements are needed to support regional 1-7; and b) follow this policy in expansion
development goals earlier than programmed and proposals presented in the commission's
full metropolitan funding cannot be made available implementation plans.
at the time. A good example of this kind of
situation is found in the issue discussion 3. Local Units of Government
•
associated with Policy 1 - 7, where a major, new
economic development or big expansion is Local government units should plan to
dependent on new or expanded regional sewer develop their own internal sewer system and
facilities and services. A promising way to handle not depend on the metropolitan system to
such a dilemma is to enter into a local/regional serve needs within the individual community.
cost-sharing arrangement. Prior to acting, the
Council would have to determine that a proposed
sewer improvement is fully consistent with its
Metropolitan Development and Investment
Framework and wastewater policy plan, and that
•
the supported development will bring a net benefit
to the Metropolitan Area and meets sewer priority
criteria. In brief, the full integrity of the
metropolitan sewer system plan and program
must be retained. Local governments involved in
cost sharing should understand that the proposed
facility will be part of the metro sewer system and
not under local jurisdiction.
POLICY 1 - 7
The Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission shall minimize
the number of locations where new
metropolitan interceptor service is
provided to a municipality. The primary
responsibility shall be to provide service at
the recipient community's border. Where
additional connections are to be provided,
24
I
) .• 1
l j
Issue: Provision of Metropolitan Interceptor
Service to New Areas
The Council has agreed to provide new or
expanded sewer services to areas planned to
accommodate new development when a
legitimate need is present. There is a question of
whether this expansion of interceptor services is
to be provided in a way that minimizes local sewer
l system investments by substituting metropo,itan
facilities wherever possible, or conversely,
minimizes metropolitan sewer service investment
`• by doing the minimum amount required to provide
the opportunity for local governments to tie into
the metropolitan service.
The options for extension of new metropolitan
interceptor service to communities are a) extend
the metropolitan interceptor to a convenient point
at the community's border and have the
community tap in local sewer interceptors at this
point; b) extend metropolitan interceptors well
beyond the community boundary to the lowest
elevation (for local gravity flow), into each
subwatershed in the community, or adopt some
other routing that is determined by local sewer
plans; c) use any of these options depending on
specific situations and the various solutions at
hand. The first of these options minimizes
metropolitan investment. Variations of the second
option minimize local investment. The third option
keeps all doors open, but this flexible position also
runs a risk of inequitable treatment of local units of
I government over a period of time. The Council's
responsibility is to ensure that metropolitan sewer
% 1 service is available to a city in step with planned
urban development. Because of land
. 23 - •
December 1988
Metropolitan
1
Development and
investment Framework
Adopted Sept. 25, 1986
}
Metropolitan Council 1
Mears Park Centre
230 E. Fifth St.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
291-6359 TDD 291-0904
Publication No. 640-88-122
facility-related information to affected local cil supports sharing costs for regional facilities •
governments. between metropolitan levels of government and local
government within appropriate guidelines. The
Council will enter into cost-sharing if it can
LOCAL/REGIONAL COST-SHARING demonstrate a net benefit to the region and project
is consistent with development framework policies.
Before entering into such an agreement, the C:oun-
During this time of diminished federal and state cil will also make sure that outside funding is not
funding support, the Council plans to investigate significantly changing the priorities in the affected
alternative sources of funding for regional facilities. regional system and that the integrity of the regional
One alternative that the Council has already used• systems not directly affected is maintained. The
successfully is local/regional cost-sharing. Council will take care to ensure equitable allocation
The Council will consider local/regional cost-sharing of the costs and use of the "shared" facility by the
only at the request of a local government.The Coun- affected local governments.
•
.
43
DESCRIPTION OF THE the correct number of SAC units to as-
SAC SYSTEM sass.
•
The SAC revenue collected by MWCC is
used to finance the reserved capacity por-
tion of the system. Capital improvement
The Service Availability Charge or SAC costs are initially financed by debt and in-
charge is similar to fees used by many volve the building of current capacity as
wastewater utilities and municipalities. well as excess, or reserved capacity.
Generically, they are known as "impact" SAC revenue finances the reserved ca-
or "connection"fees. Since 1973, a SAC pacity share of debt service annually,
fee has been levied by the MWCC for also called the annual SAC requirement.
new connections or increased volume to The remaining portion representing used
the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS). capacity is paid by the communities
through the monthly sewer service bill-
One SAC unit equals 274 gallons of maxi- ings.
mum potential daily wastewater flow
volume. Single-family houses, town- SAC revenue is held in the SAC Reserve
houses, duplex units and most Fund until utilized for the annual SAC re-
apartments each equal one SAC unit per quirement. The balance in the fund
dwelling unit. Commercial buildings are fluctuates from year to year depending
assessed SAC units based on maximum on whether current revenue plus interest
potential daily wastewater flow value. In- earned was more or less than the annual
dustrial buildings are assessed SAC units SAC requirement.
based on maximum normal daily
wastewater flow volume for process The per unit Service Availability Charge
areas and maximum potential flow vol- for each calendar year is determined and
ume for commercial areas. approved by the Commission as part of
the budget process. The rate for subse-
The MWCC is a wholesaler of sewage quent years shall be subject to review
services in the SAC system. The MWCC and is dependent on factors including the
collects SAC fees from, and grants SAC annual SAC requirement and the fore-
credit to, its customer municipalities. In casted number of SAC units to be
turn,the municipalities are responsible collected.
for SAC collection from property owners.
Generally, municipalities issue the per-
mits (building permits or plumbing
permits) which indicate that development
or redevelopment is occurring and that
the demand for sewage service is likely
to change. In turn, the change in de-
mand triggers SAC determination or
redetermination. The MWCC makes all
industrial determinations and municipali-
ties generally make most residential and
commercial determinations. The MWCC
will assist communities in SAC determina-
tions, conduct them upon request, and
will make the final decisions regarding
#L1
MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator
RE: Rehab Grant Program Guideline Amendments
DATE: November 23, 1993
INTRODUCTION:
The Community Development Commission (CDC) has completed their
review of the Rehab Grant Program Guidelines. They are
recommending a variety of amendments to the program.
BACKGROUND:
On May 4, 1993 the Shakopee HRA approved a 180 day moratorium on
the Rehab Grant Program. The purpose of the moratorium was to
allow the CDC time to review and recommend revisions to the program
guidelines. During the review period the CDC worked closely with
Mr. Steve Cross, Architect to complete drawings illustrating
potential facade improvements for a variety of block faces in the
downtown area.
Shown in attachment #1 is a copy of the Downtown Rehab Grant
Program Guidelines. Language that is being proposed for deletion
has a solid line through it. New language proposed by the CDC for
adoption is underlined. Following is a brief summary of several
provisions proposed for deletion by the CDC:
1. Deletion of the provision requiring evidence of financing.
2. Deletion of the repayment provision.
3 . Deletion of the provision requiring grant applicants to post
a bond or letter of credit.
4 . Deletion of program language specifying a grant funding cycle.
5. Deletion of the review and ranking criteria.
The majority of the provisions proposed for deletion by the CDC are
difficult to enforce and somewhat onerous in terms of the burden on
both staff and the property owner. Deletion of the aforementioned
provisions will stream line the grant process while maintaining the
original program objective (to stimulate improvements in the
downtown area that are consistent with the overall Downtown
Redevelopment Plan) .
Following is a brief summary of several of the major additions that
the CDC would like to be included in the Rehab Grant Program
Guidelines:
1. Replacement of the former City exterior building and design
standards (Attachment #2) with new exterior building and
design standards modeled after the City of Hastings.
(Attachment #3)
2 . The addition of a provision requiring that professionally
completed architectural elevation drawings to scale be
submitted with each application prior to formal review.
3 . The establishment of two levels of funding. Grant amounts
between $1, 000 and $9, 999 equating to 25% grant money
($4 , 000 . 00 - $39 , 999 . 99 project size) and grant amounts
between $10, 000 and $25, 000 equating to 33% grant funding
($40, 000. 00 - $100, 000. 00) .
Several of the other downtown redevelopment concepts suggested by
Mr. Cross are being incorporated into an overall Downtown
Redevelopment Plan that is being drafted by the Community
Development Commission. Staff is optimistic that these concepts
will be submitted to the City Council and HRA for consideration
early in 1994 .
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Move to approve the Rehab Grant Program Guideline amendments
as submitted by the Community Development Commission.
2 . Table action pending further information from staff.
3 . Decide on those amendments that the HRA wishes to adopt and
those which the HRA wishes to maintain the status quo and
recommend approval accordingly.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to approve the Rehab Grant Program Guideline amendments as
submitted by the Community Development Commission.
Rehabilitation Grant Program
Program Guidelines
Program Intent
The Rehabilitation Grant Program created by the City of Shakopee
and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) for the Downtown
Business District is intended to encourage the preservation and
beautification of our downtown buildings by enhancing their
original character in order to create a more attractive, inviting
downtown shopping environment.
The HRA shall annually consider allocations will initially
dcdictcd $50, 000 from the HRA reserve fund to match private
building owner or merchant financing at a ratio of 25% grant money
to 75% owner or merchant financing in grant amounts ranging from
$500 . 00 $1, 000 . 00 to $25, 000 . 00 $9, 999 . 00 and 33% grant money to
67% owner or merchant financing in grant amounts ranging from ,
$10 , 000 . 00 to $25 , 000 . 00 . The grants will be awarded to approved
applicants by the HRA based on a review and recommendation from the
Community Development Commission. - - _ - - - - _ - - -_ - - - -_
°coring °y°tcm.
A. Eligible Applicants
Any owner or tenant manager (with written consent of the owner) of
a downtown commercial building. Shown in exhibit A is a map of the
Downtown Central Business District . (B-3 zoning district)
B. Eligible Projects
1 . Grants will be awarded under the Program for the
rehabilitation of commercial buildings . A commercial building
shall be any building the primary ground floor function of
which is retail, service or office use .
2 . To be eligible, the building to be rehabilitated :
a. Must be located within the B-3 zoning district;
b. Must comply, after rehabilitation with the City' s
Comprehensive Plan.
c . Must comply, after rehabilitation with the City' s
exterior building and sign design standards . (Exhibit B)
C. Eligible Expenditures and Imorovements
1 . Rehabilitation grants shall not include expenditures for the
acquisition, installation or repair of furnishings or trade
fixtures .
2 . Eligible improvements shall be limited to the following
improvements :
A. Awnings
B. Canopies
C. Exterior Painting
D. Sianage
E. Parapet Type Lighting
F. Windows when tied to opening previously covered windows
or new windows that improve the energy efficiency and
architecturally enhance the appearance of the building
consistent with the theme of the restoration project .
G. Enhancement of historical building features (Cornice
work, tuck pointing, brick work)
include only thooc relating to thc exterior portion of a
commercial building. (Including rcpairo to thc building' s
All work done must
meet City Code .
3 . Grant proceeds shall be used for the rehabilitation of
existing buildings and shall not be used for the construction
of new facilities. However, construction of reasonable
additions to existing buildings which, together with other
rehabilitation improvements, will enhance the commercial use
of the building shall constitute qualifying rehabilitation
expenses .
4 . The rehabilitation of residential units shall not be allowed
under the program.
5 . Refinancing of existing debt shall not be allowed under the
program.
6 . Construction materials, labor (but not owner, applicant or
employee labor) architect or engineer fees, building permit
and program application fees are eligible program expenses .
7 . Grants shall not be made for the acquisition of property.
D. Grant Rearairements and Restrictions
1 . The grant minimum amount shall be $500 . 00 $1, 000 . 00 and the
maximum grant amount shall not exceed $25, 000 . 00 .
2 . The grant applicant muot provide evidence of financing 75% of
4 2 A completed application shall be submitted to the City prior
to thc grant deadline review. (The application form is
attached as exhibit C. )
1 . The applicant must retain ownership or operation of thc
buildi:= for five years from the date of fundi disbursed. If
a sale occurs before 5 years arc up, the City would have e
repaid by the owner, or by the tenant manager through the
owner (if the tenant was the applicant) on a 20% amortization
schedule . (For example, if the property is sold three years
from the date of grant disbursement, the owner would be
responsible for paying back 10°% of the grant amount) .
-4 3 . Preliminary sketches or pictures illustrating work to be done
and specifications shall be submitted with the grant
application. Completed Professional done Architectural
elevation drawings to scale shall be submitted by the (if
requested by the City) may be required of the applicant prior
to City review.
4 4 If an application is approved, the City will notify the
applicant so he/she can arrange for loan closing (if
applicable) with a financial institution. A copy of closing
documents shall be provided to the City.
4 5 . If an application is denied, the City shall state reasons for
denial in writing. If funds arc available in the funding
cycle, the applicant may resubmit the application with
changes.
6 . No more than one grant per year may be awarded per parcel . '-e-et
approved applicants .
$ 7 . Grant proceeds will be disbursed to approved applicants when
the following has occurred:
a. The work has been inspected and approved by the local
building official .
b. When the applicant has submitted receipts lien waivers
verifying that said applicant has paid 7E% 1000 of the
project costs .
c . When the applicant has submitted an invoice to the City
for the remaining 25% of project costs . The City then
pays the contractor, architect or engineer directly for
the remaining -costs .
13 8 . The building improvements must be consistent with the Downtown
Building Design Standards .
10 . Successful grant applicants must post a bond or letter of
credit with the City in an amount equal tc the grant
allocation. Said bond will remain on file with the City until
such time that the building is sold and aeortiscd grant amount
is repaid to the City or until the five year co^-- tment period
is complete whichever comes first .
11 . The grant funding cycle will take place on an annual basic .
All grant applications shall be submitted to the City on or
5
before March 1st . The Review Team Shall meet on or bcforc the
213t . day of Mareh to evaluate and rank -the applications for
funding._ _ •
The Shakopee-mooing- and Redevelopment _Authority
9 .Successful grant applicants must complete their project within
12 months of formal notification of grant award. Projects
exceeding the 12 month completion period will forfeit the
City' s grant commitment unless an extension is submitted in
writing and approved by the HRA.
1310 .Successful grant applications must enter into a grant
agreement with the HRA.
11 Grants may be submitted at any time. All grant applications
will be reviewed by the CDC and the Shakopee HRA for approval
or denial .
12 . Project cost over-runs in excess of the approved grant amount
shall be the responsibility of the applicant .
B. Crant Review Criteria and Ranking
1 . Ability of proj-ect to improve the exterior fa ade of the
structure while maintaining the historical integrity and
•
• -l_ - - _ -- - , -= c ' •- - -- - -- -' - - _
point3)
- - - - - - - = dgct for the proposed project .
(Maximum 15 points)
� . Demonstrated long term cofmit :ent tc the project . (Maximum
10 points)
forth in the Downtown Revitalization Plan and Comprehensive
Plan. (Maximum 15 25 point3)
f the application. (MaKirrum 5 10 points)
the Downtown Building Dc3ign and Sign Standards . (Maximum 15
25 point3)
points)
Total potential points arc . =00 . To reoc_vc a recommendation for
- __-- - _-_ = - - _
-- - -
`l
outlined below. Obtaining the minimum score docs not guarantee
funding.
All applications will be reviewed by a Review Team consisting of
one member of the Downtown Committee, one member of the Community
Development Commission, one member of the City Council, one member
of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and one member from
staff . The Review Team will meet on the date specified in the
guidelines . City staff will provide a summary sheet for each
application to the Review Tcam.
The Review Team Community Development Commission will rank review
the proposals and make recommendations regarding funding to the
Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority after staff has
reviewed the application to ensure that all grant application
criteria are met . The review process will take approximately three
weeks 30 days . All applicants will be notified in writing of their
ranking grant status following final action of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DATE
REHAB GRANT APPLICATION FEE (1% of grant amount)
GENERAL INFORMATION
1 . Applicant (Phone #)
(Name) (Address)
2 . Property Owner (Phone #)
(Name) (Address)
3 . Site
(Business Name) (Address)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1 . The rehabilitation will include (Check as many as apply) :
Cleaning of building
Painting of building
Work on the facade, such as mortar repair, restoration or
replacement of architectural features, etc .
Facadc work will includc :
Front facadc Roar facadc Both
Work on the entryway, to includc :
Front Entry R ar cntry Both
Work on display windows and/or window display arcao .
Windows - when tied to opening previously covered windows .
Signage changes
Awnings installation or renovation
Awnings will be : Retractable Stationary
Reinforcement of Structural Stability of roof, walla, floors,
or ceiling. Please Explain:
Parapet Type Lightina
Other, Please describe :
2 . Please indicate the contractor (s) who will be doing the work:
Please attach: Copy of specifications, plans e and architectural
drawings for the work, including cost quotes for
materials, labor, architectural fees, building
permits, etc .
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
1 . Estimated project cost : $
Amount allocated to intcrior improvements, e .g. structural work en roof,
walls, floor, etc . : $
2 . Grant amount applying for: $
(250/33% of total project cost)
3 . How will the balance of the project cost be paid?
Loan My own money
Please attach: Copy of letter from lender committing to loan,
indicating loan amount, term of loan, and interest
rate . If an applicant is not pursuing a loan for
his/hcr 7E% commitment, please attach documentation
verifying tho applicant ' s ability to pay hio/hcr
75% share . Appropriate documentation may includo
of deposits, financial 3tatemcnto, etc .
I hereby affirm all information above is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge . I have read and agree to abide by the City of Shakopee Rehab
Grant Program Guidelines and the Program' s Design Guidelines .
Signature Date
•
7
-
Please have the following statements completed as appropriate .
BUILDING OFFICIAL REVIEW
I� , City Building Official, have
inspected the property mentioned in this application and have found it to be
structurally sound. I have reviewed this application and believe that the
building' s structural stability warrant the investment proposed in this
application.
Signature Date
BUILDING OWNER CONSENT (If owner is not applicant)
I� , Owner of the property mentioned in
this application, have reviewed the proposed project with the Applicant and
consent to have the work done as proposed.
Signature Date
City Council Ado ted 9/l/"
ATTACHMENT }z
DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS (B-3 District)
A. General Standards
1 . Original building elements and materials
should be repaired as necessary and retained,
rather than being removed or covered. In the
event replacement is necessary, the new
material should match the material being
replaced in composition, design, . color,
texture and other visual qualities.
2 . The removal or alteration of building
elements or architectural details should be
minimized.
3 . Rehabilitation work should correct any code
violations on the facade. In addition, if
existing non-facade code violations can be
corrected only with increased difficulty and
expense because of the facade work, then the
necessary improvements should be included as
part of the exterior rehabilitation project.
4. Rehabilitation should be encouraged which
maintains an appearance consistent with the
actual character of the building and that
exhibits quality of design, materials , and
features.
5 . Alterations to the original facade -- where
desirable -- should be done in a manner such
that, if the alteration were removed in the _
future, the essential form and integrity cf
the original building would not be impaired.
6 . . Euildings which are part of a series -- cr
• croup of similar buildings -- should
demonstrate continuity of design.
7 . Signs , materials and other existing features
which do not meet these design standards
should be removed.
8 . Contemporary design for facade renovation may
be acceptable if such design is compatible
with the size, scale, color, materials and
character of the buildingand its
surroundings . The imitation of : iszc_ -c
styles not compatible with the actual
character of a building is strc-� '_:
discouraged.
B. Buldino Elements ( storefronts , windows , doors and openings,
upper facade and windows, cornices and building caps, sides
and rears . )
1 . The size and shape of original doors and
windows should not be altered. Recessed
window glazing and door wells should be
maintained.
2 . Clear distinctions between first floors and
upper floors should be maintained.
3 . Cornices, parapets and related elements which
make up the top of the facade should be
repaired as necessary and retained.
4 . Where energy conservation in buildings with
large window areas is a concern, preferred
solutions are insulating glass, internal
shutters, and solid opaque panels mounted
inside the windows. If the complete closing
of a glazed bay is reasonable, the use of a
•
deeply recessed panel which maintains the bay
•
outlines is the desirable solution.
5 . The horizontal and vertical alignments of
window frames and the patterns created by
upper. story windows should be maintained.
6 . Sides and rears of buildings which have
prominent views from public streets should be
rehabilitated at the time that the front
facade is improved.
7 . Previously boarded or bricked up windows and
doors should be • re-ported whenever possible .
C. Rehabilitation Elements (repairs, materials, painting)
1 . =pair and cleaning of existing surfaces and
materials-- particularly those characterized
b;r fine detail-- is strongly preferred to
• adding new surfaces and obscuring original
materials and surfaces.
2 . The sides and rears of buildings should
incorporate-- where possible-- the same
primary materials and similar colors and
details used on the front facade .
3 . _rick surfaces should be cleaned by the most
centle method c .e` od possible (e cleaning with a
- ld detergent; sandblasting should not be
undertaken) . Painting previously unpainted
brick surfaces is strongly discouraged .
•
4 . Materials which are normally painted, or
where paint has been applied in the past,
should primarily utilize "earth tones" ( i .e.
browns and beiges, golds, green-browns, grey-
greens ) , used to highlight trim and other
accent features .
5 . In cases in which facades have been wholly or
partially resurfaced with wood, glass veneer,
stucco, or other materials, strong
encouragement is given to removing these
materials and repairing the original surface.
D. Building Appurtenances (signs, canopies, and awnings,
mechanical equipment)
1 . Signs should be subordinate to buildings, in
terms of size and design. Signs should fit
within the existing facade. Preferred
locations are the "sign panel" ( first floor
area above windows and doors) , on windows,
and on the edge of canopies .
2 . Signs should identify the business only,
rather than any particular product or band.
3 . TV antennas, air conditioners, stacks, vents,
solar panels, and other mechanical equipment
should be placed in as inconspicuous a
location as possible.
4 . Where heavy clusters of mechanical, heating
and/or air conditioning equipment must be
placed on the roof , attractive screening
should be used.
5 . Unused appurtenances and miscellaneous
elements (e.g. empty electrical conduits and
unused sign brackets) should he removed.
6 . =he use of awnings to unify croups of
buildings is enccuraged. This should be
accomplished through the use of uniform
materials, height and width.
7 . Fabric canopies and a:cnincs which conform
with the design guidelines and standards are
acceptable. Permanent metal awnings ,
mansard-shaped awnings and canopies, and flat
canopies should be avoided.
8 . Signs , canopies and awnings , and mechanical
ecuipment should nc: obscure building
features .
5
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2784
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS
FOR REHABILITATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA WITH THE HELP OF INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Shakopee City Council to
offer incentive programs to property owners in the downtown area
(E-3 ) to encourage the improvement or renovation of building
exteriors; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Committee has developed a set of
design standards that will promote a respect for original quality
of building design, protection of property values of adjacent
buildings, and improvement of Shakopee ' s downtown image and
potential physical attractiveness; and
WHEREAS, in adopting a set of design standards, it is with
the understanding that the application of the standards should be
flexible, realizing that a standard which does . not reasonably
address or "fit" a particular building style should not be
considered binding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA - that the Downtown Design Standards ,
outlined in Attachment 141, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, are hereby adopted with the explicit purpose of
incorporating them into all of the City incentive programs that
may be used for the rehabilitation of buildings in the downtown
area. *
Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 1st day of September, 1987 .
Eavor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1987 .
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT #3
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AREA
I. BASIC PRINCIPLES
The purpose of design guidelines for the downtown area is to protect and enhance the historic
character of that neighborhood.
The basic principle, in respect to existing buildings, is to preserve and enhance their original
design, material and architectural detail, specifically the exterior, and if practicable, the interior.
The basic principle, in respect to new or infill construction, is to preserve the unity of scale,
material, set-back, roof-line and proportion of window/door space to wall space as shown in the
original buildings of the Historic District.
II. APPLICATION OF THE GUIDELINES
A. The guidelines apply to all buildings within the B-3 Zoning District utilizing the
Rehab Grant Program.
B. The guidelines apply to rehabilitation,remodeling, addition or demolition, changes
of exterior appearance, and new or infill construction when the land, the building,
or the work receives financial assistant through the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
C. These guidelines are not hard and fast regulations. They are flexible criteria.
They assure property owners that design review will be based on clear, public and
uniform standards. Consideration will be given to the amount and quality of
original material and design remaining in the building. Consideration will also be
given to clear cases of economic hardship or to deprivation of reasonable use of
the owner's property.
III. THE GUIDELINES
A. The Preservation and Rehabilitation of Structures and Material.
1. The original features of a building should not be destroyed.
The removal, alteration or covering up of original material or design shall
be avoided.
1
a. The original material and design can be determined by physical
inspection, old photographs, consultation with prior owners and
building records. See the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
for assistance.
b. In some cases alterations have been made with materials or designs
which have become irreplaceable or representative of a unique
architectural style or period. Such alterations shall be respected.
c. Alterations which have totally removed the original material, but
not done with irreplaceable materials or representative of a unique
style, may be removed, replaced or covered.
2. Deteriorated features should be repaired rather than replaced.
Repairs should maintain the design,texture, material and other appearances
of the original.
3. Alterations which conceal the original design and materials, or which
are not appropriate for the age of the building, should be removed.
Siding, signs, canopies, filler panels, framing, etc. of cedar plank or
shakes, unpainted aluminum or metal, stucco, concrete block, ceramic tile,
plastic, fiberglass and glass block are examples of inappropriate materials
on older buildings.
4. Missing materials or features should be replaced if possible.
Replacement should be based on evidence from historic, physical or
pictorial sources. Only if evidence for the specific building is not
available, may replacement be based on similar buildings of the same age.
The replacement material or feature should duplicate the design, material,
texture and appearance of the original to the extent possible.
5. Clean original materials as gently as possible.
Sandblasting shall not be used. with the possible exception of on metal.
Masonry should be cleaned with low pressure water (under 300 psi) and
soft bristle brushes. Heat guns or Strep-Eze should be used on painted
wood. Chemical cleaners should be tested on a small patch to determine
their effect. Test patches should include areas where deterioration or
patching is evident. Hydrozo, Diedrich and Tamms products are
recommended by the HRA.
6. Mortar should be repaired only when there is evidence of water
standing in joints or a significant amount of mortar is missing.
Replacement mortar should match the color, texture, coefficients of
expansion and contraction. and ingredient ratio of the original mortar.
2
`o, \ma./
Portland cement shall not be used for reappointing. Pneumatic hammers
should not be used to remove mortar. Original joint size, method of
application and profile shall be duplicated.
7. The original or early color and texture of masonry surfaces should be
retained.
a. Unpainted masonry should not be painted. It should be sealed with
a water proofing which breathes such as Hydrozo or Thoro-Seal.
b. Masonry surfaces may have been painted for maintenance or
appearance. Paint should not be removed if the building was
originally painted, or if the removal will damage the surface.
c. Most paint traps moisture inside soft bricks. Special masonry
paints should be used.
d. Cement based paint or tinted slurry may be used to protect
deteriorated masonry.
e. The roofing, parapet, cornice, coping, scuppers and gutters should
always be inspected, cleaned and repaired before painting or other
masonry work.
8. Original window and door openings should be retained.
a. New windows and doors should not be opened in original
materials, particularly on the major or visible sides of the building.
b. Original windows and door openings should not be expanded,
reduced or infilled. If a window must be closed, a shutter which
can be removed is recommended.
c. Original windows and doors should be retained. If the original is
gone, or must be replaced, the replacement should closely match
original pane, size, mullions, sash and frames. Replacement should
completely fill the original opening. Double and triple pane
windows are recommended for energy conservation. Wood or
painted metal are acceptable materials; unpainted metal is not.
B. For Design of Restoration or Remodeling
1. In general, it is expected that buildings will be restored to their
original or early appearance.
3
a. All building should be recognized as products of their own time.
Remodeling should not borrow designs, materials or colors from
other eras.
b. When complete restoration to original appearance is not possible,
or extensive replacement is not necessary, remodeling for
compatibility with the character of downtown should be considered.
Removal of flat canopies, window infill or siding, painting bare
metal, repainting building to reunify appearance, new signs and
new awnings are suggested.
2. In general,it is expected that restoration or remodeling will contribute
to the visual unity of the building, neighboring buildings, and the
neighborhood.
a. Restoration or remodeling should not exclude or isolate portions of
the building. The entire front, sides and back should be considered
as a whole design.
b. Contemporary design for replacements, additions, or remodeling
should not be discouraged when such designs do not destroy or
cover original material, and are compatible with the building and
its neighbors in respect to size, scale, color, material or character.
3. The traditional elements of a commercial building should be retained,
restored or replaced.
a. The decorative cornice should be repaired and maintained, or
replaced if necessary.
b. Window sills and hoods should be repaired and maintained.
c. Decorative patterns of masonry should be repaired and maintained.
d. Windows should fill the entire opening. They were usually double
hung with two panes per sash.
e. The lintel should be uncovered. It may be the best place for sign.
f. Transom panes should be uncovered, inside and out.
g. If cast iron pillars supported the lintel, they should be replaced.
4
h. Storefronts should have the largest possible windows area in
keeping with the original opening.
i. The bulkhead should be no more than about two feet high.
Original bulkheads were wood panel, not brick. They may be
replaced with wood or painted metal to simulate wood panels.
j. The entrance should be recessed, without steps.
k. The entire storefront should be set back about 6 inches from the
front of the building.
1. The door should be commercial in style and typical for the period.
It must open in and out.
m. Recommended a water tap for cleaning walks, windows, facades.
4. Historic paint colors appropriate for the age of the building should be
used.
A common approach to color will enhance the appearance of each building
and the character of downtown. At the same time, individuality is
preserved through the owner's choice of base and trim colors.
a. There is a wide range of historically appropriate colors. See the
HRA for assistance. In general, there are three era color
preference:
1. Built 1860s-1870s: soft tints of brown, gray, green and blur
trimmed with white.
2. Built 1870s-1900s: dark bro' i s, grays,reds, olives, yellows
and greens, trimmed in darker and lighter shades of same
color or complimentary colors.
3. Built 1900s-1920s: light grays,yellows and browns trimmed
with complimentary colors, ivory or white.
b. Colors should also be selected to harmonize with neighboring
buildings.
c. Colors should be used to unify the appearance of the building. No
more than a base color, a trim color and an optional detail color
should be used. All walls of a building should be painted
consistently.
• 5
d. Bare aluminum or metal doors, windows and frames should be
painted. An aluminum cleaner, zinc chromate primer and metal
paint should be used.
5. Signs should be consistent with the design of the building and the
character of the downtown.
a. Signs should not cover up the traditional design elements of a
building.
b. The size of a sign should be proportionate to the building. As a
rule, the area of the sign should be no more than 1.25 square feet
fir every front foot. Do not exceed sizes established by City
Ordinance.
c. The traditional locations for signs are: painted inside the windows
or door pane or inside the transcom pane; flush on the storefront
cornice or lintel; letters painted or attached directly on the cornice
or lintel; mounted flush between the lintel and second floor
windows.
d. The style, colors, lettering and materials of the sign should reflect
the age of the building. Examples may be found in old
photographs and surviving signs. See a professional sign painter
for advice.
e. Contrast between a dark background and light lettering, or vice
versa, is more important than size. The lettering style should be
chosen for it's legibility.
f. Plastic, aluminum and back lit signs are not usually appropriate on
older buildings because of their materials, colors, size and style of
lettering. The content and logo of corporate and product signs can
be transferred to more traditional materials and styles of sign.
6. Canvas or treated cloth awnings are recommended where they are
compatible with the age of the building and the character of
downtown.
a. Aluminum or plastic materials and flat, horizontal canopies are not
consistent with the appearance of older buildings.
b. Colors should compliment the colors of the building and
neighboring buildings. Lettering should follow guidelines for signs.
6
c. Awnings should not cover distinctive architectural details or
transcoms. However, awnings may be used to cover alterations
which are not original to the building.
d. Awnings may be fixed or retractable. They should be appropriate
to the shape of the window or storefront.
7. Grills, air conditioners and exhaust fans should not be mounted on the
front of the building if it can be avoided.
They should be incorporated into filler panels and painted the same color
as the panel. They should not extend over the sidewalk or entrance to the
building.
8. Ceilings are a distinctive architectural feature which should be
retained or restored.
a. Tin ceilings are often concealed by a dropped ceiling to save
heating and cooling costs. Ceiling fans can accomplish the same
purpose and are recommended in preference to dropped ceilings.
b. Dropped ceilings usually conceal the transcom panes above the
display window and entrance. Transcom panes are sometimes cut,
pressed, etched, colored or stained glass and should be visible
inside and out. Removal of dropped ceilings, at least at the front
of the building is recommended when a transcom does exist.
c. Window openings and frames are often reduced with filler panels
to conceal dropped ceilings. Full opening windows with a black
panel between the glass and the dropped ceiling is recommended
instead of filler panels.
C. For New and Infill Construction
New construction means totally new structures, moved-in structures and new
additions to existing structures undergoing restoration and rehabilitation.
1. Generally, any new construction should be consistent with neighboring
buildings and the character of downtown.
a. The important elements of the character of downtown are defined
by the following guidelines.
b. The reproduction of historic design is recommended only for infill
on a small scale or for additions to original buildings.
7
c. Contemporary design for new construction is not discouraged.
These guidelines focus on general rather than specific design
elements in order to encourage new design compatible with the
character of downtown.
2. The height and width of the facade should reflect the average
proportions of the older downtown buildings.
a. Buildings should be two or three storied high but no more than
sixty feet.
b. Infill should fill the entire width of the lot.
c. Horizontally, the building should be massed in increments of
approximately 22 and 44 feet.
3. The new facade should be flushed with the sidewalk, or if adjacent
buildings are not, then flush to its neighbors.
4. The exterior materials should be brick or stone masonry, similar in
color or texture to the older downtown buildings.
5. Infill buildings should reflect some of the detailing of neighboring
buildings in window shapes, cornice lines and brick work.
6. The amount of solid wall to window and door openings on the facade
should be proportional to that of the older downtown buildings.
a. The ground floor should be a transparent store front style, with
window size and height similar to that of neighboring buildings.
b. The upper stories should have windows of the same general spacing
and height to width proportion as those of neighboring buildings.
7. The cornice or roof line should be flat.
TAMI\ADMIN\HRAGUIDE
8