Loading...
09/14/2020 - Minutes1 MEETING MINUTES SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE ELECTRONIC MEETING HELD, MONDAY SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT Barbara Murphy, Chairperson Efren Corado Garcia, Committee Member Rob Pett, Committee Member Jennifer Hale, Vice Chairperson EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT Anne Oliver, Committee Member Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities John Kemp Committee Member Sara Javoronok, SLC Planning Steve Cornell, Committee Member Dat Phan, SLC Engineering Mark Thimm, Committee Member Joan Swain, SLC Facilities Nathan Johnson, SLC Engineering OTHER GUESTS 11/9/2020 Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering Jesse Allen, GSBS Architects Jaysen Oldroyd, SLC Attorney’s Office Mark Vlasic, Landmark Design Knight Nelson, SLC Planning Lisa Benson, Landmark Design Megan Daniels, SWCA Barbara Murphy, Committee Chair, welcomed everyone to today’s electronic meeting and asked everyone participating in the meeting to state their name for roll call: Rob Pett, Committee Member; Mark Thimm, Committee Member; John Kemp, Committee Member; Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering; Nathan Johnson, SLC Engineering; Dat Phan, SLC Engineering; Jaysen Oldroyd, SLC Attorney’s Office; Jennifer Hale, Committee Member; Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities; Barbara Murphy, Committee Chair; Anne Oliver, Committee Member; Steve Cornell, Committee Member; Megan Daniels, SWCA; Knight Nelson, SLC Engineering; Lisa Benson, Landmark Design; Sara Javoronok, SLC Planning, Joan Swain, SLC Facilities Agenda Item 1: Reading of the Electronic Meeting Letter – Barbara Murphy. As required by a recent amendment to the Open Public Meetings Act by the State Legislature, Barbara read a letter signed by herself as Committee Chair and addressed to the Salt Lake City and County Conservancy and Use Committee. The letter explains that conducting a meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of Committee Members and others participating in a meeting, therefore, under the current state of emergency caused by the global pandemic that exists related to the new strain of the coronavirus, SARS-COV-2 and also due to damages to the City and County Building sustained during the March 2020 Earthquakes resulting in the building being closed for regular occupation, the meeting will be held on a MS Teams video meeting on September 14, 2020 and for future meetings notifications will be sent out as determined by the level of risk at the time. Agenda Item 2: Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes for August 10, 2020. Barbara asked Committee Members to take a minute to review the minutes from the August 10, 2020 meeting. There were no questions or comments relative to the minutes. Barbara asked if someone was willing to make a motion to approve. Rob Pett motioned to approve the minutes of the Electronic Meeting held Wednesday, July 15, 2020 as written. John Kemp seconded the motion. Barbara asked for a vote. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the minutes. Agenda Item 3: Washington Square Wind Damage Update. Joan reported that Troy Baker from the SLC Parks Division was unable to attend today’s meeting but had provided the following information related to tree damages: Washington Square has 5 trees down with several handers and lots of broken branches; Liberty Park lost 69 trees and 10 trees leaning on other trees, SLC Cemetery lost 200 plus trees. 2 Agenda Item 4: Use and Guidelines Draft and Review – Mark Vlasic. The progress report from the Use and Guidelines Project was derailed and the discussion from the Project Meeting continued into the official Conservancy and Use Meeting. No meeting minutes were taken by the Conservancy and Use Committee during the Use and Guidelines draft report review. Agenda Item 5: Earthquake Damage and Stone Samples. Sean explained the following: • In the last meeting the discussion was about viewing some samples of the proposed stone to help in the repair of exterior stairs. Pictures of the stone samples were sent out to committee members with the meeting invite, but Sean does not know if any of the Committee went physically to the site to view the samples. • Jesse has been doing some work with some local masons to identify samples and the pictures looks pretty good. The photographs of the samples were projected on the screen for everyone to view. Comments, Questions and Answers: Q: Are the samples still available to look at for those of the Committee that did not have a chance to go see them at the building? (RP) A: Jim said the stones could be stored at the Facilities office, but we have not delivered them yet. We could still drop them off. (JA) C: I don’t think it would be a useful exercise to try to decide from the images. There are obvious differences between the two stones. (RP) Q: These look like 2 different types of stone and are there only two samples? (RP) A: These 2 stone samples are from the same quarry and, unfortunately, all Delta had was this stone with a “honed” finish, which is not the finish specified to match the existing condition. We have requested additional samples that would make the finish, which have not been received yet. (RP) Q: Are these from Abstract? A: Abstract referred GSBS to Delta Stone in Lehi. The name of the stone as listed on the sample is “Mountain Valley”. GSBS has asked for more information related to the quarry more detailed specifications. Delta hopes to deliver the additional samples this week. (JA) C: They should provide specifications as to densities and permeation and color. (RP) C: My recollection is that Abstract went right to Delta because this same material was used on a repair during the most recent stone renovation. (SF) C: There was a little money the City was looking to spend, and a change order was received for stair repairs so Abstract pulled this stone and brought it for the City to look at. The City never went ahead with the change order because the money ran out. (JC) Q: Barbara do you think it would be possible that when the new samples arrive, a socially distanced meeting could be held on site to review the samples on site? If possible Abstract or Delta could be there and GSBS or the contractor could be there to answer questions. (RP) A: There is not a contractor yet, the City still must advertise for a contractor. (SF) Q: Is an onsite meeting something Engineering could organize? (RP) A: A meeting could be arranged, but the Committee must determine how it needs to be done to meet the rules for Committee members to meet outside the normal meeting. (SF) C: The whole Committee could be invited or there is a sub committee that could be invited to review it. (RP): Q: Could Committee Members meet at the site to observe the samples without advertising and calling for a special meeting? (BM) A: Yes, Committee Members to meet and view the samples, however if the Committee wants to make a motion or try to move anything forward, it must be done in a formal meeting. (JC) Q: Why don’t we set a date to meet and review the samples and then bring the discussion to the next meeting. (BM) 3 Q: Isn’t there something in the rules related to the number of Committee Members that can meet before it requires a “formal or special meeting” be called? (JH) C: Upon receiving the pictures of the stone samples it was unclear what was expected. Were these 2 different types of stone to choose between or was it just to show the differences in variation. Having a little more information about what was shown or needed to be discussed would have helped. Viewing the samples in person knowing more information would help, but a little more information could be sent in a short memo with the next agenda. The original idea of having the samples on site on a scheduled date and time for Committee Members to top to look at could be done without making it a formal meeting. (SJ) C: The open-house idea is a good idea. This would give Jesse a chance to get the right finish and make sure this is the correct stone and provide different variations or even a larger sample would be good. (JC) A: Not sure if a larger sample will be provided for free. (SF) A: Facilities will pay for a larger sample if needed. (JC) C: It would be better to wait until we have the new samples and the specifications before we schedule the date to meet at the site. (SF) Jesse presented two additional topics for discussion that were discussed in the past month’s meeting. The condition of the existing expansion joint (photos were presented of each side of the existing expansion joint showing damaged condition with the cap flashing and the expansion joint that was crushed in the event). At the time of the last meeting GSBS did not have all the information, so this is an update. • GSBS is proposing a CSS Expansion joint cover, the XLP 1700 Series (Drawings and 3-D views were presented on screen) • GSBS has worked out details with CSS that show how the cap works. This was the part that was unresolved in the last meeting. • The recommendation to is to place an aluminum plate on top of the expansion joint. It is held in place with an EPDM Bulb Seal that cap in place, so it is very minimal. It does not go down the front of the expansion joint like the previous condition did, which was maybe more than was needed, minimizing that with just a 3/8-inch reveal and the aluminum parapet cap on top. • In another earthquake event, this aluminum cap would pop and essentially just move out of the way and then the expansion joints would push out to the north and to the south. • The proposal would be to replace the existing stucco or plaster type finish on side panels with metal (standard aluminum with a custom color). Comments, Questions and Answers: Q: Have you seen this type of expansion joint used anywhere in Salt Lake? (RP) A: Not the 1700 series, but GSBS has used other CSS expansion joints on other projects. (JA) Q: This would not be a gloss finish would it? (SC) A: No. It would be a custom matt finish which color the GSBS and the Committee could decide together on the appropriate color to blend in with the existing condition. C: That needs to be studied a little more. This is a pretty significant area on the building, and it may be a request during construction that a mock-up is done. I’m not convinced you couldn’t put the metal below and have an expendable or crushable piece of stone on top rather than a metal plate. A proposal is be recommended. (RP) A: The structural engineer is not comfortable putting a piece of stone on top for the following reasons: • A crushable stone probably would not work. The engineer is concerned about this is because the movement that occurred should not have happened. There is no reason this cheek wall should have moved. This expansion joint should have crushed in place and there should not have been movement. • By going to a CSS product, that is designed to move out of the way and the aluminum plate to pop off the EPDM seal, there is confidence that it won’t create the same condition that happened in the last event. • In addition to replacing the expansion joint and hopefully improving that condition, we are also specifying dowels be placed in the existing cheek wall, so if there is pressure put on the cheek wall, there is something holding the cheek wall in place, more than just the mortar that was there and its own weight. It is surprising that given the weight of the cheek wall we did see movement that occurred. 4 • It does appear that something inside the expansion joint, whether it was the 3 pieces of rebar that we photographed, that in and of itself was strong enough to push out the amount of weight on the cheek wall. (JA) Repair of the cheek walls. GSBS put together a sequence of repair events that GSBS will specify, pending the Committee’s approval as follows. 1) Photograph and scan the existing cheek walls 2) Remove the damaged expansion joint 3) Dismantle and salvage stone on cheek wall per historic removal and dismantling specification section 024295-4. 4) Retain and protect stone between expansion joint and building GSBS discussed this with Abstract on site and Abstract felt like it could dismantle and salvage all the stone from these cheek walls and put them aside, so the exposed concrete structure underneath the cheek wall can be inspected. According to Abstract, it does appear that the stone is thick enough that it can be pulled off without cracking. Abstract will only be dismantling the stone to the right of the expansion joint the area to the left of the expansion joint will not be touched as it was not damaged. 5) Inspect exposed concrete structure 6) Repair concrete structure, unit price for concrete repair will be included in bid 7) Repair concrete foundation where damaged from earthquake event per 6,7,8/A801 8) Install new expansion joint and cap 9) Construct cheek walls from salvaged materials to match layout prior to dismantling 10) Install sealant at expansion joint 11) Verify reconstruction with photos and 3D scan Jesse asked for feedback from the Committee on this repair sequence. Comments, Questions and Answers: C: I’m in agreement with GSBS’s approach and its proposal for installing dowelling so that when and if this happens again it has some support. Okay with GSBS’s approach and agree with Jesse’s suggestion that something inside the expansion joint that pushed the cheek wall out and it shouldn’t have. Not familiar with the CSS product, but from the slides Jesse has shown it seems it will do the trick with the aluminum plate moving out of the way when the building displaces. Review of the full repair documents would need to be completed before giving a total response. Would assume that SCC products are a tried and true method. (MT) C: Reaveley Engineers are part of the project team and are reviewing the expansion joint. (JA) Q: Could the Committee get a copy of the Historic Removal and Dismantling Specification Section 024296-4 previously mentioned. (SC) A: Yes. I can email all the documents that that have been presented today to the Committee. (JA) C: In the diagram showing the expansion joint in place it looks like there is a channel or calk joint where it connects the edge of the stone and the edge of the expansion joint. (SC) A: The stone on the cheek walls is a couple of inches thick and behind that is the concrete wall that the stone is attached to. The expansion joint will be attached into the concrete wall. Q: How is this made watertight? Maintaining the integrity of the stone to be sure moisture doesn’t get into the stone, under the cap or in-between the wall and the expansion joint. . (SC) A: Specific detailing would come with the product from the manufacturer. (JA) C: It looks like there is a reveal there that would be filled with a type of sealant. (SF) Q: Would GSBS be able to get a sample of the finish of the metal to show the Committee what it would look like. It doesn’t have to be the perfect color, just a sample of the material. (SF) A: GSBS can request a sample and would like to propose a color to start the conversation. (JA) C: Recommendation of the colors of the lead type flashings on the top of the building. Copper coated lead or something like that. (JC) Q: Have you looked at the interface between the vertical surface and the existing skid plate that is rusting? (RP) A: This is something that came up in the last meeting, including the scope of the improvements that the insurance company will pay for and/or whether the City has additional funding to put toward this. The insurance will only 5 pay for improvements that return the condition back to the condition prior to the earthquake event, so this would be outside the scope. (JA) Q: Following up with Steve’s comments about the waterproofing, how will the vertical surface or expansion joint repair interface with the existing skid plate related to keep water out? (RP) Q: It looks like there is a drip edge and there would have to be a solution because there is the lip on the load cover. Does that lip prevent the expansion joint from functioning the way it should cause it looks like it could be keeping the aluminum plate from popping off? (SF) A: This is a good point and GSBS will address this. The other thing to note is on the other side, at the bottom the foundation wall protrudes out and GSBS verified with CSS Expansion Joint Covers that they can actually mold the expansion joint to follow this same profile, so it will protrude out similarly to the concrete foundation. (JA) C: This maybe a solution for the other side by angling it out so that its proud of the baseplate and then seal or caulking around it. (SF) Q: Jumping back to the previous picture showing the electrical. How is the electrical going to be addressed in this case? (RP) Q: The electrical equipment is in the area where the stone has not been damaged and will not be taken apart. Again, this is not included in the insurance scope, but will have to be addressed. GSBS will follow-up on this question. (JA) Q: Related to the expansion joint, are all the transitions where it will go proud at the bottom of the cheek wall and at the top are all these manufacturer watertight seams? (MT) A: Yes. (JA) Q: So, you are not just butting up the vertical to the horizontal. (MT) A: No. It is EDPM Bulb Seal as indicated in the Manufacturer detail. (JA) C: What Mark is saying is, you want to have a continuous watertight seal going vertically and then horizontally and then back down the other side. Rather than just the vertical just butting up to the horizontal at the top. A: I will make note of this suggestion on the drawings to follow up on. (JS) Q: Has the Manufacturer used this kind of cap before? (SC) A: This cap is something we had to work through with the Manufacturer for this specific condition. As mentioned, in the last meeting, GSBS was not sure CSS could run their product horizontally to have a continuous expansion joint and CSS verified they could not run their joint on three sides. CSS couldn’t put their cover on the top of the cheek wall, so it had to go to this aluminum parapet cap with this EPDM Bulb Seal. This is what GSBS still needed to be verified at the time of the last meeting. (JA) C: The committee should have more information on this if possible, at the time of reviewing the stone. There are a lot of interface issues and four materials intersecting and a lot of caulk joints. This nice clean expansion joint may not look nice and clean when it’s completed. (RP) Q: What are the Committee’s thoughts or opinions about an aluminum expansion joint? (SF) C: Not being familiar with the expansion joint, I get the reasoning, but don’t understand why a crushable stone isn’t an option. It’s been used and specified by Reaveley in the past. (RP) A: It has to do with the amount of movement that is required for the design. The engineers felt like it needed full movement, whereas, if the stone crushes, but doesn’t get out of the way, it may not achieve full movement and it may damage the cheek wall again. (JA) C: The concern is that we’ve added so many different materials that solve one problem, but, create a whole bunch of other visual problems and issues, such as dealing with the skid plate and things the insurance won’t pay for. More thought needs to go into how it is detailed. (RP) Q: If we could work out the detailing, do you feel like an aluminum material is acceptable? (SF) A: It’s not inappropriate, if visually we can solve some of its issues. (SF) Q: Would it be possible for Reaveley to put together a few paragraphs on why they do not recommend the crushable stone? (SF) A: GSBS can request this from Reaveley. (JA) C: I not really in favor of a crushable stone. I think it would be hard to integrate stone into an existing system as it tends to look different, like the stone sample we are seeing on the stairs. It is more appropriate to go to the aluminum and more important to me is the color of the panels. Maybe the cap has a slightly different color than the wall, but it matches better what is around it than crushable stone would. (SC) 6 C: If were not encasing aluminum in cementitious materials that will oxidize over time, that comes down to detailing and just separating dissimilar materials. Relative to the aluminum parapet cap, we need to make sure its durable enough, but at some point, someone is going to sit on it or jump up there and we need to make sure it is enough gauge to support that load. (MT) A: Thanks for the feedback. (JA) Q: How will the onsite viewing happen? A: GSBS can get an ETA for the stone samples and once the samples are in-hand a meeting can be scheduled. C: Nelson Knight, a preservation planner for the SLC, posted in the “meeting chat” a comment that reads: “without posting the meeting you need 24 hours in advance and cannot have a quorum”. (JC) A: GSBS can have the samples on site and give everyone 24-hour notice that the samples would be available at the building for a 2 to 4-hour period on a specific day and Committee Members could stop by to look at the samples. Then another discussion can be added to the agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting. (JC) C: The 24 hours is required if you are planning on having a quorum. (SJ) Barbara asked if there is anything that needs to be discussed. There were no other discussion items mentioned. Barbara asked if someone wanted to make a motion to adjourn. Mark Thimm motioned to adjourn the meeting. Steve Cornell seconded the motion. The Committee voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting.