Loading...
12/14/2015 - Minutes SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES December 14, 2015 Committee Members Present Committee Members Absent Jerod Johnson, Chairman Eva Rinaldi Terry Wright Anne Oliver Other Interested Parties Present Mark Vlasic, Vice Chairman George Chapman Rob Pett Paris LeLaCheur, Ken Garner Engineers Steve Cornell 6au3CabrQ iro&Couna i;udaing Ken Garner, Ken Garner Engineers 6onserbanrp&else Committee John Phillips 'reston Croxford, Archiplex Group Ex-Officio Members Present Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities M7c: 1/11/2016 Jeff Sokol, SLC Engineering Jaysen Oldroyd, SLC Attorney's Offic- Ron Lindquist, SLC Facilities Joan Swain, SLC Facilities Michael Stott, SLC Mayor's Office The Salt Lake City and County Building Conservancy and Use Committee Meeting was called to order by Jerod Johnson, Chairman. Jerod noted that there is a quorum present and asked for a quick roll call: Jerod Johnson, Committee Chair; Rob Pett;Terry Wright;Jaysen Oldroyd, SLC Attorney's Office;Anne Oliver; Ron Lindquist, SLC Facilities; Mark Vlasic, Vice Chair; Paris LeLaCheur, Ken Garner Engineers; Ken Garner, Ken Garner Engineers; George Chapman; Preston Croxford, Archiplex Group;Jeff Sokol, SLC Engineering;Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities;Joan Swain, SLC Facilities Agenda Item 1: Review and approval of November 9, 2015 Meeting Minutes. Jerod asked the Committee Members if they have all had a chance to look over the November 9th minutes or if they need a minute to review. Terry Wright motioned that the minutes be accepted as written. Jerod asked if there was second. Mark Vlasic seconded the motion. Jerod asked if there were any further comments or questions. There were none. Jerod called for a vote. Committee members Mark Vlasic,Jerod Johnson, Rob Pett and Terry Wright voted to approve the minutes. Anne Oliver abstained from voting due to being absent at the November meeting. The motion to approve passed. Agenda Item 2: Pedestrian Lighting Update—Washington Square (Jeff Sokol, SLC Engineering and Preston Croxford, Archiplex Group) Jeff explained that in the past few meetings we have some really great discussions about our light posts and noted the following: • In the last meeting we settled that the top was how we liked it and we were given the charge to re-examine the base options. Preston has prepared a couple of options on the concrete base to see if we could slim it down a little and make it a little more attractive. 1 • We also applied to the Landmark's Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness and they have granted it, with a little leeway on the concrete base. They have requested that the pole be a dark color with a matt finish. They also said that they liked the top that was presented. Questions, Answers and Comments: o "Did you say you were at the Landmark's Commission Meeting?" o "No, we submitted is for administrative approval." o "Did you say they had no other issues or concerns?" o "We presented them the rendered images that we have discussed here several times and one of the specific items they had issue with was that it was rendered as being a natural aluminum finish. This finish was based on previous discussions in which you did not want to paint or powder coat it worrying that the finish would chip off or whatever the case may be. The Landmark's people specifically stated they would like it to be a darker matt finish. This would require us to use some kind of anodized aluminum or powder coating or paint on the aluminum." o If you are still going to do a cast aluminum system you could add a patina or another finishing agent into the casting and it would remain that color throughout. • In the last meeting we discussed a couple of base options and one of the big concerns was the base was feeling really large and chunky and wasn't as representative of the historic fixture as it could be. In talking with our structural engineer and figuring out how slim we could go, we were able to narrow it up to a 12 inch diameter base. So we have 10 options that we will spread out here starting with a basic cylindrical base and then showing a few ideas on how that could be represented. • As we said, the last meeting's conclusion was that we were going to proceed with a custom fixture that we can match as close as possible to the historic fixture. So the decision today would be essentially what type of direction do we want to take the concrete base and then we will head down that road with our construction documents and such. • Another thing we want to discuss is that we didn't have any one of these options rise to the top as far as how we would construct the base although we did talk a little about"cast-in-place" and a "precast element". We explored and reviewed 4 options with our engineer: ➢ First option is a cast-in-place option where we would have to cast it like a sonotube and would have to go down 6 feet to make it work. ➢ Second option is the same with a precast element. It would have to be 6 feet below grade, plus the 30 inches above grade. ➢ The third option would be to cast-in-place a wider and shallower footing and then attach a precast element to that cast-in-place element so that it wasn't quite as expensive because the pre cast wasn't 6 feet below grade. o The fourth option is to actually cast in an aluminum base to the footing and then that would extend above grade as well. This would allow it to be a 10 inch diameter, which would more closely representative of the historic fixture if you just cast in the metal piece into the footing itself and then attach the light pole to the top of that. This is one of the most expensive options and the most difficult to maintain as far as replacement and such. Questions, Comments and Answers: o Jeff Sokol noted that from a project budget standpoint, we are really pushing the limit so I do think we need to have the expense as a consideration. o Ken Garner asked if he could address this as well as a question related to the dye cast. He explained that the dye cast piece is the bottom piece, the rest of the pole is really a 2 tubular extruder that we can get in aluminum and we can also get it in steel. The colorant added to the dye cast doesn't really work with half and basically two-thirds of the pole is bare aluminum. It's either painted or finished. o Did you say painted or coated? o What are you proposing? o Paints have gotten better over the years. Most manufacturers are giving at least a 5 year warranty(at least the ones that are U.S. Architectural). They put them through salt spray tests and things like that. A lot of the problem is near the base, because it is standing in the snow and gets a lot of vibration so the concrete base getting it up out of the snow is one of the most important things to keep it from failing, but typically, we thing the paint jobs these days generally last 15 to 20 years on a painted finish. o I generally agree if you get it up and away from mechanical equipment, weed-eaters and salt. I think the 30 inch is an appropriate thing, but I did not know it was a two-part element with the base and the pole as two different parts. The only way you are going to make it match is with the paint option. The anodizing process on these two different pieces won't be the same. o A lot of pole manufacturers have actually raised pricing on anodizing, partly because of the environmental concerns, but they tend to go with the powder coating finishes due to the longevity but also meets the environmental concerns. o Could you describe again the changes from cast to extruder? o The only time we would have a change is if we move forward with the design where these is no concrete base, otherwise, if we do the concrete base as planned, the whole thing on top of that is going to be extruded with the clamshell base that goes around the anchor piece. o There are a lot of other components such as the arms and other transition pieces. Are the arms spun or are they cast? The transition pieces should probably be cast. The arms are spun aluminum. o So if we had a good direction and kind of a consensus on which of these base options you would prefer that would be great. You will notice that we do show some options with just a six inch pedestal. These are not the ideal or preferred options as we want to get it up to the 30 inches, but we wanted to show we could do a narrower base. o I think having something that is monolithic concrete is going to be more durable and avoid any kind of construction joints. o The expressions are pretty simple: round, square, hexagon, or a pyramid shape that's one that shows a little more articulation similar to the concrete pedestals on the building. o I think all of the drawings from number six and up are quite a departure from the original round historic base and so I think we should focus on those below six. o The original plan was to have one consistent treatment throughout the square. o I look at the original photo and this was a small metal piece that came out of the ground and I am a little concerned that now we are trying to get concrete to replicate this look of this metal piece that was never there. I am a little concerned about accuracy. Especially these where it is so tight to the base that is you are off by just a fraction it's going to look bad. o That's exactly what we talked about last time and another reason to do a larger diameter base. The consensus was that that the larger base is too big and chunky. We have to skinny it up. 3 o Now after looking at this I am almost leaning toward just putting it up on a pedestal and getting it up off the ground and not trying to get the post and the pedestal to be one in the same. o These drawings are kind of the extremes. Last time we had the big 24 inch base and now we are down to 12 inch, which is better, but causes us some issues with attachment. If we could get to a 15 or 18 inch base that might actually be a good compromise. o So, if I understand you right, something like an option #3 but just a little bit bigger? o Yes just a couple of inches bigger, a 15 or 18 inches. This would also provide a little more weight in the event you did have a snow blade that drove into it, it would be easier to take that and easier to repair. o Ken explained that one of the cool things about precast is they have a little bit better quality control in terms of the base and how it looks instead of just pouring a sonotube. o Yes, except you still have to drill a hole to get it plumbed. o Well they have some forms that provide a conduit down to where you drill the hole and show where to tamp the hole. 0 Jerod asked that the minutes reflect that two additional committee members, Steve Cornell and John Phillips, have joined the meeting. Jerod suggested he will attempt to articulate the leanings of the entire committee and expressed that option#3 seems to be the one that is most consistent with our early discussion, our aims and objectives. The discussion now is that we are concerned with the interface of the clamshell and the 12 inch diameter concrete. It's going to be a real tight fit and the likelihood of getting things to line up and look good is questionable. It seems we want to go that direction, but should perhaps consider something in a 14 inch diameter so we have a couple of inches on each side. Jerod asked if anyone was willing to make a motion. Rob Pett motioned, "To move with the 14 inch precast concrete base, with a radius edge at the top, no additional reveals on the shaft portion of that base, and that the mow strip be poured in place, with width, I guess to be determined by the maintenance, but, no greater than 8 inches and no less than 4 inches. Jerod noted we have a motion before us and asked if anyone would like to second the motion. Terry Wright seconded the motion, but has a question on the motion. "What type of vertical finish are you anticipating it to look like as part of your motion? Is it as cast or precast or is it circumcised cast or finished with either edging or sandblasting or softening? Is as cast normal sonotube acceptable?" Rob replied, "No, my motion is to have a precast element and in that case it could be just an "as cast" finish. Jerod explained that we have a motion and a second and asked Terry if there were still further questions. Terry said that the second question is to be able to provide an alternate due to the potential pricing budget, if necessary. What would be the equivalent to that? I think that we need to try to give an 4 option to the design and the City in order to have something that they might be able to afford. I would tend to agree with Rob that the precast would tend to be the base and then have an alternate in case it's over budget. Jeff Sokol was asked if they would do a deductive alternate. He said yes they could do a deductive alternate with a finished cast-in-place alternate. Rob Pett said he would amend his motion to "that the precast element be the base bid and that an alternate be allowed for a cast-in-place base, architectural concrete finish, same details as per the precast element, not an applied finish. I would also put in to allow a mechanical finish to the cast-in- place if it needs to be sandblasted if there are problems with it so there's money in the budget to cover that." Terry Wright seconded the amended motion. Mark Vlasic asked, "When you mentioned on the second alternative to have an architectural concrete finish would that apply to the cast-in-place?" Rob affirmed. Jerod noted that we have an amended motion and a second, as articulated by Rob, and asked if there are any further questions or discussion. There were none. Jerod asked for a vote. The committee voted unanimously to approve the motion. Rob asked the engineer and design team about concerns and questions from the past meeting about the photo metrics and where that stood with the number and the quality of light and the shade itself. Preston explained that plan was still to go with the one for one replacement. He noted that the concern was about it being too bright but explained that the initial assessment is that it would be far from that, if anything we would need to add more light. Ken Garner explained that there are two specific areas that are dark. The intersection directly south and the intersection directly north of the sidewalk sections do not have any light posts at all. The rest of the facility has pretty reasonable spacing for the LEDs. Other discussions Items: • Questions about glass or acrylic globes • Visibility of LED bulb inside the globe • Internal sleeve or reflector • Current brightness and areas of darkness versus and LED lighting Jerod thanked the design and engineering team and suggested moving on to the next agenda item. Agenda Item 3: ADA Discussion Items. Jim introduced Michael Stott and asked if he wanted to explain the agreements or start with the signage discussion. Michael passed out a handout and then proceeded to introduced himself. He explained that he is the City's ADA Coordinator and in his role he takes input, complaints and concerns from the public, on accessibility to the City, which sometimes that involves this building. He explained 5 that about a year ago they received some feedback about the accessibility of the building and one individual, who uses a scooter that is quite large, notified the City that it doesn't fit on the elevators. Michael reported that some assessments were done to measure the elevators and determine where we stood in regard to the ADA legally and what kind of obligations we had. They found that there is not room to get a larger elevator car and to rip out the elevators and put in new shafts would just be incomprehensible. He discussed the following: ■ If individuals with disabilities are not able to access City services and programs then we need to modify the way we provide those services to the public. ■ One way to do that is to have City Representatives go down to the first floor to meet with the public in an accessible room. ■ The first floor of the building is accessible through the ADA entrance and one of the solutions we have come up with is to provide a courtesy phone located in the hallway somewhere on this first floor where individuals would be able to call up to the main phone lines of all the City Departments and Divisions in this building and communicate with them about their needs. ■ We will have a policy within the building that if somebody asks you to send a staff member down to have a meeting on the first floor, due to a disability, we want you to provide that accommodation and go meet with them ■ The courtesy phone with require some sort of a directory they can roll up to and look up and call the party they are trying to see,. ■ We would have to provide some sort of meeting space. ■ The phone would also allow them to call the security guard for general information. We have had initial discussion with Security about them providing assistance and people getting in touch with any of the City services within the building. ■ Another accommodation that we want to provide, and this one is particularly important with regards to public meetings here in the building, especially big decision making meetings such as City Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings and your Conservancy meeting on the 5th floor, is to provide a courtesy wheelchair to somebody who would be willing to transfer from their mobility device like a scooter or wheel chair into that wheelchair which will fit on the elevators and allow that person to get around and go to a meeting. We felt this is particularly important with regards to public input its public hearings, where a person with disabilities wants to provide input face to face rather then write a letter and have it read in the meeting in their behalf. While we are willing to do that, we felt the face to face option was an important one so Jim's team has already bought two wheel chairs that are courtesy wheel chairs that are industrial strength and are extra wide for people that may be a little bit wider and heavier and hold up to about 500 pounds.The protocol would be as follows: ➢ The person would be able to use the call box intercom to call security and notify them that their mobility device will not fit on the elevator and they are going to need some help. ➢ Security has agreed to come down, get the wheelchair from the closet and bring it down to them and they can make the transfer. ➢ We will have a canvas-type cover, similar to a barbeque grill cover, with a chokable opening that they can tighten up and put a lock on it so they can lock their mobility device and nobody can tamper with it while they are in the meeting. ➢ Security will be able to bring them down when they are finished with their meeting and they can unlock their mobility device and off they go. Michael explained that the building elevators are technically not"non-compliant"with the ADA Standards. The ADA Standards have some dimensions for existing elevators that were pre-ADA and 6 since the ADA standards came out about 2 years after the major remodel of this building, it is considered an existing pre-ADA building. He noted that the measurements on the elevators do meet the existing elevator dimensions, so technically we meet the standards, but we still have an obligation for access to all of our services, programs and so on. Jim reported that another accommodation they have been working on is the restrooms. We were also asked to make some accommodations so that a mobility chair could easily make it into the restrooms so that they could access the ADA restrooms. What we found in most cases is that the privacy wall is approximately 8 to 12 inches too long and it squeezes that entrance for the double turn a little too tight. He explained they are looking at a reasonable accommodation, which in his mind is less than $30,000, that could be done to make the restrooms on the first and third floors available. Discussion, Comments and Answers: • If you can't get your mobility device up there, what difference does it make? • The first floor is so important because the larger mobility devices can access this floor. • We are trying to meet the 2010 ADA Standard measurement on both the first and third floors • Are you talking about wheelchairs and scooters or what? • It depends on the scooter. The one individual that contacted us has a scooter that is quite large and it has quite a big turn radius so they have to move forward quite a bit to make a turn. Motorized wheelchairs can turn on a dime because they move one wheel forward and one wheel backward so they can turn right in place and go forward to the privacy wall and turn and negotiate their way. • Our thinking is that if we can open up a couple of the restroom entrances to be wider than they are now we could probably accommodate some smaller scooters. • Even if we could just get it to the 2010 Standard that is a little bit better than what we are now, without it being an unreasonable expense to the City. • Is the 2010 Standard accommodating small scooters or large scooters? • It will accommodate a portion of them. These devices range in size from the extremely large ones that look almost like a Harley Davidson down to a small wheelchair. Michael told the Committee that there are three members of the Accessibility Council, which he staffs and which is an advisory council to the Mayor, who will leave their mobility devices in the hallway, they have limited mobility so they can walk, but with limited capacity, so they leave their device in the hallway and walk into the restrooms. • The ADA Standards are not clear as to just which types of devices the standard is written to. It could be with new emerging technologies that some of the devices are getting larger and just won't work in some restrooms. • Then we fall back to the exchange of the wheelchair, if that be the case, but I think we can hit almost all of our constituents and citizens with these two options. • Can you clarify for me which wall you are talking about? • Yes, if you open up the outside hallway door to the restroom and look straight in. It's that wall right there. • It's considered the privacy wall to block the views to the stalls, although, if you look the walls don't block all of the views from the stalls. You can stand in the hallway and see the stalls if you are opening up the door all the way. • If you're thinking about reducing the length of the wall 8 to 10 inches how will that effect privacy? 7 • The consultant is looking at some options and it may include extending some toilet stall doors to the floor if we feel that the privacy wall removal opens things up too much. • That will affect your maintenance and cleaning ability tremendously. • Yes it will. • We are in an exploratory phase right now and if it comes down to costs and benefits we don't want to spend tens of thousands of dollars to buy ourselves two inches of additional maneuverability, but it might be worth 8 or 10 inches of additional space if we could accommodate 95% of the public with that effort. • Reading into the ADA this falls under a principle that called "Readily Achievable Barrier Removal". For existing buildings you're not required to bring that into the ADA Standards, but if barriers do exist you are required to conduct Readily Achievable Barrier Removal , which says that if its readily achievable and it's not too expensive remove the barrier. • The purpose is to give people in a normal size mobility device who are participating in a meeting the ability to go in,just like you or I, to a restroom and use it without asking permission or help. • The elevator barrier only applies to a very small percentage of scooters, so far most of the people on our Accessibility Council who use scooters can get on the elevator and access the third floor and it would be nice to have restrooms open on that floor. • We chose the third floor because those restrooms are already the largest, dimension wise and there are City Council, Planning Commission and other important meetings on that floor. • The first floor is obviously the accessible entrance to the building and should at least be able to use a restroom on that floor. Michael asked Jim give some details about the proposed call box. Jim introduced Ron Lindquist from SLC Facilities who passed out some information relative to call boxes. Jim explained that it's a safety requirement because of failures and things like that and we have to do something about our call box system he would also like some kind of an emergency contact system like they have on college campuses. Ron explained that the document he passed out is from Code Blue a company that provides these types of interactive pedestals with the features we are interested in, such as: ■ Interactive voice command unit with a voice override piece speaker phone; ■ Direct dial button and a call assistance activation button and it can tie into the existing network that we have for the phone system; ■ Proxcard reader for after-hours access to the building; ■ ADA door operator button for the motorized door; Jim noted that our current door operator does not meet all the ADA requirements that we need to be able to operate it; ■ The face of the panel will also have Braille for people who are vision impaired. Ron explained that the document shows a couple different views of their standard options and some standard colors available, but they also do custom colors and graphics. Questions, Comments and Answers: o Will there would be a camera? o We do want a camera so security can view who is at the pedestal. o We would just replace the one at the handicap access, which is on the East side of the building on the South side of the staircase. 8 • A meeting guest, George Chapman, explained, as an Advocate for the ADA, he participated in the discussions relative to ADA requirements and possible accommodations for this building and one of the things they were wanting permission for was to put up some sort of an awning covering the ADA access so that people using this in inclement weather did not have to sit in the rain or snow while a security person checks to see if they can get them in to the building. He suggested they think there's a way of just attaching a simple awning similar to those that you get for cars that attaches to the handrails and would not even have to be attached to the building so as to detract from the historic nature of the building. He explained that he was standing down at the entrance on Tuesday nights last year to open the door for people in wheelchairs until they convinced the City to open up the building at night for City Council meetings because at the time anytime there was an open meeting the doors were locked up to keep the homeless from coming in so anybody in a wheelchair had to wait until Security came down and let them in. George asked what questions the Committee has for the Staff and for him as an Advocate for the ADA in moving toward any of these ADA accommodations (noting the awning, signs, callbox, and the restroom changes),this being just the first step. Questions, Comments and Answers: • A plan that shows where the callbox and proposed awning/covering se things would be located. • The awning would have to be located where the call station is right now. • What is it going to look like and how's it going to be attached? • It could be as simple as an umbrella or some sort of canvas or awning type covering. • Something of this nature that has potential to have impact should be adequately funded and should be put out for bid and it should be designed to a conceptual level so that there's a good solution and a good understanding of it and not an adhoc approach to it. • I think the design, the look and the appearance. • You're talking just about the awning correct? • Three things for any of the suggested accomodation items. The location, design and it's impact on the historic building (both visually and physically as the means of how it's attached). If you can answer and make as clear as possible your proposals for those three things that would help us make a decision or help guide you in making adjustments or alterations that would help it be more compatible to the historic building. • Don't lump these all together. I would like to them as separate issues please. • Didn't we approve something for the café, some sort of awning or covering? • Yes we approved a shade type of system. • If we are going to make modifications on one side of the entrance and this is a modification on the other side, it seems that there would be some connection or compatibilitybetween the two. • The outdoor dining covering is not an awning, it's more of a type shade and definitely not a protection as it is still wide open to the elements. • The patio is where the shade system is, but we are talking about the other side of the stairs at the handicap entrance and I don't think there should be a connection there. I think this is a great idea, but I think what we are saying is that it needs to be a permanent fixture to the building. • Is the idea an awning versus a roof? • My feeling is if we're going to go down this road, it's going to be a permanent fixture to be here for a while. • We are suggesting that this should be something that is put out for bid and have a designer involved in preparing a proposal. 9 Mark explained and asked George to come today and make this pitch for the awning because the Administration is unsure yet of what is being envisioned and how to move forward. If the Administration is going to fund some kind of design, there will need to be some conversations and some decision maker will be persuaded it's worth pursuing. I think the initial feedback from this group today and their openness to the idea, maybe that's a foot in the door. • The communication entry device and camera system is something that is going to be inevitable and is replacing an already failed system. And once installed I would expect the response on the new devices would probably be faster than what we have now limiting the amount of time someone would be sitting out in the rain. Michael pointed out that the automatic locks on the building were changed for the regular recurring meetings on Tuesday Evenings, so a person should just be able to push the button and the door should open up and allow them immediate entrance to the building until 10:00 pm. • All of a sudden we are not talking about people sitting there on a daily basis in the beating sun or in pouring rain for minutes at a time. Adjusting the restrooms as a separate item is going to be something that is far and away worthwhile. An awning to cover the callbox is also something that could be do-able, but again, each of these impacts the historic nature of the building, that's why I don't want to see these lumped together as a project. Jim Cleland explained that normally we would not bring this many items to you to digest at one time, but this is a special circumstance. • If we can adjust the locking system to have the building open, there's really no reason when would anyone have to be out in the cold and not able to get in after hours. • Other than Tuesdays and Wednesday nights, anybody would have to wait for Security to come down and let them in, unless they had a fob and are authorized to come in. • That would be something to know for the cost benefit analysis. • An able bodied person could jump up the stairs and stand under the vestibule and be out of the weather while their waiting for someone to open the door, which is sort of the point of the ADA accommodation. This building should be as accommodating as required to meet it's goal. The question is if having a structure overhead to protect while waiting is required by ADA. If it's not required by ADA and it's just a nice gesture then we need to reconsider in the light of protecting this building. The question is, "Which is more important, protecting this building or making an accommodation for something that's not necessarily required by ADA?" • When the original designers designed this building, they made that porch structure so that "able-bodied" people could stand under it so accommodations have been made for people, in the past. It's an important statement to make for this building whether it's required by ADA or not to make it accommodating. George explained that part of what he wants with the awning is to encourage people to come and participate in City government. He suggested it's very difficult to get a lot of people to participate in City Council or Planning Commission meetings. He wants more people to participate in City government and anybody in a wheelchair already has strikes against them so it's even harder to get them to participate. • It sounds like nobody is really opposed to the idea that someone who needs to be protected from the weather should be protected. The issue would be, show us what you plan to do. If it's an awning is it attached to the building, not attached, is it reversible, etc. 10 • The consensus is that we're open to it, but someone needs to be enlisted to get the proper people involved and develop a design and obtain the proper funding to make it happen. Michael suggested that his opinion from an ADA point of view is he could argue for or against it and to be honest there's some gray area here and a kind of a value judgment to be made, but if you think of the amount of rain or snow a person catches sitting in a wheelchair there's good reason to consider weather sheltering outside the building. Jim explained that they don't need a decision today on any of these proposed accommodations. They are just bringing the information to the committee today to give them time to work over it and think on it and investigate a little more . Then as we proceed in the next meeting or so they will be able to give us direction on the color, the style and all those kind of things. In that time we will probably get more information too of what's really available. Michael passed out some handouts and reviewed the following items: ■ The first page is a picture of the sign just inside the entrance and this is the only information as sort of an introduction to the building to people with disabilities that we get. ■ There is very minimal additional information in the building such as restrooms signs having the international symbol of accessibility indicating that their accessible. ■ The second page is some information about sign contrast. Michael said he has a concern about our standard natural looking stone signage and it is when your background is a field of granite that's speckled you're not achieving as high of contrast as the ADA asks be achieved in some signage. He said he isn't suggesting we change all the signs in the building, but would propose that we consider two or three signs on this first floor that are high contrast(maybe just black text on the white background) that make the City's statement about accessibility and the ADA stand out. ■ The new call center might have very minimal language on it (We need to discuss that and come back with a proposal). ■ I am proposing that we revise the first floor sign (referred to on the first page) so all that sign would talk about is what's on level one. This sign would include the statement(shown on pages 3 through 5). The Justice Department is going around the country reviewing municipalities and they make these agreements with municipalities and they have a form statement that municipalities sign on to that says "We will post this statement in our public facility, we'll make it visible to the public and I think we should start with City Hall, but this needs to be in the other public buildings as well, but the statement is quite a long statement and we're talking about quite a large sign. If you look at the bottom the part about accessibility to this building, that's just something I added that we should consider adding to this sign. This is a lot of information and I wanted you to have a chance to think about it and we will come back in a month. Questions, Comments and Answers: ■ This statement is quite verbose here and is the sort of thing that you would typically see on a couple of 81/2 x 11 sheets that are posted under glass not something that's a formal sign. If there's a need for these sort of things, we've been pretty stringent and strict over the years of not allowing these types of thing, , but if we need a place for posting signage like this, we would want to think of some sort of display case or something for putting simple pin-ups of notices. A notice is not a sign. 11 • Yes, this could be an approach. I've seen at SL County they have poster boards about 2 1/2 feet tall and 1%feet wide or so and they are posted in their main buildings just on their main doors, so there may be a couple of ways to accomplish this. • Maybe in the meantime you could find out the Justice Department's list of requirements, what size does that sign need to be and what are the sign size dimensions and the size of the letters, are they raised, etc. so that we can decide how we can best accommodate it in the building. • I will look it up and bring it back next month if you are okay with that. • I think that these are pretty significant changes and everything that we've done in the past has sort of been adhoc and some of us are designers or whatever, but we're not sign specialists, and I think if we are talking about something of this significance, maybe it's time to re-evaluate the entire signage system for the building, to accommodate these major changes and to make sure that everything is coordinated and well thought out. Again, I think it's sort of this nickel and diming of everything that we're concerned about, and I know is costs money to do that, but I think it's the costs of preserving this building that we're tasked with. I'm not saying that were concerned with costs, but we're concerned with the integrity of the building. In that case, I would recommend that we consider hiring a signage consultant to take a look at this building and the grounds and come up with a solution that's going take us 10, 20 or 30 years in the future. Jerod asked if Mark wanted to make a motion relative to signage. Mark Vlasic motioned that the City considers hiring a signage consultant to accommodate the ADA signage and all other signage with the intent of insuring that signage in this building and on the grounds is consistent and coordinated and looking towards the future. This it's not adhoc. Terry Wright seconded the motion. Anne suggested that we ask that they not just look toward the future, but to the past as well. Someone, obviously, chose these letters and this font for the room doors. Someone chose this granite and there was rationale for all of these choices and were they based on anything? Michael suggested if a consultant was to be hired it was going to be a year long process that we potentially consider temporary signage during that process to cover a couple of the ADA needs, but make it clear that its temporary and we would modify the final solution. Jerod proposed that we amend the motion that Mark put forth to allow for temporary signage to cover the immediate need. Jerod noted that we have an amended motion put forth and asked if anyone wanted to second the amended motion. Anne Oliver seconded the motion. Jerod asked if there were any further questions or discussion. Terry suggest the question or discussion would be that in the past we've seen that the temporary signs have always ended up becoming permanent and I would have a difficult time with that concept. 12 Jim suggested that Mark made a good explanation that it should be in a glass case and that would be the temporary thing and not a permanent 20 year solution. Discussion relative to numerous types of temporary signage and how it should look was held. Jerod noted again that we have an amended motion and a second before us. He asked Terry if he was taking exception with the amendment. Terry responded that he doesn't like the amended motion so he will vote no. He said he likes the original motion. Jerod called for a vote on the original amended motion. Jerod asked all in favor. Terry voted" No", other members of the committee asked if they could hear the motion again. Jerod re-stated the motion saying: "It was to recommend to the City to hire a signage consultant to review the entire building and grounds and put forth recommendations or guidelines to the City with respect to future signage and with a reference to the past and also with an option to allow for temporary signage with a caveat that it be temporary signage and not be permanent. Terry said "that sounds like an amended-amended motion, but he would second the amended- amended motion". Jerod noted that we now have an amended-amended motion and asked if there were any questions. There were none. Jerod called for a vote. The vote was as follows: John Phillips-Abstained Steve Cornell—yes Rob Pett—yes Anne Oliver—yes Terry Wright—yes Jerod Johnson—yes Mark Vlasic—yes Rob Pett motioned to adjourn the meeting. Jerod seconded the motion. Jerod called for a vote. The Committee unanimously voted to accept the motion. The meeting was adjourned. 13 • - Code Blue BUY PRODUCTS APPLICATIONS PARTNERS SUPPORT 4 Customize Your Products Want to add a distinctive touch or integrate with another security device?We can do that. Code Blue has customized thousands of our products to fit the unique and varied needs of our customers. Whether it's paint, graphics, configurations or more,we are happy to work with you to create the right solution. Contact us to learn more. REQUEST A QUOTE Past Customizations Have Included: FABRICATION STYLE ACCESSORIES COMPONENTS Iir --wItamamal., 1, for•11 ttnw K M �wy U Owl► I • 1 i 11111 a I,,. " Cod*Nue' 4. • Custom heights, • Customized paint • Overhead mounts • Custom phone kits widths, depths designs, colors for cameras, lights • Custom phone • Housings, • Custom graphics, • Mounting rings for faceplates rwiuntings for Muster text, logos third par t r devices • Localized Stations • Silkscreen • Customized bezel microphone for • Custom access dour faceplates text, color, design announcements locations • Custom buttons • Beacon/Strobe colors • i CodeBluë CB 9-d Product Sheet PEDESTAL - INTERACTIVE VOICE COMMUNICATION UNIT The CB 9-d offers the same features as the CB 9-s and also includes a larger opening to accommodate a second faceplate.The additional faceplate provides an ideal location to add a directory or specific user options such as access control, CCTV or other security devices. The exclusive analog InterAct and VoIP speakerphones are designed for maximum reliability, vandal resistance, auxiliary functions, mass notification control, and fault monitoring and reporting capability. The CB 9-d can withstand a high rate of abuse and • is ideal for parking entry points and other gatekeeper • applications. 1 .. ":'•; ` STANDARD FEATURES ► Analog and VolP speakerphone options ToolVox®compatible with Blue Alert®MNS and Blue Alert EMS CNN.. IA4100 yr D 2 Inputs-These are simply NO dry contact 3 Outputs- Can be configured NO or NC D 1 Line Level Audio Output 600 ohm ► IP5000 D 1 input-This is a NO dry contact D 2 Outputs- Each can ONLY be configured NO 1 Line Level Audio Output 600 ohm 2 Auxiliary inputs/3 Auxiliary outputs(3 NO or 3 NC) Second opening with blank stainless steel plate ► LED lit stainless steel faceplate ► 24V AC power ADA compliant Vandal resistant hardware Phone line surge suppressor Ultra-weather resistant finish Internal foundation anchor kit OPTIONAL FEATURES D Two-button speakerphone w/keypad D Two-button speakerphone D Custom colors and graphics O's D Step-down multi-tap power transformer Intertek D Second opening options:directory, camera or custom plate design D Power over Ethernet D NightCharge®power system Code Blue• 259 Hedcor Street• Holland, MI 49423 USA •800.205.7186 • www.codeblue.com page 1 of 2 CPS-114-I _ , Code Blue CB 9 d Product Sheet UNIT SPECIFICATIONS FACEPLATE OPTIONS Overall Height 72"(182.88 cm) FP1 FP2 FP2-K Outside Diameter 12.75"(32.38 cm) o o o Housing Material, steel .25"(.635 cm) -------- Access Opening(w x h) 14"x 9.64"(35.56 x 24.49 cm) --- • - • --- Overall Weight 320 lbs (145.15 kg) O ° FO ° gym IN ® (CALL ll Standard Power 24V AC @ 3w _ Requirements • m • • UI • \ • QI • LUSH FOR HELP. (PUSH FOR HELP i I P/USH FOR HELP i RATINGS opc....i.. 0 •o w...... • O 1,C....w. o Standard faceplate Optional faceplate Optional faceplate UL UL 60950-1 and UL 2017 assembly with assembly with assembly with !P IP56 single red PUSH additional black additional CALL NEMA 4X FOR HELP button INFO button button and keypad UNIT FINISH COLORS Standard Painted Finish British Racing Green, Cardinal Red, Dark Bronze, GlossWhite, Gloss Black, Medium Bronze,Bronze, Midnight Blue, Safety Blue, Safety Red, Safety Yellow,Tiger Orange, Bright Silver O Custom Painted Finish Custom colors from Pantone®color chart or 141.11 sample are available as a special order �.154 0 73 I GRAPHICS TEXT (WORDING) Standard Assistance,Courtesy, Emergency, Police,Security, i, Information, Help Point Custom Custom text graphics are available as a special order GRAPHICS TEXT COLORS Standard(reflective decal) Black, Blue, Green, Red, White,Yellow Custom Custom colors from Pantone 41-5, color chart or sample are available as a special order SECOND DEVICE OPTION ` ' Provides a location directly above the phone that can accept . a factory supplied directory plate or a user specified custom �,y 12—3/4 plate for access control, CCTV or other security devices. • Mounting hardware and template for unit is shipped in advance for foundation work • Specifications subject to change without notice or obligation on the part of the manufacturer. Code Blue•259 Hedcor Street. Holland, MI 49423 USA •800.205.7186 •www.codeblue.com page 2 of 2 CPS-114-I ® CB 5-s Code Blue with Decorative Top Product Sheet PEDESTAL - INTERACTIVE VOICE COMMUNICATION UNIT The CB 5-s with Decorative Top combines Code Blue's versatile speakerphone system with a low voltage combination blue beacon/strobe and our standard 8-inch I diameter bollard. The rugged six-sided cast aluminum light cage is securely mounted to the bollard top and the clear polycarbonate lens encloses the housing and protects the blue beacon/strobe.This design provides high visibility throughout the entire 360-degree area.The standard long-lasting LED lighted faceplate simplifies operation. Standard operating voltage is 24V AC and step down transformers are available to handle other voltages. The exclusive analog InterAct and VoIP speakerphones are designed for maximum reliability, vandal resistance, auxiliary functions, mass notification control, and fault monitoring and reporting capability. The CB 5-s with Decorative Top is an excellent choice for cities and municipalities, parks, college and commercial campus areas, open environments and wherever ornamental decor as well as dependable operation is required. STANDARD FEATURES ► Analog and VoIP speakerphone options ► ToolVox®compatible with Blue Alert®MNS and Blue Alert EMS ► IA4100 D 2 Inputs-These are simply NO dry contact 3 Outputs-Can be configured NO or NC D 1 Line Level Audio Output 600 ohm IP5000 > 1 input-This is a NO dry contact v 2 Outputs- Each can ONLY be configured NO 1 Line Level Audio Output 600 ohm ► 2 Auxiliary inputs/3 Auxiliary outputs(3 NO or 3 NC) us ► High output combo LED beacon/strobe Intertek ► LED lit stainless steel faceplate ► 24V AC power ► Voice Identifier OPTIONAL FEATURES ► ADA compliant D Two-button speakerphone w/keypad ► UV resistant lenses D Two-button speakerphone ► Vandal resistant hardware D Custom colors and graphics ► Phone line surge suppressor D Step-down multi-tap power transformer ► Ultra-weather resistant finish D Power over Ethernet ► Internal foundation anchor kit Code Blue• 259 Hedcor Street• Holland, MI 49423 USA . 800.205.7186 • www.codeblue.com page 1 of 2 CPS-107-I AL . CB 5-s Iv Code Blue with Decorative Top Product Sheet UNIT SPECIFICATIONS FACEPLATE OPTIONS Overall Height 144"(365.76 cm) FP1 FP2 FP2-K Outside Diameter(bollard) 8.625"(21.91 cm) o 0 0 0 0 o (light housing) 21.5" (54.6 cm) Housing Material,steel&cast .25"(.635 cm) __, ___ aluminum(light housing) o©o Access Opening(w x h) 15"x 6.63"(25.4 x 16.84 cm) 0 0 ° (NJFO•)° ° o®E CCALL•)° Overall Weight 240 lbs. (108.86 kg) ; in • ; ,,, ; ,,, Standard Power 24V AC @ 15w PUSH FOR HELP• (PUSH FOR HELP (PUSH FOR HELP Requirements o>C....... 0 00 ....r. 0 00w...�. 0 Standard faceplate Optional faceplate Optional faceplate RATINGS assembly with assembly with assembly with single red PUSH additional black additional CALL UL UL 60950-1 and UL 2017 FOR HELP button INFO button button and keypad IP IP56 NEMA 4X 1\.,,,,..,.....„,0 UNIT FINISH COLORS Standard Painted Finish British Racing Green, i `� Cardinal Red, Dark Bronze, 400, Gloss White, Gloss Black, . Medium Bronze, Midnight V, +/ Blue, Safety Blue, Safety f Red, Safety Yellow,Tiger `!� Orange, Bright Silver 4311� Custom Painted Finish Custom colors from Pantone®color chart or sample are available as a i special order — iit GRAPHICS TEXT (WORDING) 1 Standard Assistance, Courtesy, 144 1/2 Emergency, Police, Security, Information, Help Point Custom Custom text graphics are available as a special order GRAPHICS TEXT COLORS Standard(reflective decal) Black, Blue, Green, Red, White,Yellow Custom Custom colors from Pantone color chart or sample are available as a special order 1 41-5/8 8-5/8 1".— • Mounting hardware and template for unit is shipped in advance for foundation work. • Specifications subject to change without notice or obligation on the part of the manufacturer. Code Blue• 259 Hedcor Street• Holland, MI 49423 USA •800.205.7186 • www.codeblue.com page 2 of 2 CPS-107-I ®® Code Blue Color Options • Gloss White Bright Silver Safety Yellow Tiger Orange Cardinal Red Safety Red British Racing Green Midnight Blue Safety Blue Medium Bronze Dark Bronze Gloss Black CUS 1 OM COLON Code Blue offers a variety of standard color options,and will match Pantones and other swatch colors. Custom lettering and logos can also be applied to give your Help Points the correct look and feel for its surroundings. Disclaimer:These colors approximate the actual colors and can also vary by your printing and monitor settings. Custom colors are available for match with the submission of a Pantone number,Ral number or a paint sample.Please contact Customer Service for further information. Code slue•259 Hedcor Street• Holland, MI 49423 USA•800.205.7186 • www.codeblue.com MK-177-A _u • 1 ,I k i !; " /00 1 ,,d, . r^ 1 • • ii 1 �' 1 1 \,, Ate. ' k t � I N II � S , rn ___. ... , ? � ,� • _o . .... . k...._ , \ 3 ... * (ID . -. . ' . Illa i1.1.11 • . I 1 s liktir..... It .j . I;.!... ..,...... _ 1i _s (:' cr \ \el • .) • IA + _.. w 1 /0.1 4 ......._ ...A 4 . i r r. / Jy NS 1 6 I a a° 1 % I l OP wr . . . .. STOP _ Call Call placed received IP5000 S e / $ PUSH FOR HEAP ST '\P . _ ,,i., : _______________________ ra tO Code Blue Ir it- . ' . . rb,6 I Alif li 4 439 1 . jir . • 6. 10.11P / 1 / i 11 i •• 1 i 4 • 1 '4 I_ 1 • i 111 g 1.4 It l • '. a p 7. .... , ., . , . "t,,,. ; ,,,. 1, 0.. ..„ h . ICA 11 ilif .ts• hi Nilb i lilk• 0111. t^ t1.4 ci . i 11\ 4114 11 I so_ - 140 4 0 4 _1 I II_ill.'"' '. . L •.