Loading...
11/09/2015 - Minutes SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 9,2015 Committee Members Present Committee Members Absent Jerod Johnson, Chairman Anne Oliver Terry Wright Steve Cornell John Phillips mall Eabr�v&Conmv 3;nilDing Mark Vlasic, Vice Chairman onarrbanrP��a,Commiurt Other Interested Parties Present Rob Pett Tan ®vels Ralph Stanislaw, Archiplex Group 12/14/2015 Preston Croxford, Archiplex Group Ex-Officio Members Present \ Riley Bird, SLC Facilities Jeff Sokol, SLC Engineering Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering Jaysen Oldroyd, SLC Attorney's Office Joan Swain, SLC Facilities Jerod Johnson welcomed everyone to the meeting and commenced the meeting with a roll call: Jerod Johnson, Chairman; Mark Vlasic, Vice Chairman; Rob Pett, new member; Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering;Terry Wright, committee member; Ralph Stanislaw,Archiplex Group; Preston Croxford, Archiplex Group; Jeff Sokol, SLC Engineering; Riley Bird, SLC Facilities;Jaysen Oldroyd, SLC Attorney's Office; Joan Swain, SLC Facilities Jerod asked that the record show we do not have a Quorum so we will not be able to officially act on any resolutions or such at this time. Agenda Item 1: Welcome and Introduction of new Committee Member, Rob Pett. Jerod welcomed Rob Pett as a new Committee Member and asked Rob to take a few minutes to introduce himself and give a little history about his background. Rob Pett expressed his delight to serve on the committee and thanked all those who supported asking him to join. He explained that he is familiar with the City and County building, pointing out that his firm, MJSA Architects, completed the most recent study for the restoration of the exterior stone. Rob also mentioned having served as Chair of the Landmark's Committee several years ago. Rob explained that his practice has been historic related, most recently, working on the Governor's Mansion restoration along with Jacobsen Construction and more recently working on the restoration of the Utah State Capitol with along with Jerod. Agenda Item 2: Review and Approval of the October 12, 2015 Meeting Minutes. Jerod explained that the October 12, 2015 meeting minutes are fairly extensive and he thinks it would be appropriate if anyone has any comments or corrections that should be brought to Joan's attention to do that now. He reminded the Committee they can't have a motion to accept the minutes. He asked the Committee to take a minute and review the minutes if they had not had a chance to yet. Terry Wright said that he perused the minutes and they looked okay to hm. 1 Jerod noted that there was one error in the middle of the first page where the name, "Jerald" should be changed to "Jerod". Jerod asked if anyone had any other comments or changes with regard to the minutes. There were none. Jerod suggested that the approval of the October minutes would be deferred to the next meeting. Jerod asked if the Committee typically held a meeting in December. Terry Wright confirmed the Committee does meet in December. Agenda Item#3: Pedestrian Lighting Update (Jeff Sokol, SLC Engineering, Preston Croxford and Ralph Stanislaw,Archiplex Group). Ralph Stanislaw detailed the direction they were given in last month's meeting and the steps that have been taken: • Come up with a historically derived, new fixture to replace the ones that are out there right now. • Explore this as well as one that uses more standard parts and gets as close to the character of this light pole as possible. The preference being a custom fixture that matches the original fixture from back in 1906. • With this charge, we developed a drawing for sharing with light fixture manufacturers. (A copy of the team's design tape of the historic replica fixture showing the concrete base with the eased edges that were preferred by the Committee was passed out to the Committee). • Using this drawing as a guide, this was shared with our electrical engineer who then sought input from light fixture manufacturers to look into the cost and the capability of providing a reproduction fixture matching these specifications as well as the possibility of a more low cost alternative using standard parts. This has been in the works and at this point there have been discussions with three manufacturers. Three separate drawings from three different manufactures were passed around to Committee. Ralph explained that they have received some pricing, which he said is only budget pricing basically to give them information of what they are dealing with. They have not gone out for bid yet. The Manufactures and pricing are as follows: 1) Premier Lighting. Premier gave one price for a custom fixture to match our design fixture in the amount of$3,285.00 per light pole excluding the base. Quantum ELA Lighting. The price given is$1,990.00 for a standard fixture, using standard parts as shown on the drawing they gave us. This is basically putting together the parts that they have or the "kit of parts option". The custom version price is$2,187.00, which is for a pole light exactly as we designed for only$200 more. This price was encouraging news, but we are a little concerned that they did not send back a drawing showing that they understood what we are asking for and can replicate the design. 2) U S Architectural Lighting. Preston explained that the US Architectural drawing is two pages, including what they originally responded with and the red line drawings we sent back to get them a little closer to the look we are after. We are still waiting for a response from them and have called again today to get a price. 2 Comments and Questions and Answers: • How many pole lights are there? • 75 pole lights. • This is a purchase number so there will be installation and other costs beyond this. • Premier did not give us an "off the shelf" price to compare with their custom fixture price so we could see how the numbers compare. • We are encouraged by the ELA price compared to the Premier custom price as it is over $1,000.00 less to achieve something that matches what we are after. • Are they going to send you a drawing of what they think the$2,187.00 pole is like to verify that it's like ours? • At this point, we have not pushed them harder on this and don't have any contractual relationship with any of these manufacturers. They are not official bids by any means. • Contractually, if we choose to go the custom route, what we would need to do from the City's stand point is to put out the drawing and say you need to match this and allow them to solicit bids from a whole range of manufacturers to leave it open from a procurement standpoint. If we were to go with the standard "put together option"we would have to do a sole-source option or just say this is the approved manufacturer. • You could still do a performance spec even though it's custom and identify all the elements specifically that you would want. • So ideally, from this group, we would need the approval to go forward with this sheet as being our specification and telling the manufacturers to match this, however they go about it. • The other part we wanted to confirm, and that we talked in length last month, is that what we are proposing is still kind of a hybrid between the true historic fixture and a new fixture meeting some of the City's needs such as the concrete base and the added electrical outlet and things of that nature that are modern additions to a historic fixture. Mark Vlasic commented that he missed the last meeting and does not mean to ask too many questions, but he is a little concerned about the 30" height of the concrete base. He questioned, that in looking at the drawings and understanding that we can't have a direct bury metal post in the ground like it was before, but why does it have to be 30". Ralph explained that there are multiple of reasons: • In the historic photograph, it shows that bottom section that we are essentially replacing with concrete and this is where we came up with that the height proportion, although the concrete is obviously a larger diameter than the historic base diameter. • The need to protect from bumper damage as discussed in detail last month. • It is inspired by the bases of the building staircases and the softened edges of the fountain pedestals. Ralph showed Mark the rendering that was discussed in the previous meeting and pointed to the spec being proposed (second from the right in the four rendering views). Terry suggested that 30 inches is quite a bit above a typical bumper. He noted that one aspect we discussed was the need for it to be above bumper height and the other aspect was proportionally. 3 Ralph explained that the height actually comes from historic fixture, of which the base is approximately that height and the diameter proposed is 16 inches. He suggested they tried to keep it small but there will have to be anchor bolts in it. Comments Questions and Answers: Are you planning to use some sort of architectural concrete? • We talked about a very light sandblasted finish to give it a similar look to the ones that are on the building on either side of the stairs. • Would it be a fair statement that this has demonstrated that this light fixture can be competitively bid and that we could get the custom design that we want? • We think we have learned that so far. • The past minutes should indicate that the concrete base was not the Committee's first choice, but the Committee recognized the maintenance concerns about the sprinklers hitting the base and eroding the anchor bolts as well as the potential for car bumpers interacting with the face of the fixture prompting the feeling at the time to proceed with the concrete base. • The failure of the current poles is based on all those issues Ralph just described and lowering the concrete to much would produce those same issues we are trying to solve. • Is there any sense of what footing that concrete would be received by? • We have not designed the footing yet. We are thinking maybe it's a flagpole footing and maybe just a drilled footing five feet deep or so. • Would it be sufficient enough to support this whole idea that when you run your car into it your car is going to take the better part of the beating? • We have a structural engineer on our team who will be doing the design and it will be similar to the design of a pole that you would see in a parking lot. • Are there any photo-metrics that we need to consider here? We say we have 75 fixtures, but that was based on a previously designed and proposed fixture. Are we confident that this new design will have photo-metrics that are similar enough to the previous fixture? We don't want to go ahead with this and then realize we need 100 fixtures instead of 75. • I think what we heard from Ken Garner in the last meeting was that the LED output would likely be more than what the current fixtures are accomplishing. We will do a photo-metric study once we pin this down, but, we also talked about the possibility of step-lighting where it might reduce to a low level lighting until someone is walking nearby and then it could increase to save energy and also reduce the impact of the constant brightness. • So you are talking about some kind of a sensor to control the amount of lighting. • As of now the 75 poles is just based on replacing poles existing, but technically, based on the newer fixtures, we could probably reduce the number of poles. • There will be some slight relocation based on proximity of vehicle movement, getting it back further from the curb. We've talked about 3 feet, but people still run over the curb and especially snowplows and people backing trucks up. • There are approximately 10 light poles around the square right now that are down because they failed the basic structural shake test. Questions raised about dark sky cutoff and the suggest one for one replacement: • Are there any details about how dark sky cutoff? 4 • You can have the cutoff with the added cap and the LED array in the middle is directed in such a way. • Would this have a reflector in that so that it does reflect down? • Yes, but it is more a factor of the actual design of the element itself and the LED array and how it broadcasts the light. • The manufacturers have labeled it a "module" and it has louvers in it that direct the light. • I understand the need for setting a budget relative to the overall lighting, but the prices we received are quite a range of difference with one price being twice the cost as the other based on the various options. • Do we need to approach it with an alternate solution in mind so that if we cannot get a custom fixture within the budget then we have a solution that is acceptable to the Committee? • I think we are heading in the right direction, but the actual light emitted by these is going to be very different from what we have now. • A lot of these modern LED lights that have been going up just blind you, Sugarhouse Plaza as an example. • As brought up in the first meeting, there is a tendency is to over light these places. A photo- metrics study is going to be good, but photo-metric studies were done for City Creek Park, but they had to turn off every other light because it was so bright. • At the very least we should have some sort of ability to adjust the lighting accordingly. • What lighting goals do we have other than a one for one replacement for a design that was done a long time ago? • We need to really think about the ambiance of the site as well as that we get people safely through the site. • Is there a need to put more lights with a slightly less amount of light? • If we have the ability to adjust the budget slightly then this should not be taken off the table. • Ralph agreed with the concerns mention and pointed out that they are not in a position to talk about the merits of light levels, but their electrical engineer can do that much better. He did point out, however, that with the amount of activities,festivals and events that are held around the square, if you reduce the number of fixtures you are reducing the number of opportunities to connect for electrical to handle those needs. • The city installed substantial power system a couple of years ago to support the events and festivals. • What is the reason we have power outlets on the poles when they can only be reached by ladder? • Christmas decorations and lights as well as banners. We also allow access to this power for small free speech events and gatherings. But people have contact Facilities to ask to use this power. • What is the liability if people try to access the power on the poles with it being so high up? • We do have the ability to turn the power to the poles on and off during regular hours. Having the power so high on the pole is purposely to discourage every day people from using it. • So people could try to use the power, for instance to charge their cell phone, during the period that the holiday lights are up since the power is on? • Yes • Is there a site plan associated with the locations? • We do have a site plan but do not have it here today. • In our work with the events, they typically work with what is there and the events are constantly evolving and they re-work the setup from year to year. They are currently re- 5 working the setup for this next year to work around the stone project. The booths provide lighting during the late evening hours and the Art Festival has its own lighting as well. • We encourage the use of the metered power. • With the step lighting, how much does it alter the cost of the light if we can control the intensity of the light for instance if it has sensors that recognize when you are walking by and gives 4 minutes of more intense light so you don't fall over? • We do not have that information right now. We would have to look into that. • I would think that if we were going to have the capability you could almost have a control system without a lot of additional expense relative to the overall project. • I don't know if you could group different fixtures together with a single control or if each fixture needs to have its own sensor to recognize someone coming by. • Are the current fixtures 11%2 feet? • The existing lights are taller. The new historic version is shorter in an attempt to go back to the historic look. • In talking with Ken Garner, our understanding is that the square is not brightly lighted overall right now. The lighting is rather sparse in the grassy areas and is focused more on the diagonal sidewalks, the drive and the east and west entrances around the building. Jerod expressed that he thinks that the work that has been done with the drawings and bids that you've received demonstrate that the project can move forward and meet the overall objectives and be sensitive to the historic character of what we are looking at here. He questioned the committee where do we go from here? If we like this do we have a motion to recommend that Ralph and his team proceed with this and work toward procurement and awarding of a contract? • A question was raised about the $200 cost difference to get the historic fixture versus the parts option. • This is only one manufacturers estimate. Jerod explained that the exercise is basically to demonstrate that we can get the custom fixture and it doesn't look like there is a huge delta in the price in order to do that and it can be competitively bid and there are probably even more manufacturers that they can submit this to. Ralph agreed this summation and added that this would be an open bid and they are not sure what the bid environment would do to the budget numbers they have seen at this point either and whether they would tighten up a little bit. Jeff Sokol was asked what the construction budget is for this project. He reported that the budget for construction is$427,000 and this does not include the design. Jeff explained that dividing this amount by the 75 poles gives us$5,696 per pole and that includes wiring and installation so we are close and it's do-able. Terry Wright motioned that we accept the "performance spec" light fixture or customized type of light fixture that could be put out on the market that resembles the historic fixture and that that be utilized in the procurement process and the design process and also the use of the rounded concrete base. Jerod Johnson seconded the motion. 6 Jerod noted that we have a motion on the table as well as a second and asked if there is any further discussion or questions. John Phillips stated that he would like someone to add in there that we would like the option to find out how much it would cost to add the stepped lighting that we discussed and that its part of the bid. It was suggested that the stepped lighting should maybe be a bid alternate and that way we could get real numbers and keep it going forward. Terry said that he liked that amendment. Jerod noted that we have the motion as indicated by Terry as well as the amendment as indicated by John to include the add alternate for step lighting possibility for this design. Jerod asked if there is any further discussion. Mark Vlasic asked if we need to settle on the concrete base at this stage. He noted that he appreciates the effort that has gone into it and realizing that he was not present at the last meeting and will defer if necessary, but wonders about treating it similar to this drawing here with the concrete looking like concrete rather than trying to replicate stone. The question was raised if he was talking about actually changing the shape of the concrete base. Mark acknowledged that he was talking about the shape and that he did not think it would have a huge impact on the cost. Rob Pett noted that he was also not present at the past meeting as he is a new member, but his first impression is that the concrete base is just a bit in-elegant given that you look at the top and the scale of this fixture and he does wonder if there is an opportunity to leave that portion. As you look at concrete, and I understanding the issues for wanting it, but it's not attached to the building and it's not the fountain. It's a light fixture and it should work within itself so I just wonder as you look forward at this if there are other ways to look at the concrete, whether it's any kind of additional detail or flair or anything that would allow it to be part of the light fixture as opposed to just a son tube that's rounded at the top. A comment was made suggesting something like a precast. Ralph explained that he was actually imagining looking into the possibility of making it a precast element, not sure how technically to resolve that given it's also a structural piece, but maybe there's a way to do that. Jerod noted that you see drive concrete piles all the time that are precast elements. He suggested that the 16" diameter is awfully robust for a light pole and it could probably be 12 "easily and still work. Ralph noted that the bases that they are getting are 12"with the metal caps and we will need to check with our structural engineers on the capability of that as it gets smaller. 7 Preston suggested that keeping in mind that in general if you look at a pole light in a parking lot the bases do look way bigger than they need to be, but its bigger to support the weight of the light as well as based on a vehicle hitting it. Questions were raised relative to coming up with some alternative to get this moving faster and also what the schedule is. Sean Fyfe told the Committee that the schedule is as soon as possible.They are already behind schedule and are trying to get it installed before we start the stone remediation and seismic project. Jerod asked if we have a specific direction as to the motion that Terry put forth and John's amendment, noting that the only remaining issues seems to be with respect to these bases. He asked if we want to recommend that some further study occur with these bases as Ralph has volunteered or do we want to do something else. Robb Pett said that he would like to add this to the motion that further study needs to occur with regard to the concrete base. He commented that it is a significant change and particularly when it is sitting out in the middle of the lawn. Sean asked Ralph if he could give a time frame for when we would have the documents prepared and ready for bidding, assuming we had approval of the design in hand today the base issue aside and including taking into account the holidays. Ralph explained that he thinks it could be ready by the first week of December, noting he would have the electrical work done and he thinks we could continue to look at the base issue a little bit further. In a way, if we have enough detail or request enough quality in the base, when we go out to bid with we might even have the opportunity to change that a little bit and work with the final award bidder to meet our expectations with respect to any additional detail or proportion changes. Comments, Questions and Answers: • Rather than a casting place, to entertain a precast element that would offer you a greater design for that ought to be entertained. • We should look at the project budget also so we know where we stand. The fixture itself is costing us a bit more over the original idea, which was much more standard than where we are now. • As designers, we are perfectly comfortable to look at other possibilities for the base, but I'm also very sensitive to your schedule needs and want to kind of balance that against the desire here to get this moving and out to bid. Jerod asked if we want to ask these gentlemen to come back next time and show us some ideas on the base. Terry suggested that what Ralph is putting out on the table is to articulate the base a little bit more, assuming that the type of contractor that would be bidding on this is not a general and would not be a concrete guy. It would be the electrical and their idea of an upscale base is a sonotube with a wax coating. So part of this is how to articulate this. If its round, how to put enough embed rings in there to begin to articulate some of the things that you are doing. 8 • I think you really need to make sure, especially when you are analyzing the bid and with what did you just get particularly with the base will be challenging. The pole can be addressed with the manufacturer and the design. • I would think that if it is specified as architectural precast concrete and we have a spec that deals that, I would hope that lighting contractors know what that means and it actually pushes them towards that. • It is much like the light pole, the first one is going to be very expensive and the next one will be much less expensive. This is true with the precast, it's all in the mold and then there's the labor and installation. It takes a month to make the mold and a day to pour it. • You could get a nice cast-in-place one, but you've got to get the right guy. • Are you suggesting that we should not close it to the possibility of being cast in place? • I wouldn't close it. I think you can get a real nice shape, whatever that may be, with a cast in place option, but that will depend on which contractor you get. • So let's basically put in a performance spec that says they can accomplish this by doing precast or cast-in-place. • Maybe we could have your structural engineer start talking to pre-caster about the viability of the precast option first. • I think the precast protects the esthetic interest here better. • Sounds like we need more research and by the time we put it out to bid and by the time we bid, the bid documents will have specified whether it's precast or cast-in-place. • I think we make that decision before we advertise for bid. • You can do that, but I think, it will bust the budget pretty fast with the precast option and then you have to say how do I get back there and it will be a cast in place option. A question was directed to Mark and Rob relative to whether or not the base being a different shape such as octagonal or square rather than round would be acceptable in order that we could give some direction to Ralph as to which way to head. Rob pointed out that Terry made a good comment earlier that maybe the 30" is in question and maybe not, but that comes into question. He also noted that he read in the minutes the concern about the height and the slenderness ratio. There's just a little tiny light on top and it's a very large base at the bottom and it is much shorter than what is out there now so all of a sudden there is a lot of base so pyramid, square, tapered all come into play a little bit. Ralph reported that we had some very negative reactions to the square or the pyramid shapes in the meeting previous to this last meeting and the round received a much better reception at that meeting than the any other shapes we were looking at initially. I believe we did show a variety of shapes. Sean asked if the objection is mainly related to the diameter of the base and if we were able to "slender that down" would it be more acceptable at that point. Robb acknowledged that in his mind it would be more acceptable. Sean thinks maybe this should be the first approach. Terry commented that it just comes down to whatever that base is. If it's a 12" cap at the bottom it's hard to get those to match up. 9 Sean noted we aren't going to get it that slender but we can try to make it as slender as we can. Terry suggested that the current motion would need to be broken down into partial motions. Jerod asked Terry to start over with the motion that he began with and then we can step through it. Terry proposed that we accept the historic nature of the fixture that has been presented by Archiplex and that we give them direction to proceed with the design documents, such that they could provide a performance spec to the manufacturers for this fixture. Also, part of that is to, include as a bid option or an alternate the two stage lighting capability sensor, whether it' based on time or motion. I would like to leave the base to another motion without cluttering this up and address the base separately. Jerod asked if anyone would like to second the motion. John Phillips seconded the motion. Jerod noted we have a motion and a second regarding the light pole design and asked if there is any further discussion or questions. There was none. Jerod called for a vote. The Committee voted unanimously to accept the motion. Jerod asked Terry if he would like to put forth the second motion. Terry suggested that for the second motion he would like to propose that a architectural design be utilized for the base of the light fixture, taking into account that maybe in the areas where it's subject to traffic or damage from vehicular traffic that maybe there's a more robust concrete base, but in areas out in the grass or pedestrian area that a more slender base be considered to get to an architectural shape, knowing that the cylinder shape was more favorable last time, but an octagonal shape could also be classified as a slender base to give you some options to look at that to make it much more architecturally pleasing for this site. Jerod announced that we have a motion and asked if there was a second. Rob Pett seconded the motion. Jerod asked if there were and questions or comments relative to the motion or the second. There were none. Jerod asked for a vote. The committee voted unanimously to approve the motion. Jerod thanked Ralph and his Team for their work. Jerod explained that we are pressed for time before we lose a committee member and we have a couple of items that may require a vote so we will first re-visit the minutes from our last meeting. Jerod indicated that we already had a chance to review the minutes earlier in this meeting and asked if anyone would like to make a motion since we now have a quorum. Terry motioned that we accept the minutes as of October 12, 2015 with the correction to the name of Jerald to Jerod. Jerod seconded the motion and asked if there is any question or further comments to the motion. There were none. Jerod asked for a vote. The committee voted unanimously to accept the motion. Agenda Item#4: Rail Marker Location for Temporary Placement. 10 Joan Swain explained that in a previous meeting the Committee approved a motion to give approval for a Rail Post Marker to be donated by the Oregon-California Trails Association to be placed on Washington Square. This literally is a rail road post constructed in a "T"fashion and includes a quote that we also approved to recognize Washington Square as a historic encampment stop in the early days. At the time of our acceptance, we told the Oregon-California Trails people that we would indentify a temporary location for this monument to be placed until such time as a new Master Plan could be created. At this time, they have contacted us to let us know the marker is complete and they would like now to identify the temporary spot for placement. We invited Troy Baker from Parks to attend this meeting and he was unable to attend tonight and the Committee did not have a chance in the September walk-about to identify in location due rain. Jerod asked Riley Bird if the City would have any recommendations for a location on the Square. Riley explained that this was the reason Troy was invited to the meeting since he is the Park's representative and could identify the best area. Mark suggested that since we have finally approved the changes on the Northwest Corner of the Square for that little plaza, he would recommend that we put it there so that really is temporary as they will have to pull it out to deal with it when they start the work on that area. If we just put it anywhere else it will be permanent by default. Comments from the group were in favor of this idea. Joan reported that the Trails people had asked to have it close to State Street so this would be a good location. Jerod asked Mark if he would be willing to make a motion relative to the Marker location. Mark motioned that we site the monument temporarily within the construction zone of the approved Northwest corner landscape project so that it will actually be removed as that project is developed and a new home is found for it at that stage. Jerod seconded the motion and asked if there were any comments or questions. There were none. The committee voted to approve the motion. John Phillips made a motion to end the meeting. Terry Wright seconded the motion. The committee voted to approve the motion. The meeting was adjourned. 11