Loading...
1/9/2012 - Meeting Minutes MINUTES CITY&COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE MONDAY,JANUARY 9, 2012, 4:00 P.M. Revised with changes 3/2/12 Committee Members Present: Committee Members Not Present: Terry Wright Chairperson Mark Vlasic Lisa Thompson Co-Chair Ken Pollard Jerod Johnson Paul Heath John Phillips Ex Officio Members: Alden Breinholt - Sean Fyfe &Mt Yabe CIW&COMM$iailbiag CongerbaneQ&sae Committee Guests MJSA Architects ®VVII Rob Pett 3131e 02/13/2012 Charles Shepherd Craig Childs Elwin Robinson via phone Interested Persons Jaysen Oldroyd-Salt Lake Attorney's Office Conservancy members roll call for recording: Terry Wright,Jerod Johnson,John Phillips, Paul Heath, Lisa Thompson and Ken Pollard. Terry welcomed everybody and opened the meeting with agenda item one, approving the November 14, 2011 minutes and the December 12, 2011 minutes. He asked for a motion to approve the November 14, 2011 minutes Jerod made a motion to approve the November 14, 2011 minutes, the motion was seconded the minutes were approved. Lisa commented there were several typos, in the December 12, 2011 minutes. On the top of page three the word typed was transfers the word should be transom the mistake was corrected in several places. On page two the word typed was rectification the word should have been rustication the changes were made in several places. Lisa moved to approve the minutes as amended the motion was seconded and the minutes were approved. The second item on the agenda was to review the new event policy. A copy of the transmittal was e- mailed to the committee members. Alden referred to the transmittal sheet and said what was attempted here is to try to limit the number of events on the grounds to significant events on the Washington Square grounds (see attached,) it restricts the amount of events with a two week time period between each event The other part was to provide onsite event management, using an employee from Parks. When an event is on the grounds that the event would be managed by a Parks employee, that person would be at the event from start to finish. This will help eliminate the issues of ADA parking, damage to the grounds 1 and other issues. The one thing the Mayor recommended was that the Arts Festival get some sort of dispensation for the fact that they have set up and taken down so many times and have been really good at their set up and take down. The City will not require the Arts Festival to have on site management until there is a problem. If there are any problems then we will require an onsite person. Also there will be a charge for the on site management. Ken asked if there is a maximum number of people allowed on the grounds. Alden said there is probably a maximum number somewhere but not written. The grounds can only hold so many people and the recommendation is to use Library Square and new PSB when built. Ken asked if there is anything written in the policy for example, fifteen to twenty square feet per person? Alden stated no that would be managed by the event policy which would say how many police, fire and sanitation that would drive the numbers and what maximum allowed based on the square footage there. Terry stated that the second bullet point may need to be modified. It states the event season is May to August which if reads correctly would preclude August it would need to be changed to read through. Any event past August doesn't give enough time for the grounds to recovery. Terry asked if there is motion to support the recommendation on the new event policy as amended. Jerod made the motion it was seconded and the motion was made to support the new event policy. Terry moved agenda item four, the approval of video wall chase to item three. The committee was sent two renditions of the wall chase. One is one post in the center and the other shows two posts on the side. Terry likes the architectural aspects of it and understands they would be painted instead of a stain grade material that would help them blend more into the walls. Terry asked if there is any discussion of the single post versus the double posts. Ken stated that he liked the two posts and Jerod likes the two posts also. Ken moved to have the double posts used, the motion was seconded and the motion was passed. The double post video wall chase was approved. The last item on the agenda is the stone consultant final report with cost estimates. Terry opened with the statement that it is not quite the final. Terry turned the time over to Rob. Rob Pett called Elwin Robinson with EDI and he joined the conversation. Introductions were made for the minutes, Rob Pett with MJSA. Charles Shepherd and Craig Childs with Childs Enterprises and Elwin Robinson with EDI this is the team that has been working to review the stone on the building. They are here today to recap the previous meeting. Elwin Robinson will talk to the committee about the technical issues and the recommendations made for the stone consolidants and flashing. Then the discussion will be about constructability issues. In the last meeting there was some discus about cost estimates. At that point in time there were quite a number of place holders pending some evaluation of constructability and final number on the stone and sheet metal flashing will be disused further. The approach has been how they view remediation, how the stone is viewed from the stand point of conservation and safety. Their guiding point has been life safety, conservation and remediation in the sense of if it gets to the point where things are failing and need to be replaced then they would be, although the replacement that they have determined is pretty minimal. Terry asked Rob if restoration was discussed. Rob said restoration has been discussed, as the project was approached and it was understood from the city that it is not a restoration project. There may be 2 elements on the building that require restoration. In Rob's mind this means bring it back to its original which means if there is an element that has been lost then that would be the case. If the decorative element and the character defining artistic features are still evident or haven't been significantly degraded the approach is to conserve it and protect it. There will be approaches as MCJS looks at it over time say in the next five to ten years that those might be replaced particularly if they are a repeating elements, there are many repetitive decorative elements on the City and County Building. MJSA wants to use the info they have now to correct and maintain the stone.There will be a time where some judgment calls are needed and the committee will have an opportunity to decide if they want to spend the money now or hold off. There is very little decorative carving and those elements will be conserved. We will want to look at what needs to be done on the tower now because it is such a difficult place to get to that cost of scaffolding and access is very great. Certain things may be done on the tower now that may not be done below. Elwin will talk to the committee of what was found on the building and recommendations relative to the approaches and consolidants and sealants. Elwin started with the stone was chosen for its ease of carving not its durability, this has been the issue. Elwin found in virtually all the sample stone cores there were a large number of failure planes (shown in blue on the screen) the failure planes packed into the near surface region the cause of cracks is freeze thaw. The stone is made of two binders one is clay and the other is calcite neither are very strong and the freeze thaw action is able to degrade them. The 1980's study focused at the grain stating it was the primary cause of the damage, but the topographers were able to determine that it is primarily moisture entering the stone that has caused the problem and to a lesser degree some washing away of the calcite binder. There is also a sulfate issue sulfate in the soil is being blown against the building that gets into the stone. One of the issues that occur when you have failure planes like this is that water repellent agent and consolidants for stone are pulled into the stone by capillary actions but, these fissures and planes in fact stop the capillary actions and you cannot get a consoildant to pull into the stone across the failure planes. The tests in the 1980's was to take samples of the stone and putting them into a bath of consolidant and soaking them, but on a vertical surface with no gravity driving the consolidant into the pores and are left with capillary action and that will not reliably bring it past the planes of failure. For the existing weathered stone, consolidants will not penetrate deeply, enough to be of value. For the newer stone those replaced in the 1980's restoration, especially those that have a significant skyward component they feel there is a great value of applying consolidants to those. The one caveat is that the consolidant needs to be applied approximately every five years. The next slide presented were the ornaments on the building, many examples of weathering were shown some was complete loss of faces and much of it was invasive. The final slide was a picture of a piece of Indiana Limestone trying to compare it with the existing Kyune Stone. The reason for the comparison is because the Kyune Stone is inherently quite weak, especially for protecting elements. The elements at the top of the building the consultants feel finding a more 3 durable stone that has an adequate color and texture match would be a good way to go. The Indiana Limestone is compatible chemically with the Kyune Sandstone; it would not have chemical interactions which can cause problems. The stone consultants have also done inquires with the original quarries. There are some indications that there is not much usable stone left in the original quarries. The concern is that all the usable stone was pulled out in the 1980's, in fact at the 1980's renovation some of the replacement stones had many flaws which shows it was hard finding good stone. Alden asked how we overcome the quarry issue. Elwin answered one way is to find a chemically compatible stone. It is best to keep the stone consistent. It was talked about using a limestone which is stronger;the color match would be somewhat of a concern. Rob stated they were not 100%sure limestone wasn't used during the 1980's renovation. John asked what percentage of the stone would require the original stone in them. Rob asked you mean the faces. Charles answered a small percentage. Terry question is if the local stone was used if it makes sense to go get some of the remaining stone in the quarry and set them aside on city property and to get everything we can. Rob said that may be an option. Most of the meeting was slides showing damage and what needs repair/replacement to the stone on the City and County Building. The discussion was also about where flashing could be put and where it is damaged and how flashing can help protect the stone. They would use flashing and extension of flashing if needed. Looking at the building you may not think there is any caulk on it but there is significant caulk on the building. One of the approaches is to try and eliminate the use of caulk and replace with appropriate flashing. Charles talked about the balconies, they would put in a water proofing system that would overlay the existing concrete and extend out onto the refurbished sheet metal ballast. Charles next talked about cracks their repair are a high priority. Addressing the joints especially the higher you go the joints are opening up and letting the moisture in. These are critical items to address. Rob talked about how they were looking at this in regards to cost. They have taken the approach that it is one project at one time that one time may take two years to eighteen months. It is a series of several projects happening in succession. They can also be looked at as phases in the future depending on the funding. Craig stated that getting to the repairs is the challenge of this project. You can divide it into two parts, the tower and the rest of the elevations. Just to get to the tower would cost a lot of money no matter what the repair is. They have approached it as the tower first because of the access. Craig discussed the scaffolding such as entrance closures; he used pictures that showed different ways to place scaffolding. 4 Terry stopped the discussion to ask Jerod his comments based on the input received so far, because Jerod had to leave. Jerod stated that he liked the approach but had a concern is whenever you are working on a rehabilitation of a historic building like this and especially facade we think about the seismic anchorage. The issue with City and County Building is what the scaffolding would be anchored to. The next discussion item was the cost estimate, shown in the spreadsheet. 5 Salt Lake City&County Building Stone Remediation Revised Preliminary Cost Estimate 119112 Stone Remedlatlon Amount I West Elevation i $574,750 South Elevation I $280,300 East Elevation $488,500 North Elevation _ $285,000 Clock Tower —� $389,500 Entries $55,000 Subtotal $2,073,050 Flashing&Waterproofing Amount West Elevation $192,500 South Elevation $132,000 East Elevation $165,500 North Elevation i $135,500 Clock Tower $185,500 Entries $18,000 Subtotal $829,000 Contingency(for above work only) I 20% $580,410 Building Access Material hoist(to Tower'bridge) I $67,840 Tower landing platform $25,000 Tower scaffolding(includes base,crane support,'bridge) $391,075 Quadrant Scaffolding I $746,500 Pedestrian overhead protection I $114,660 Crane(masonry remedialion,waterproofing support)_ $49,920 Pedestrian control $36,300 Subtotal $1,431,295 Off-Site Staging(1 acre,paved,fenced) I Owner-provided(800 South 300 West?) $0 General Conditions(18 months) $735,000 Project Manager/Superintendent,Project Engineer,office,sanitary facilities,temp power,temp water,site access snow removal,site clean up,debris removal,etc. General Contractor OH&P 15% $760,252 Grand Total $6,409,007 t r. v,, i r Salt Lake City & County Building i '%� Stone Evaluation & Recommendations d� ri tr MJSA+EDI+Child+Jacobsen Rob stated that the cost above is assuming it is a onetime project, estimated to take eighteen months not phased and it incorporates a general contractor. Rob stated that the cost was more than was originally thought. He asked the committee their thoughts. 6 Terry commented that with the information presented that you can begin to look at phasing the project. He feels the city council may not be ok with the six million but maybe to do it over two or three budgeting years. Rob states that is why it is broke down between east and west. Alden stated that the reality of getting the six million is not likely, two or three million may be more likely. Alden then went on to say that six million is the whole CIP budget for all of Public Services. He stated that the six million exceeds the CIP projection budget of four million and the project may need to be funded a different way and it may drop out of the CIP process altogether. John asked if it does how will that play out. Alden said then we would start to compete with the Sugarhouse rail line, the Broadway theatre the east side precinct and other high level projects. Alden will have a discussion with others to see what needs to be done with the cost at this point. Terry stated that the nice thing about this is there are at least five distinct projects with stopping and starting points. John asked if there is a way to provide cost estimate with inflation if we have to do the project in five years. Lisa had another meeting to get to and Terry asked her for her comments before she had to leave. Lisa's input is she is eager to hear about funding strategies and as the representative of the Utah Heritage Foundation is there anything the Utah Heritage Foundation can be of assistance of communication with council. She is all for getting the job done and the careful and thoughtful manner the consultants have presented this. John asked about escalation of the cost if it turns into a five year project. Rob said that can be done but at this point it has not been calculated. Terry said that historically escalation is roughly three percent a year. Charles stated that is the project breaks up into multiple jobs in multiple years it may be hard to procure the stone from the quarries. Terry reiterated that stone cost should be added and to get surplus stone and store it for the future. Alden said his approach is to present it to the council as one project if they say no way then present it in phases and to be aware of escalation costs. John said that he is thinking about if council says no. Alden said he wants to present it as the whole six million with the hope they may give the project two million. Paul asked if the council only gives two million can you front in the second year first that is the west to the south and approach it with scaffolding so that they can break it up. Rob said yes that could be an option. Alden asked the consultants if they are comfortable with where they are heading with flashings, stone hardeners and consoldiants because the majority of the building stone hardeners would not be recommended. Then the upper tower restoration, we are not restoring many of the elements that need to be restored. The decorative items plan is not to redo those. Terry said in his understanding the approach on the tower was purely restoration. Alden asked about maybe not doing the tower. Terry said there may be life safety associated with it. 7 Alden asked if the committee is ok with the work product the consultants are presenting. Not including cost, funding and staging. Terry said yes he feels the work product is good. John asked about the detail work if there is any economy of scale. If you have an element that is repeated is it worth it, say we are going to have to make up say twenty of them? Charles said that is the approach they took. Charles has talked to the stone people who can mass produce them. Terry asked the committee if there is a motion concerning the stone consultants work product at this time and a motion to Alden as to what to do with this product. John made the motion to accept the work product presented and that Alden will take it to the City Council. John also added, in the interest of securing the$6.4 million to move the project forward, with the understanding that it will probably come back with some kind of phasing. Paul seconded the motion and the motion was passed. Rob stated that this is not quite the final cost and other parts may need to be changed. The committee will be updated as this happens. Terry asked if there were anybody has any other business, there was none. Ken made the motion to adjourn it was seconded and the meeting was adjourned. 8