1/13/2020 - Meeting Minutes MINUTES
CITY&COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE
MONDAY,January 13, 2020,4:00 P.M.
Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent
Rob Pett, Chair Mark Thimm
Barbara Murphy Steve Cornell
Anne Oliver
Jennifer Hale
John Kemp .It-car City&Cowl, 6ttilbinq
Consrruaurn&?Mr Commute \,
Guests Ex Officio Members Present
appikeven
Zach Stewart,GSBS Jim Cleland,SLC Facilities
Paulo Aguilera, GSBS Joan Swain, SLC Facilities
Mark Vlasic, Landmark Design Dale: February 10, 2020 Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering
Lisa Benson, Nancy Monteith,SLC Pa
Madison Merrill Sara Javoronok,SLC Planning
Dat Phan, SLC Engineering
Rob Pett welcomed everyone to today's Conservancy and Use Committee meeting, including guests from GSBS
Architects and Landmark Design who will be making presentations to the Committee. Rob announced there is a quorum
present today and the asked for a roll call: Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities; Nancy Monteith, SLC Public Lands; Sean Fyfe, SLC
Engineering; Anne Oliver, Committee Member also with the Landmark Design Team;John Kemp, Committee Member;
Barbara Murphy, Committee Member;Jennifer Hale, Committee Member; Paulo Aguilera, GSBS Architects; Sara
Javoronok, SLC Planning; Dat Phan, SLC Engineering; Rob Pett, Committee Chair; Zach Stewart, GSBS Architects; Lisa
Benson, Landmark Design; Madison Merrill, Landmark Design; Mark Vlasic, Landmark Design; Megan Daniels, SWCA
Consultants;Joan Swain, SLC Facilities
Agenda Item 1: Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes for October 14, 2019.
Rob asked Committee Members to take a minute to review the minutes and to speak up if anyone had any question,
comments or corrections. There were no comments or corrections. Rob suggested he would entertain a motion to
approve the minutes. RECEIVED
Anne Oliver motioned to approve the Minutes from October 14, 2019.
Jennifer Hale seconded the motion. FEB 24 2020
Rob called for a vote.
The Committee voted unanimously to approve the motion. CITY RECORDER
Agenda Item #2: Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes for December 9, 2019.
Rob asked Committee to review the minutes from December 9, 2019 and noted that these minutes are more extensive
due to presentations by GSBS Architects related to the Space Planning and Vulnerability Study as well as Jaysen Oldroyd
from the Salt Lake Attorney's office providing training related to Open Meetings Law.
Rob explained Joan included a link to the Open Meeting Law training at the bottom of the last page of the December
minutes and also sent a hard copy of the training notes as part of the meeting Agenda notification to Committee
Members to review, especially those Committee Members that were not present for the training in December. Rob
explained that according to the "Open and Public Meetings Act", the presiding officer is responsible to make sure that all
members of a committee receive annual training on the requirements of the Public and Open Meetings Act and asked
that everyone please review the training handout or the online training link to make yourselves aware of the
requirements.
Rob asked if there were any comments or corrections regarding the minutes. There were none. Rob asked if anyone was
willing to make a motion a motion.
1
Barbara Murphy motioned to approve the Minutes from December 9, 2019.
Rob Pett seconded the motion.
The Committee voted unanimously to approve the minutes.
Agenda Item 3: Update on the Space Planning Study—Zachary Stewart, Interior Design, GSBS Architects.
Sean Fyfe explained that last month Ken Miller and Paulo Aguilera from GSBS Architects made a presentation to the
Committee that primarily focused on the Vulnerability Assessment portion of GSBS' scope. Sean explained that Zach has
been managing the scope, but, focusing on the space planning study, which was to look at this building along with the
Plaza 349 in more of a larger view to see of where departments are located now and how they function together and
whether they are in the right space or not.
Zach Stewart explained that the presentation made to the Steering Committee on January 7, 2020 was a draft report is
not part of today's presentation. The information he is presenting will mainly explain what has been talked about so far,
where the project is headed and where it is at this point.
Zach presented the following ideas and concepts (refer to handout):
• When looking at the floor plans for this building and looking at people occupying spaces, everything found was
just a mismatch of things and many of the spaces are fairly, inefficient right now.
• The idea that was landed on is that there ought to be some space standards developed for the building, so that
when any future space is created, depending of the type of employee and the work being done, it can be dialed-
in with the intent being that by using some of the standards some space efficiency can be made without losing
anything.
• In the industry, the national average is between 125 to 225 square feet per person (an average of 182 Sq. Ft.) As
GSBS did calculations they found spaces ranging from 140 to 300 Sq. Ft.
• Some spaces were larger based items in the space and others were just inefficient due to just moving into an
existing space without recalculating for the use.
• For the purposes of the study, GSBS is not making an exact recommendation on what the space plan is, only
using some industry standards and giving some variety to proposed floor plans with proposed office standards
applied.
• GSBS looked at how common space is being used, such as how many small breakrooms and how many large
conference rooms are on each floor and could changes be made to have one common breakroom on each floor.
Instead of large conference rooms can we have more common smaller conference rooms.
• As we get smaller workstations maybe we can get smaller collaboration areas within the workplace (see 4th floor
Comparison).
• The existing 4th floor plan consists of 109 people with 190 Sq. Ft. per person. After applying the space standards,
the 4'floor could hold 136 people with 153 Sq. Ft. per person. The same exercise was used to calculate space
per person at Plaza 349 and the outcome was the exact same 153 sq. ft per person.
• GSBS looked at growth projections calculated for 20 to 40 years using 190 Sq. Ft. per person and found that
some space efficiency remains the same and others become more efficient. This means that with the same
amount of square footage,the City could still grow within these two buildings and could staff up without
needing more space outside of these two buildings. (This is with the caveat that one of the groups in Plaza 349
would likely move out to another building.)
• In looking at which spaces could be moved around, it was obvious that some spaces, such as City Council offices,
Council Chambers and the Mayor's office being at opposite ends of the hall from each other work well the way
they are and there is some historical value to have them remain on the 3rd floor. The City Attorney's would not
likely move as it fits well where it is and there is not a ton of growth coming from that area. The Café and some
other core areas on the main level such as janitor closets that won't be touched.The 6th floor does not have
anything going on that would be used for this study.
• The focus became how can we make departments within Salt Lake City work better together. Could
departments be located near the people they work with and to talk to? GSBS discovered is that it is kind of
confusing for the public to interface with the Salt Lake City because of where different departments are located,
2
for example, there are 2 offices with cashiers, but one takes cash and the other doesn't, so a citizen may come
in to make a payment in one office, but has to go to another office.
• Thinking about this from a public point of view, there are a couple of ideas being considered: Idea #1 is to
create a one-stop shop where we bring different areas of staff to one place. Eighty percent of your business
with Salt Lake City could be handled in that one room. If you need to go talk to someone else,they can help
arrange what that conversation would look like.
• Idea #2 is what if the City employee mostly came here to the City and County building and the Public went to
Plaza 349. What departments would need to move to make that happen?
• GSBS spoke with all the departments within the two buildings with respect to the average number of visitors
that visit their departments. Most of the visitors are some sort of building or zoning related visitors.
• We looked at both buildings as potential one-stop shop options as shown in the color-coded floor plans. Plaza
349 is still being looked at with the idea that if you can carve out space where the public comes and then help
them navigate easier, maybe that means in the future departments don't need to move as much unless it is to
grow into more space over 20 years.They may need to move a little as each department might need more space
as they grow over 20 years.
• If we say that we want people to come to this building for services, we would have to move planning and
building services next to each other and move the administration services to another area making floors one,
two and three mainly building services. Mayor and City Council stay the same, but Finance would move over to
Plaza 349, which may make it a tough go since Mayor interfaces with Finance quite a bit.
• Another option shows most of building services (Planning, Civil Enforcement, Inspectors, Engineering,
Community and Neighborhoods going to Plaza 349. The public would mostly go to Plaza 349. Finance would
move over to City and County Building and could be all together on one floor.
• GSBS is not trying to decide, only trying to offer suggestions for someone else to make the decision.
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
Q: As you've been looking at this and the movement of population including the visitors, are you taking into
consideration the parking requirements that would have to be modified? (rp)
A: GSBS IS referencing parking as far as what the advantages are here versus at Plaza 349. There are quantity numbers,
but no parking study as far as how spaces a building has or how many visitors the building would have. Plaza 349 does
have a parking structure, which is a little difficult to get in and out of, especially for big trucks, which is one thing to
consider, whereas here you have parking all the way around the building. (GSBS)
C: Everyone in Plaza 349 is using that parking structure, so more employees would have to park across the street in the
Library Parking and walk to the building even though there is parking there.
These parking issues are more mentioned than studied. (rp)
C: This information is basically the meat of what GSBS is doing. There is a draft report out that GSBS is working on and
hopes to get the final report completed in a little less than a month from now and then present as soon after that as
possible. (GSBS)
Q: How does this study relate to the vulnerability study? Are you cross referencing at all as far as how many and where
people are located or how many visitors there are? (rp)
A: No. The planning study is kind a study that says you can do this. The Vulnerability Study works in the same way,
suggesting there are mediations for a certain type of problems, and it is up to the City as to what to do. It doesn't give
that path forward suggesting the City should to do this, or that, so there is really no need for cross-reference in that
scenario. There are some anecdotal things that could be made, like if more of the public is going to the other building,
this should make this building much safer. (GSBS)
Q: In these open floor plans has any consideration been taken as to where employees can go to take phone calls or
smaller conference rooms for smaller gatherings? (jk)
A: Not specifically, but one of the next phases would have to be defining personal space, how big workstations are and
what type of person works in which size of station. With the goal being those types of spaces be incorporated more as
we consolidate a little. The natural next step is we need to design what the space looks like, although we have not
incorporated a lot of phones, but we have incorporated conferencing. (GSBS)
3
C: Some of the main comments for this building that were made had to do with there not being a lot of smaller
conference spaces. As you look at this study,you see there is an attempt to identify some opportunities for this type of
space. (sf)
C: The 190 Sq. Ft. is the goal for the standard projected up to 20 years. Right now, if you look at some of the different
spaces, they may be larger than 190.The spreadsheet shows the existing departments and the amount of square feet
per the number of employees and over time we will be able to reduce the larger amounts with changes in furniture or as
we increase the projected number of people we can implement the standard. How long it takes to get to the 190 is
depended on how fast departments grow and if they have money for furniture. At that point, we have this is the plan
for moving forward and as things change you may be able to take over a space and be on target. (GSBS)
Q: What is the projected completion of the study? (rp)
A: Comments are being made on the study right now and once those are received and incorporated the plan is to have
the final report completed for review in approximately three weeks and then have a meetingwith the Steering
g
Committee to get approval. At that point the decision is if it is ready for presentation to a larger group. (GSBS)
C: This Committee was thinking you would be making a presentation in the February meeting and we would receive
some documentation to review and we would comment. (rp)
A: That likely won't happen by February, it will probably be March before finals can be ready to get the approvals to
make that happen. (sf)
Q: Everything you are proposing is all movable, flexible space? No hard walls? (ao)
A: Yes. Everything is being looked at is just space, there are no plans to mess with anything else or move any walls.The
ceilings are really, high so it doesn't make for private offices, but there are furniture systems where you can build walls
and pad them for that aesthetic. This could be considered for a way to add offices without adding walls. (GSBS)
C: There is a recommendation to look at installing low rise access flooring. which would make the building so much
more flexible and have much less impact. (sf)
Rob asked if there were any further questions. There were none. Rob thanked Zach for the presentation.
Agenda Item #4: Master Plan Consultant Introduction and Process Description—Landmark Design
Mark Vlasic introduced the Teams that will be working together on the project:
Landmark Design—Mark Vlasic, Lisa Benson and Madison Merrill
SWA Environmental Consultants—Anne Oliver and Megan Daniels
EDA Architects—Tom Brennan will be looking at some details as we move forward with this project.
Mark explained that the project has limited resources so although Landmark's role is as manager and lead of the project,
it's scope is a bit smaller than Anne's scope, so Anne is going to take a big lead on the way this project is developing and
the building portion and Landmark will do project management and work more on the outside of the building exterior
and grounds.
The Committee was provided copies of the Kick-off Agenda as well as a copy of the scope and Mark explained that this
presentation is really a summary of the scope. Mark explained that the primary deliverables are being called "Design
and Use Guidelines" instead of a "Master Plan". The original scope was to do a complete Master Plan, but because the
Team didn't feel it had the resources to do a full--blown Master Plan the focus will be on the guidelines.
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
C: Having been a former member of the Conservancy and Use Committee and knowing there is a lack of direction
and a lack of resources, the real goal is to give the Committee a tool or multiple tools so that when the
Committee is presented applications for different things here at the building it can determine whether or not
the requests are appropriate. (my)
A: The Design and Use Guidelines a direct result of the letters that were written to the Mayor with the intent to get
something to guide this committee and not necessarily to answer every question or foresee everything that will
happen to this site. (ao)
4
C: It is not just this Committee that the Team will be talking to or working with. It is very critical that there is an
effective way of reaching out to other members of staff and to other interested parties (mv).
C: This will also help to educate the new Administration and help the Committee to be more productive as it makes
these decisions for the Administration. It will give the Administration a process for a guideline. (jc)
C: Another element is that as this project moves forward the feasibility study for 200 East was sort of tacked on to
the project and Landmark is going to be helping with that study.This will not be a full- blown study of 200 East
to come up with design options. The idea is to come up with some recommendations of how to proceed in the
future for this, because it is important to the grounds and to the building that whatever happens on 200 East is
aligned with this building and the buildings across the street, but it is not going to be a definitive study. (mv)
C: Very early on in discussions about the scope, there was discussion on how to deal with that as part of this
project and it was suggested it would be looked at even if it was just sketches of a couple of options that would
be presented, understanding there would not be any traffic studies, but thoughts, rather than just written goals.
(rp)
A: There will be some design analysis and some very preliminary concepts that are essential to see how 200 East
fits with it, but they will not be fully flushed out at the end of the day, but there will be recommendations of
how to flush them out. (mv)
A: The City would have to try to obtain additional funds to do a more in-depth study of that area, because it is a big
undertaking. (sf)
Mark explained that the way that the existing systems are going to be incorporated into a guiding document will be
through 9 steps. This first step is establishing a guiding philosophy.
Anne suggested that some of the Committee Members may be familiar with the "National Guidance for Historic
Preservation", explaining that the National Park Service has many standards and guidelines for preservation and when
dealing with historic buildings there are 4 treatment approaches dealing with historic preservation: "
• Preservation, which means freezing the building or keeping the building as it is.
• Rehabilitation, which means protecting the most important parts of it
• Allowing it to adapt to new uses, different kinds of uses and levels of use.
• Restoration or reconstruction.
The Team's choice for a guiding philosophy will be "Rehabilitation", which has 10 standards that come with it, as well as
several guidelines that flow down from there. There are lots of National Guidance and well thought out plans out that
that will be used to guide how the Team recommends this building be used.
Q: Would the rehabilitation be for the building and the landscape? (rp)
A: Yes. The same 4 step process would be used for Landscape as well. The landscape will not be restored to its
original appearance, it must work for the City, but the approach will be to identify what is character defining
about the landscape and preserve those pieces, while allowing other parts to adapt. (ao)
A: The landscape portion has not really been pinned down as far as what is going to be done, but the first thing is
to look at the Historic American Landscape Survey( "HALS"), which is sort of the defining documentation of the
history of the site, how it has operated, how it became what it is today, and what it was in the beginning. Part of
that history is also to utilize the resources that we have effectively. (mv)
Mark suggested that when this building was renovated there was a definitive 9 volume operations and maintenance
documentation set about both the building and the grounds and to his knowledge those volumes have been lost.
Jim Cleland announced that the 0 & M documents and manuals have been recovered. There are 9 volumes plus some
additional materials from the new renovation. They have been copied exactly the way that the volumes are set up and
organized and are searchable as PDF files. Two copies have been put on a thumb-drives and given to Engineering.
Dat Phan suggested that he will share as a big file share with the whole group.
5
Jim commented that there are more thumb drives and he can get one to the team.
Mark and Anne explained the plans going forward:
o Another part of documenting the history will be to develop a questionnaire Rather than having a very elaborate
involvement process, the idea is to direct the questions and get them to all the people as a primary source of
getting information, then have limited numbers of interviews.
o The Team will contact other people such as Jan Striefel, Larry Miggliacho and Don Hartley and others who were
part of the original design team working with the renovation. The Team will also have discussions with the final
committee members.
o After getting an understanding of the history of what has gone on and having a chance to read through these 0
& M Manuals, there will be a walkthrough of the space to identify and prioritize the character defining features
of the spaces so that we can rank things. Some things that we already know are of premium importance are the
hallways, the council chambers, the mayor's office and things that are highly visible, highly important to the
public and character defining aspects of this building's history. Groups of cubes in one of the rooms is going to
be low, although the walls themselves and the ceiling height would be high. This information will all be parsed
out, so that in the future as we are trying to determine what impacts the project,you can understand where
flexibility is there to make a change and where to concentrate on keeping things the same.
o This same walk-through process will translate to the landscape. The trees,the ground plain, the soft scape and
hard scape, the utilities will all be a big part and knowing how they impact the site and then also looking at the
historical structure. There has been a lot of debate about what historically happened here and hopefully these
9 volumes will help us determine some of that history and how things transitioned over time and the different
the eras of change.
o along with the inspection of the building there would then be a general inspection of the of the existing
conditions in the building and on the grounds and existing uses of the property such as who's in it, who's using
it and who do we need to talk to.
o Using this information, general standards and guidelines will be developed for the general use and treatment of
the building and grounds and associated systems. These will be structured a little like the City's "Design
Guidelines for Historic Districts". The standards will be these high minded things and the guidelines will get into
more detail, but the end document will be illustrated and user friendly, whether they are organized by floor or
by priority spaces it will be easy for the end-user to flip through to find information, but it will be general
enough that it can live for multiple decades.
Mark addressed Sara from the Planning Department suggesting that Planning has developed of lot of formatting
standards for historic buildings as well as landscapes. Mark explained that Landmark Design sort of made a first draft
assessment of approximately 35 historic landscapes in the city and part of that was to come up with some sort of
structure to convey that information. Mark suggested the Team would like to reach out to Sara to try to get more
information or maybe a template that could be used to be consistent with other City documents.
o The next step would be to develop general standards and guidelines for signage and wayfinding, noting that this
is something the Committee is always talking about.
o Through the interviews and the questionnaire given to a number of people from different departments,
representative of who's currently using this building, and follow-up with interviews, the Team will try to
understand what the current goals are and what are the friction points between the historic building and the
people trying to use it are and how this tension can alleviated while keeping what is historically important about
the building.
C: Public Lands will be leading a lot of that information, knowing the issues with all the festivals and with over-use
and with maintenance to keep it fresh. (mv)
C: Questioning what the purpose of the landscape is. Some people see it as a living arboretum, others see it as a
park or a shady location for festivals without considering the impact it has on the trees. It has so many potential
roles, but expands into a much larger discussion if the goal is to preserve the site,while continuing to have this
6
remain a public icon to the City and have the public able to come and use the site and the building as much as
possible.
o The first few items mentioned are pretty, permanent items of the document, then there will be two appendices,
which will have the current goals and recommendations for current goals. This will be a piece of the document
that can be updated as goals and needs change.
Mark displayed the Guidelines Review Committee's schedule for completing the each of the steps as outlined and
suggested the Team would like to leave today with some decisions or recommendations of who from the Conservancy
and Use Committee will participate on the Guidelines Review Committee or s which departments or persons should be
interviewed, as well as when or how often should the Guidelines Committee meet.
Mark explained that the first meeting of the specific Guidelines Review Committee is at the beginning of March. In the
meantime, the team is doingthe following:o owing:
Preliminary research
Completing inspections
Developing the questionnaire and getting the survey results,
Having the interviews and getting results to present to the Committee
The next stage will be the preliminary outline for the design and use guidelines. All of this takes two and a half months
into the project and there is still a lot of work to move forward to flush the information out. The 3 and a half month's is
just getting deeper and deeper into what the actual design layout will be and then by July we should have the Final
Review Committee Documents.
Anne asked the Committee to take a minute and read through the Agenda provided for today's Kickoff Meeting, to
review the Scope of Work and the Steps to be to get to the final document, which is what the Team had hoped to
accomplish today.
Discussions related to creating a sub-committee to participate on the Guideline Review Committee and when the
Guidelines Review Committee should meet were addressed as follows:
• The challenge will be to determine the members of the Review Committee and then tying to coordinate
schedules getting people in one place at the same time.
• A sub-committee was previously chosen from the Conservancy Committee to participate on the Guideline
Review Committee. Sub-Committee members are Rob Pett, Barbara Murphy,Jennifer Hale and Steve Cornell.
• Parks and Planning could also give guidance as to who else should participate from those departments on the
Guidelines Review Committee and possibly give names of other people that could complete the questionnaire.
• It was suggested that someone from the Public Services Events team should be part of the committee.
• Question raised as to when the Guidelines Review Committee should meet, noting that because the
Conservancy meetings is a regular monthly meeting and many of Committee members and those participating
are already coming to these meetings that the Guideline Review Committee try meet the same time or possibly
before or after the Conservancy meeting.
• The Conservancy Meeting has monthly business it is required to conduct with minutes taken, therefore, rather
than meeting as part of the Conservancy and Use Committee, the Review Committee would try to meet an hour
or two prior to that meeting.
• Anne could be the representative from the Review Committee to come and brief the Conservancy meeting.
• Jim will facilitate the invitations to the meeting.
• The consultants will be expected to do the minutes of those meetings and keep track of notes and help sort out
who is going to do what.
• The subcommittee members must be willing to commit to coming to those meetings prior to the Conservancy
Meeting.
• The following departments to be represented on the Sub Committee should be Facilities, Planning, Parks and
Public Lands, Events and Engineering
7
• • Discuss about Citizen representation. Possible options for information sharing were discussed. Planning would
need to give input. It was suggested that the City manage that information sharing and citizen input.
• Discussion as to how this would become a real guiding document in the absence of adoption.
• In February's meeting the Conservancy Committee will identify who will be on the subcommittee.
Other Discussion Comments, Questions and Answers:
Q: Can we get the site and grounds inspection setup with Parks representatives and Event's representatives within
the first week or 2 of February. (mv)
C: The Urban Forester would be a good representative for the grounds inspection (nm)
A: Sean and Dat will check everyone's availability setup some dates and times to do the inspections.
Q: Can we get copies of the 0 & M information to everyone so they can review it prior to inspections. (ao)
Q: Is it possible to get the Vulnerability Study final report from GSBS so that anything that may need to be
addressed in the Guidelines could be reviewed? (rb)
C: GSBS could be interviewed as part of the research. (mv)
A: Engineering will get the final report and then provide a copy to Landmark Design. It will mid to late February
and then if questions need to be asked that could happen. (sf)
Q: Can the Sub Committee get a copy of the survey draft so they could give input as to the questions that should be
asked? (rp)
A: A copy can be provided to Sean or Jim and they could get it to the Committee. (mv)
Q: Will the Guideline Review Committee be interfacing with the Landmarks Commission?
Discussions relative to interfacing with the Landmarks Commission. Ideas and comments were suggested, and the
outcome will be determined through discussions with Planning to determine what the process should be and how much
involvement the Landmarks Commission will have.
C: Final drafts will be delivered to Mayors office, City council, Landmarks and other groups as necessary. (ao)
Rob thanked Mark and Anne and their Team for the presentation and thanked Planning and Parks for being here today,
noting that it is essential that they are present.
Rob asked if there were any further questions or comments. There were none. Rob asked if there was a motion to
adjourn.
Barbara Murphy made a Motion to adjourn.
John Kemp seconded the motion
The Committee voted unanimously to approve the motion to adjourn.
8