Loading...
12/14/2020 - Meeting Minutes1 MEETING MINUTES SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE ELECTRONIC MEETING HELD, MONDAY DECEMBER 14, 2020 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT Barbara Murphy, Chairperson Efren Corado Garcia, Committee Member Mark Thimm, Committee Member Steve Cornell, Committee Member Anne Oliver, Committee Member John Kemp Committee Member EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT Rob Pett, Committee Member Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities Jennifer Hale, Vice Chairperson Dat Phan, SLC Engineering Joan Swain, SLC Facilities OTHER GUESTS January 11, 2021 Nathan Johnson, SLC Engineering Jesse Allen, GSBS Architects Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering Troy Baker, SLC Parks and Recreation Barbara Murphy, Chairperson, welcomed everyone to the Monday December 14th, 2020 meeting and initiated the Roll Call: Rob Pett, Committee member; John Kemp, Committee Member; Anne Oliver, Committee Member; Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities; Mark Thimm, Committee Member; Sara Javoronok, SLC Planning; Joan Swain, SLC Facilities; Barbara Murphy, Chairperson; Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering; Troy Baker, SLC Parks and Recreation; Nathan Johnson, SLC Engineering; Dat Phan, SLC Engineering. Agenda Item 1: Reading of the Electronic Meeting Letter – Barbara Murphy As required by a recent amendment to the Open Public Meetings Act by the State Legislature, Barbara Murphy read a letter written by herself as Committee Chair and addressed to the Salt Lake City and County Conservancy and Use Committee. The letter explains that conducting a meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of Committee Members and others participating in a meeting, therefore, under the current state of emergency caused by the global pandemic that exists related to the new strain of the coronavirus, SARS-COV-2 the meeting will be held on a MS Teams video meeting on December 14th, 2020 and for future meetings notifications will be sent out as determined by the level of risk at the time. Agenda Item 2: Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes for November 9, 2020 Barbara asked the Committee Members to review the minutes from the November 9th meeting and welcomed questions, comments or changes to the minutes. John Kemp made a motion to approve the minutes. Rob Pett seconded the motion. Barbara called for a vote and the Committee voted unanimously to approve the minutes from the November 9th meeting. Agenda Item 3: Use and Guidelines Final Documents Sean Fyfe began the discussion of the Use and Guidelines Final Documents. He said that the Design Use and Guidelines were ready to be distributed to the Committee and Joan confirmed that the electronic version of the document had been sent. All members present confirmed they had received it. Jim said he planned to print hard copies with the requested tabs and would mail them out in addition to the electronic version. 2 Sean Fyfe thanked the Committee and Sub-Committee for all their hard work and expressed that the results of the project were well done and would be very useful in the future. Questions, Answers, and Comments: Q: Has this been formally accepted, does anything more need to happen? (RP) A: I don’t know that the Committee needs to make a motion or anything. (SF) C: Often, when studies are done someone needs to sign off on it and accept it. (RP) C: I don’t think for this study there a formal procedure within the city, but the Committee may want to do some kind of action acknowledging or adopting the guidelines. You may want to consult Jaysen Oldroyd about that, but it shouldn’t hinder you from using what you have. (SF) C: Maybe Jim could ask him before then next meeting. (BM) C: Yes, we could send an email. It would be good if Barbara, as the Chairperson, could write a letter to the Administration. (JC) Q: Would we want to send it to the City Council as well? (BM) A: Yes. We all serve at the pleasure of the Mayor so the chain of command would be to send it to the Mayor and let her send it on to the City Council. (JC) Q: Can we send hard copies to the Mayor as well and some extra copies for the Council as well? (BM) A: We can print extra copies, but you could send the electronic version to the Mayor’s Office for them to review. (JC) C: I think you should send it to the Mayor because they are the administration that appointed this Committee. (SF) C: I think it would be good to send the printed copy with the letter. (BM) C: Yes, I agree. (JC) Q: If I email a letter to Joan can we put it on your letterhead? (BM) A: Yes, we can put it on Facilities letterhead. (JC) Q: Is it ok to print the electronic document as it is? Are there any copyright concerns or violations? (JC) A: Not at all, that belongs to you, it is a Salt Lake City document. It is the property of the City and you can do whatever you want with it. (AO) C: I would like to thank everyone for their hard work on this, it is a wonderful product and we are very excited to have it. (BM) Agenda Item 4: Earthquake Damage/Building Stair Update Sean Fyfe began the discussion of the earthquake damage and stair repairs by introducing Jesse Allen of GSBS Architects to the meeting and then asked Nathan Johnson for an update on the selected demolition project. Nathan explained the work had begun and they had already gotten a couple areas demolished and there were some minor changes to the scope of the work, which had previously been anticipated. The damage on the east side was likely caused by a hidden door that was uncovered. Rob Pett suggested that in the November minutes Sean said that he hoped to have more information for the January meeting and asked if the work currently being done is more exploratory. Sean said that was correct and they anticipate the exploratory work to be finished in early January. Sean explained that the selective demolition is done so they could observe what is happening behind the 3 plaster and gain understanding of how things are constructed for when it comes time to make repairs. Sean then asked Jesse for input. Jesse said that the process had been successful so far because it has revealed the extent of the damage. It appears that the plaster separation only extends about 6-12 inches from the cracks and the rest remains intact, which is good news. They encountered one area above the security office in the east entry where the plaster was coming off in larger sections. Some areas have mesh backing, and some do not; the areas with mesh backing are staying more intact. There are also different kinds of plaster, the decorations were formed out of a white powdery gypsum plaster and the surfaces of the walls were more of a sand dark gray plaster. Engineering is learning how the two different kinds of plaster react to being taken off the wall. Jason and the contractors are preparing a report for the Committee and hope it will be ready for the January meeting. Questions, Answers, and Comments: Q: What are the next steps once the observations done and recommendations are made? Is the contractor on board yet? (RP) A: No, this will be a large repair effort so we will have to publicly advertise that as well as the consultant. We will be reporting back to the Committee as well as the insurance company and we assume it will be a rather large claim. We will get approval from the insurance company for the claim and then we can proceed with the actual start of the project. The next step is to take the studies and create an RFQ for consultants so we can get a designer on board, and that will be qualification based. I would suggest that someone from the Conservancy Committee is on the Selection Committee for the consultant and I would recommend that you form a Sub-Committee for the repair project. (SF) Q: That sounds good. Can we put that on the agenda for next time? (BM) A: Yes. (JS) Q: Are there any cracks in the masonry where the masonry was exposed? (MT) A: That was part of removing the plaster, to see the masonry behind. Level 3 behind the trophy case was the most significant crack we observed. It is likely that the crack was more severe because it is directly above the unreinforced wall with the hidden door. There is another significant crack on the 5th floor near the restroom which is the only place we’ve seen through the wall damage. Both sides of the wall have been exposed and the damage seems to be isolated to the masonry joints. Nothing significant or concerning has been noted. (JA) Sean Fyfe moved on to the stair repair, asking Jesse Allen for an update on the revised drawings, expansion joints, and a discussion of samples. Jesse shared his screen with the Committee and began the discussion by recapping the previous discussion and filling the Committee in on the changes his team had made. Jesse explained that comments that were brought up in the last discussion were mostly about the moat cover, the expansion joint and the electrical conduit as well as the top of the expansion joint. The drawings have been revised to show more detail there. Our approach with the electrical conduit is to move it from where it is located now to move it in to the new expansion joint cover to avoid the edge condition. We don’t think that the expansion joint company will warranty an expansion joint that has a notch out of the joint cover so we recommend that we drill through the center of the cover and mount the outlet to the cover 4 itself so we can eliminate the existing conduit. On the opposite side there is a switch gear by the doors that go into the basement of the building. It appears to operate the large metal door so it would need to remain in place. Once again, the recommendation is to mount the gear switch to the cover rather than drilling into the historic stone with any electrical gear. I am a little unsure, with this being an insurance claim, whether they would cover that cost because the outlets were not damaged, but it must come off to do the repair so it should be covered Q: Those panels are designed to come off the sub structure, does that mounting impact the functionality of the joint? (SF) A: I would need to work that out with an electrician. This scope of work did not have an electrical engineer on the project at the time the proposal was put together. But I’m hoping we can install a flexible conduit that allows the joint to pop out and shift. Even if the conduit breaks it still seems like a better solution than mounting the conduit on the stone, in my opinion. It would include a piece of flashing over the moat cover, similar to what is there but much nicer, that would all move as one system, and the top plate would be sacrificial. It is held on by a combination EPDM Bulb Seal where the top cover pops off that seal and the joint is then allowed to move. (JA) Q: What manufacturer is this designed around? (RP) A: We are specifying the basis of design as Construction Specialties and we are specifically calling out their XLSC2G system. Because this is a public project, we will need to allow for equals to be proposed through a substitution request form, but our hope is that we end up with this Construction Specialties panel and system. Now we have also added more details to address that EPDM seal at the cover calling out the color and finish to match the expansion joint cover. We are also calling out a detail showing the electrical conduit coming up through and out of the panel. And then we have a blowup detail of the flashing where the existing moat cover will remain and then we are recommending that a break metal piece is attached to the pan joint cover and that will prevent water from getting down into the basement. (JA) Q: Is that a new detail? (RP) A: Yes, that is a new detail based on the feedback of the Committee. (JA) Q: Is the big plate caulked in or sealed in? The drawing is very pretty but in reality, this is a mess. You show replacing stones underneath so are you removing the plate? (RP) A: No, we are not calling out that the plate be removed, and we are not calling out to remove the stone above that wasn’t damaged. [37:00 JA walks the committee visually through the drawing in detail, pointing out various features…] The riser underneath the moat cover is being replaced, but the stone directly above it is not. (JA) Q: What about this lead end? What happens there? If we pretend it can’t be touched, then I think that is a mistake. It has to be cleaned; it has to be painted. The drawings just don’t talk to it and there are only a couple places that refer to it as a detail. (RP) A: I guess it is us being sensitive to the project being isolated to the repair. (JA) C: It is sort of like the electrical; you have to deal with this to repair the stone. I think you could justify painting it. (RP) C: I wouldn’t expect a lot of pushback on cleaning it up and painting it from the insurance, but I don’t think replacing it with something else would be covered. (SF) C: All of this nice detailing is being done around this piece of metal that is not being addressed at all. And it’s the front door. (RP) 5 C: It is a conundrum where we have a claim, and it is a matter of obtaining the funding to do anything about it other than cleaning it and painting it. Jim would have to come up with other money if we’re going to change it to something other than it is currently it would require separate funding. (SF) C: If this project starts without addressing what may need to be done, you’re going to find out you need to do something in the middle of this construction. (RP) C: I understand completely. (SF) C: My recommendation is that we take these concerns to the insurance company and see if they will do something about it. It’s a part of the process and they may be able to include it. (JC) C: We can ask but I’d be shocked if they say yes to a replacement because it wasn’t damaged by the earthquake. (SF) C: I think that you as the owner and the insurance company is responsible there needs to be a discussion about it. (RP) C: I agree. I think a discussion needs to take place with the insurance adjusters. (JC) C: I guess that would be Tamara who would talk about it with FM Global. But what I would like is to see a solution if it must stay. (SF) C: If you can be prepared with the drawings and photographs and submit it as an attached piece then maybe because of the composition of the whole thing it didn’t get destroyed but they have to make it right and make sure it’s good. (JC) C: But we’re replacing the expansion joint with a whole new system. (RP) C: It relates to it so specifically that they may need to address it. (SF) C: and Jesse it may change your details at the bottom of the expansion joint. It touches everything. (RP) C: I appreciate that feedback Rob. It seems that if there is a better way to do this you would like to see it. I don’t know what that is yet. (JA) C: I think this whole project started off with the premise that we’ll just work around it, and I think that is what has been done, but just think some thought needs to go in to it as a system rather than just throwing it together. (RP) C: I think that until we have confirmation that we can replace that element we need to work around it. (SF) C: I think there should be someone at the City who would expect the insurance to pay for it and be willing to fight for it. (RP) Q: And then what would we propose as an alternative? A piece of aluminum? (SF) C: All I’m saying is that right now you’ve got this old piece of metal. It’s old, it’s rusted, the way tis caulked in is all messed up. I’m just saying some thought needs to go into it. I’m not just saying that I’d just change the material but look at the joint and how it goes around everything. (RP) C: I agree with Rob, and I think it could be pulled, sandblasted, powder coated, and it’d be fine. (JC) C: I think that Rob is after something more than that. I think that Rob is looking for a cohesive system that may end up with a result that is different from what we see here. (SF) C: I don’t think they’ll do that. (JC) C: I know, but I think that is what Rob is asking us to go to bat for, and I’m happy to do that, but in the meantime I’d like to have a solution where if we ask and they say no, we can agree this is the best possible solution knowing that we have to deal with this clunky thing in the middle of our front door. For the sake of this discussion let’s assume it must stay, but we can clean it up. I have no doubt we can do that, with that said, and the details proposed, is it acceptable? It is a break metal flashing, essentially. (SF) 6 C: Just one more piece of metal to add to the cluster. It probably won’t look much different from what it is. (RP) Q: Yeah, what was the original detail, Jesse? Was it just the stucco butted up against it or behind it? (SF) A: I think there are two pieces of flashing here. One is embedded in the stucco, and that gets you your top seal, and that laps over the second piece of flashing that then goes over the moat cover. (JA) C: Ok, I see. (SF) C: And I think, on the North side of the stair, that this expansion joint didn’t function as designed. I don’t think it actually moved out of the way, and it clearly didn’t collapse under the pressure as it was supposed to and that is why we saw all of the cheek wall damage. We saw cracking in the plaster but really the thing remained pretty much intact. (JA) Q: How does the metal move with the expansion joint? Does that come out and stick out of the wall? (MT) A: The proposed design is that the break metal flashing would be attached to the actual pan joint so that pops out the whole thing. The flashing, the electrical conduit, everything moves with the expansion joint cover. Then once that gets out of the way then the wall can move and shift behind. I think in theory that the EPDM seal fails, and the cap is pushed loose. (JA) C: Jesse, in that photo you just showed it looks like there is some undulation on the wall plane at the bottom there. (SF) A: Yes, and that is addressed in detail, we talked about that with the expansion joint manufacturer. The expansion joint is going to have come down and follow the profile of the cheek wall on the south side. They said that they can form that, it is an additional cost, but they can form that metal to do that. (JA) C: I think the action items are to ask the insurance company about the replacement of the metal plate and see what they say. We’ll frame it that its an integrated system that should be handled in a more thoughtful way than what is currently there, and we’ll see whether they are willing to fund a replacement. If we are successful in that request then we can come back to the committee and start talking about what that would be, and if we are unsuccessful I would like to get the Committee’s opinion on whether this is something they would approve or are there other concerns? (SF) C: I’m trying to use my imagination but looking at the drawing and looking at the pictures I don’t see how this is all integrated. (RP) Q: Jesse could you show the picture and the detail side-by-side? (SF) C: We need to wrap up the discussion of the expansion joint and maybe set that aside as a side bar discussion so we can move forward on the agenda. (JC) C: It is difficult to discuss this in the formal meetings because we get into the details and it would be ideal if we did have a Sub-Committee so we can talk about it more frequently. So why don’t we look at the color samples for the metal, I think there are three. (SF) C: Yes, Rob labeled them P1 P2 and P3. I’m not sure if everyone had the time to go out to the site and note their preference, but personally my preference was the P2. It is the darker color, a Benjamin Moore Silver Fox, we also had slightly lighter sample and then the last sample was the lightest. We felt that this color family with the warm grays blended in well with the existing, knowing that we will never get metal to match exactly with concrete, but my preference was toward the P2. (JA) C: Nathan has a close-up photo of the samples that may be helpful. (SF) C: Yes, when I saw them on-site, I thought P2 was the best match as well. (BM) C: Here is a close of the paint samples Jesse described and when I saw the samples, I also liked the darkest of them. (SF) C: I think it’s the best choice, in this case it’s always better to go a little darker. (RP) 7 C: I agree, I like the darker color too. (JK) Q: And those are all custom colors, right? (SF) A: They are. we could even take P2 and do a few more versions off of that. They take 2-3 weeks to get custom color samples, but they don’t cost anything at that size. If we would like a 12x12 sample they would charge the city for that. (JA) C: I think we should include that in the specifications, that they should include that size. (SF) C: It already is. (JA) C: So when we actually get a contractor on board we would go through this exercise again with larger samples with the color specified and if you’re still not happy with that then we could request another sample and try to refine it a bit before we actually place an order for the joint material. (SF) Q: That sounds good. Does that give you the information you need? (BM) A: Yes, that’ll help us finalize the bid package. The next thing is the stone samples. Jesse and Nathan, could you comment on the quarry and how we came to these particular samples? (SF) C: I can comment on that. This is coming from the Brown’s Canyon Quarry, which was the source of the original stone on the steps that we are replacing. It is about as close as we are going to come. Of course, the color will vary a little depending on where they mine the stone out of the quarry. These pictures on the east side in the shade don’t show as much because they are very gray and bland. There are some other photos that show the samples in the sun that demonstrate a better comparison. (NJ) C: When I viewed the samples two had been set apart from the other six. I labeled them 1-8, and I had a question about the samples I labeled 5 and 6 that were polished. Although I liked the color, we are not putting polished stones here. (RP C: That is correct. (SF) C: All of the samples have a strong striation, except for the two that were polished. (RP) C: The polished side just happened to be on the samples they had. The side that they wanted to show us was the other side, the sandblasted finish so we could get a sense of the color. (NJ) Q: Nathan, don’t you have pictures of both sides of the samples? (SF) A: Yes, I do. And what I think is that samples 5 and 6 are probably going to be our best match. Based on the color and the amount of striation 5 and 6 will be the closest to what we have. (NJ) C: I agree but if it is not the polished it may change. (RP) C: The back side was unpolished, and it looks similar on both sides. I didn’t see a big change from the unpolished to the polished so I wouldn’t be too worried about that. (JH) Q: Nathan, can you pull up the pictures of 5 and 6 and show both sides? I know it is a photograph, but it seemed very consistent. (SF) A: Yes, I can do that. Here you see the sandblasted side. I think 5 and 6 are the closest to what we have. (NJ) Q: Will we see this much variance like in these 8 samples, or are these coming from different places in the quarry? (RP) A: Even if we pick a sample and try to match that color theme, they do want to warn us that there will be color variation, it is just the nature of the stone. But if we want to go with stone with less striations in the color, they can target stones in that range. (NJ) C: All the other samples were quite different from what we have. if we can have the confidence that we can have enough material to have delivered as needed something that resembles 5 and 6 that would be great. We will want to follow up with the quarry to see if that is a possibility. (SF) C: We could send Jesse or someone from the Committee up to look at the stone before they start cutting so we know what to expect. (NJ) 8 Q: Is it Delta Stone, out of Heber? (RP) A: Yes, it is. (NJ) C: With this we would be requesting samples once we have a contractor on board and we would make sure that we are happy with everything before we procure the material. (SF) Q: Do we feel we are comfortable with this stone and this quarry? (SF) C: I believe there was an email with technical information about sandstones and their specifications sent out recently. (RP) C: Yes, I believe that came from Nathan and I sent it to the Committee. It was because, Rob, you requested that information. (JA) C: I was worried about absorption and how it would be sealed. (RP) Q: Jim, is there a maintenance plan on sealing the stone at the stairs? (SF) A: No, they are just washed with water. (JC) Q: there is not penetrating sealant that is applied every so often? (SF) A: No, and we use 1800 psi with a wide wand. (JC) C: Mountain Valley Stone is what they are calling the stone that they are pulling out of that quarry. (JA) Q: All 8 of those sample stones are coming from this quarry? (RP) A: Different locations but they are all considered this Mountain Valley Stone, yes (JA) C: It is pretty strong, and it passes freeze/thaw so that’s good. I’m surprised there wouldn’t be some sealant. (RP) C: I think if you are all comfortable with the quarry and we specify that we are going to target stone that resembles samples 5 and 6 that would be sufficient for us to advertise and get a contractor on board so we can work out some of the details. One thing we haven’t touched on is the finish. Obviously, we aren’t going to do a polished finish, but we can specify something in the bid package and still refine it once we have a contractor. (SF) C: Obviously not polished but going all the way to a sandblast is problematic as well. (RP C: I think we would want to match the finish of adjacent stone as best we can. I wonder if anyone noted a finish that resembled what was there the best. (SF) C: It is hard to tell because it looks like some salt or snowmelt was put on there at some point and it has really ruined the finish on those stair treads. (JC) C: I’m not sure there was any intentional difference in the finishes of the samples except for the first two that were polished, and Nathan and I said that we needed a sandblasted or honed finish for review so that it is not polished. Each one just got a light sandblast. (JA) C: Honed seems appropriate. (RP) C: That seems to be the one I like the best, the honed look. (SF) C: I think that is what you see here that the first layer is just lightly blasted off. (JA) C: I would worry about the difference between sandblasting and honing it where it is ground rather than blown off. (RP) C: We can request honing and get samples and refine that in a similar manner once we have a mason on board. Speaking of masons, another thing I wanted to discuss was pre-qualification of the stone masons. We usually specify Childs Masonry or Abstract Masonry. I think those are the two best options in this area and I would like to do that for this project. (SF) C: Sounds reasonable to me. (BM) Q: Do we need to do a prequalification with the RFQ, or can we just specify these two? (JC) 9 A: I think we can just specify these two, it is reasonable in this case. And it’s not a sole source either because we are specifying two. If other masons want to be considered, they would have to be pre- qualified, but we could include that in the bid package. (SF) C: I worry that with just those two they might not respond, or they might price it high, or they might just not have time to do it. (JC) C: I don’t trust anyone else. Maybe one way to alleviate that is to have the schedule determined by the contractor so they have some flexibility in their schedule, and they may be more likely to bid. (SF) C: That sounds good. Thank you for everything you did to get those photographs and samples, it was helpful. (BM) C: That was Nathan and Jesse, thank you guys. (SF) Q: Thank you. Sean, do you have what you need on this topic? (BM) A: I do. I’ll let you know what we find out about the plate and if the insurance is amenable to changing that. (SF) Barbara suggested the Committee will be holding elections next month to select a new chair and vice chair of the Sub-Committee and asked Committee Members to be thinking about who they would like to serve in those positions. Barbara asked if there were any other items for the agenda. Jim Cleland explained that Efren Corado is no longer associated with the Arts Council so he has asked the Arts Council if they can provide several names of candidates to fill that position because it is required that they are associated with the Arts Council. Barbara Murphy asked, if there was no additional discussion, that someone would make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rob Pett made a motion to adjourn. Mark Thimm seconded the motion. Barbara Murphy called for a vote and the Committee voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting.