Loading...
9/12/2022 - Meeting Minutes MEETING MINUTES SALT LAKE CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING CONSERVANCY AND USE COMMITTEE ELECTRONIC MEETING HELD, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT Steve Cornell, Committee Chair �, Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities Anne Oliver `;, �� f'. Joan Swain, SLC Facilities Catherine Tucker 0410"r no Ron Lindquist, SLC Facilities Rob Pett, �_ Amy Thompson, SLC Planning Barbara Murphy can Fyfe, SLC Engineering John Kemp, Vice Chair f Aiden Lillie, SLC Planning tau October 10, 2022 COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT OTHER GUESTS AND VISITORS Kathy Davis Preston Croxford, Archiplex Group Jennifer Hale Steve Cornell welcomed everyone to today's meeting,this 121" of September 2022 and noted there are some attending in-person here in the Cutler Room at the Salt Lake City and County Building and others participating via Webex. Steve asked for a roll call of everyone participating and participants responded as follows: Steve Cornell, Committee Chair;John Kemp, Committee Vice Chair; Rob Pett, Committee Member; Barbara Murphy, Committee Member; Catherine Tucker, Committee Member; Anne Oliver, Committee Member; Dat Phan, SLC Engineering; Ron Lindquist, SLC Facilities;Joan Swain, SLC Facilities; Jim Cleland, SLC Facilities; Sean Fyfe, SLC Engineering;Aiden Lillie, SLC Planning; Preston Croxford, Archiplex Group (Applicant) Agenda Item 1: Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes from August 8, 2022. Steve asked the Committee if they had a chance to review the minutes and if not, he would allow a few minutes for review. Barbara Murphy motioned to approve the minutes for August 8, 2022. John Kemp seconded the motion. Steve asked for a vote to approve the minutes. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the minutes. Agenda Item 2: Transformer Project Presentation by Archiplex Group (Preston Croxfordl Joan Swain explained that approximately 2 weeks ago Committee Members were emailed a copy of the application from Archiplex related to the Transformer Project. This was sent by Amy Thompson of SLC Planning on August 2S, 2022. Preston Croxford from Archiplex Group presented on screen a copy of his drawing for the transformer replacement which was submitted for permitting along with a minor alteration for some work to be done at the City and County building for an underground vault. Preston displayed and explained the following: 1 Drawings overall site plan showing the location of the building property on Washington Square and the proposed location where Archiplex wants to house this vault. • The proposal is for an underground concrete vault,simply to house a replacement transformer and generator to serve the City and County Building. • The existing equipment is old and outdated and needs to be replaced. • The new equipment can't fit in the existing vault blow ground there,so the proposal is to construct a new vault below grade. • The vault is basically 27'x 27'and is below grade so there is very little evidence of something at-grade. Catherine asked if Preston could show the Committee on the site plan the area that is being proposed. Rob suggested the drawings shown do not describe the demolition that will have to occur to create this underground vault in this confined area,which is very close to the building,and which will disrupt that whole landscape. There is also no description of what is going to have happen after you decide to bury it. No landscape plan,which is something this Committee really looks at. Preston displayed pictures and explained the following: • The area is being proposed is located on the east side of the building and is essentially in the area where the Cytybird Cafe outdoor seating is currently located. • There will be a large disruption of the landscaping and displacement of the Cytybird Cafe Plaza, which will need to be removed as part of the construction. • The landscape and some parking directly in front of the landscaping will be removed and is the area where the vault will be located. • At grade and finished you will see concrete pavement as seen in the picture,except instead of the existing curb,the concrete pavement will extend another 10'to 15'towards the building,which will represent the lid,the top of the vault that is underground. • A portion of the existing landscape will be removed not to be returned and a portion will have to be replaced to match the existing landscape conditions after the vault is complete. • Basically,we will have to dig a bigger hole to form up the vault,then backfill and re-landscape. Catherine asked if the Committee has been given the drawings so members can flip through them in more detail and not waste time doing it in another meeting? Preston suggested the drawings were sent as part of the application process and was not sure if it was provided to the Committee. Joan suggested that the application and drawings were sent to Committee Members a couple of weeks ago but could be sent out again. Steve asked how many drawings were included in the application package. Preston explained that the application included a full set of drawings,which also includes other work beyond Washington Square which is included in the scope of this package. There are probably only half a dozen pages that are related to this transformer project. 2 Rob explained that the drawings that were sent out to him only addresses underground work and never addresses any work above grade. Preston displayed another picture showing an exhaust stack that exists just of the east of the parking area in the grass and explained this is the exhaust stack for the generator that is under the building right now,and because that generator is being replaced off-site across the street on Library Square,this stack will be eliminated as part of this project. Preston told the Committee he does understand their concerns about the lack of information about how this project finishes out once the vault is installed and how does it get covered up and what will be seen as the finished surface. He has tried to explain it a little,but if Archiplex needs to provide additional drawings they will be happy to do that to clarify what the finished surface will look like. Steve asked if Preston could quickly flip through the drawings that are pertinent to this project and give a quick explanation on each of the items. Preston extracted the 6 pages to be reviewed. • First page: This Site Plan basically shows the location on the site that the transformer vault is being installed. • Second Page: This shows the floor plan of this 27'x 27'underground concrete vault and in connection with the existing vault and generator. A hole would be cut into the north wall of the existing vault for access into the new vault. The existing equipment will be staying until the new equipment could be brought online. The old equipment will be removed in pieces, but not until after the new equipment is up and running so the building can stay functioning. Comments. Questions and Answers: Catherine: Where is the moat for the Base Isolation System located relative to the vault? Preston: It extends approximately 6'to 8' outside the footprint of the building. If you see this rounded portion of the building,this is the actual exterior building wall,and the moat extends a few feet beyond the wall and does not directly interfere with the moat. Catherine: Has anyone looked at the issue of loading the moat wall with a surcharge of your new footprint of your vault. I would be concerned about the surcharge loading the existing moat wall. Preston: Do you mean from the side of the wall? It's not on top of the wall it is to the side of it? Catherine: Depending on the relative depth of it in the section there, if you could show the moat footing and the new vault footing relative to one another. Preston: Archiplex is not concerned about it but could certainly provide a drawing that would help alleviate your concerns. Catherine: Has a structural engineer has reviewed this? Preston: Correct. We've had geo tech borings done in this area,taken borings of the soil conditions and it is fully engineered,the structural engineer has engineered the walls and footings and everything for this. 3 Catherine: So that should be part of their calc's. We just want to make sure that we are not loading the existing moat wall. Steve: It would be a moot point if the foot were below the level of the moat. Correct? Preston: Correct and which it is. • Page 3:This is the structural drawing that shows the footing and foundation and how that will be detailed. • Page 4: This is the electrical drawing,which shows that the new generator is clear over here at the Central Plant on Library Square. The generator connections will be made through the existing underground utility tunnel,all the way over to connect with the City and County Building. This is what this electrical drawing details. Comments.Questions and Answers: Rob: Jim,what is the status of the negotiations with the Cytybird Cafe and all the exterior work? Jim: The City has not funded any kind of outdoor dining and it is not likely to happen. Rob: So,are you suggesting that the exterior portion of the Cytybird Cafe as it is now will just disappear? Jim: Yes,that is correct. Preston: Just to point out,like what it is now,the lid of this vault is traffic graded structurally able to support vehicle loads thus, structurally able to support patio seating. It will be increasing the amount of paved surface out there,so if the Cytybird or any other tenant wanted to use that space for patio,there will be a paved surface that can be used. Jim: The current dangers of the generator and the fuel venting will go away. Steve: Preston is the lid of the vault at the same elevation as the pavement or is there a lid that is below the pavement and then you'll come in with a new slide over the top of the lid? Preston: The lid of the vault is flush with the existing pavement. You will see a manhole cover too, because the vault will have an emergency egress manhole at the surface as well,but that's really all you will see. Steve: Is there anyway to depress it slightly so there is a continuation of the paving and maybe even a continuation of the landscaping above the lid or what's driving the depth of the vault? Preston: Just the existing vault depth. It's shallow as it is now,but, if the desire is to see more landscaping,we could certainly make that consideration. Steve: That is my concern and I think that what Rob is suggesting too,is that at the end of the day, we're basically going to be seeing the big square of concrete that sort of extends over the line of the landscaping into the parking drive isle. It might look a little odd and I wonder if there's a way to sort of hide it below. Preston: Right. I think we could do this. 4 Catherine: I would simply concur. My first thought when I saw this was,why aren't we depressing the slab. It seems even a foot would be sufficient to get some sort of planting in there. Certainly 2 feet would be better,but it doesn't need to be much because it's not like we are needing to plant a tree there. I think it is something landscape would want to review to see what they want to put there,but it doesn't seem like putting a concrete slab at the surface is in keeping with the exterior landscaping around the building. Preston: To be honest,we've been back and forth on this idea and the thought was that it would be more beneficial to have more paving because there has been a lot of discussion with the cafe about patio seating and needing to expand that. So that was ultimately the thought,but if the Committee are wanting to see more landscaping,we can work to accommodate that. Rob: The concern is that this is an important side of the building and so many people enter from this side and the picture you are showing now is very descriptive,but not very appealing. That whole east side has some difficulty already and we don't want to make it worse by just increasing paving without a design intent of what's going to happen. As other's have mentioned,the idea of lowering the vault to allow,whether it's for paving or landscaping and not just stuck with this 27' square block of concrete. I think some design must come into place. Catherine: It strikes me that this is the reactionary design to what's there in terms of the existing vault,with no clear understanding of what roll that existing space could play and the functions needed to serve the building. I'm not suggesting minimizing the vault space,but I do wonder if we were to look at the space on the current picture that looks like some striping perhaps indicating either parking or emergency access. Jim: That indicates a loading zone. Catherine: From a master planning standpoint,if hard paving at the surface is needed,that's one issue,but if it's not needed, I am wondering if anyone has considered remodeling and taking out the existing vault or a portion thereof. I don't know what the ceiling height with the space is interior nor what's needed per code,presumably say 8 feet,potentially ending up with less concrete at the surface than we have now or would that impact functionality. All those types of questions. I think we need to come up with an ideal state being able to say this is the ideal master plan and then see how it relates to budget needs and then design the vault out of those considerations. Preston: Yes. That make sense. One of the things that I hinted at before that I'll repeat is that one of the challenges is that we couldn't utilize the existing vault in any way to hour any of the new equipment because it must remain operationally functional until the new equipment is installed. Ideally,we would have been able to utilize some of the existing vault space for new equipment,but basically,we must put in all the new equipment before we remove the old equipment,if that makes sense. This posed a challenge which ultimately dictated size of the new vault essentially to what's required for all the new equipment without utilizing any existing vault space. Steve: Can you go back to the drawing showing the plan of the vault? Preston: Sure. Catherine: So,it sounds like maybe the question I am asking is,would it possible to phase that, such that the existing equipment could be temporarily functioning for the building needs? This would be a question for electrical or mechanical to answer for us. Is the vault for the transformers? 5 Preston: Yes. The vault will hold 4 different transformers. Sean: As I understand it,the existing transformers are incredibly old and there is a lot of hesitation in modifying that condition at all. I think that may be part of the reason why we want to leave that existing vault untouched and not modified,because of the need to keep the building up and running until this change happens,that is why some kind of alternate solution is risky in the opinion of the city. Jim is that your recollection? Jim: Yes,that is correct. Sean: I don't recall how old those transformers are,but I was shocked. Jim: It was put in in 1941. Sean: Yeah. That's just crazy old. Jim: It's a hazardous situation,let's put it that way. Catherine: In the modern age,we are all about having more space in utility rooms,so I am not trying to even suggest that the current plan is undersized. I think it is more a matter of do really, we really want that much concrete at the surface? Preston: Sure. Rob: Preston could you,with your cursor,build the line of the curb where it is across the top of the vault? Preston: I am notable to get my curser to let me draw aline,but I can point to the wall which is directly below the curb and extends across heading north. The 10-foot dimension,that you can see to the right of the wall,extends 10 feet into the current parking. In the picture we looked at with the truck parked in the loading zone,this portion of the new vault is underneath that loading zone and the remaining portion is to the west of the curb toward the building. It is roughly only going to be,roughly,the northwest quarter quadrant between the building and the current parking that is going to be more paving than exists now. So,between the patio and the parking area,I would say it is adding,roughly,a 15'x 15'area of concrete. Rob: Will there still be a curb? Preston: No,there would not be a curb,there would just be striping. Steve: What's the timeframe for this project? Is there an imminent need to get this going or do we have a little time to make some comments and see more revisions? Sean: We are anxious to get this out to bid. It was just included in the revenue bond. That money comes with a time constraint and there are several projects on that bond with a similar constraint, so our hope is to get this out to bid as soon as possible because it is nearly ready to go. Jim: It's not just the bond either,2024 is when Rocky Mountain Power is going to come and change the power voltage for the entire Washington Square and Library Square and everything,so we need to be done and completed by 2024. Rob: Just following up with Steve's comment,that because others in the Committee may not have seen these drawings that were sent out. I think they need an opportunity to look at these. I also 6 think that during that time frame,as part of a submittal from Archiplex to allow them some design time to think about what happens above grade. I personally think what is being presented is not very acceptable. How is addresses the landscape or hardscaping. Preston: What I think cold be helpful that we could produce is a sort of 3-D rendered image from one of the photographs we've been looking at that can basically give a representation of what you'd end up seeing in the finished condition as what were proposing. We could produce that,I don't mean to speak out of turn Sean or Jim,but I think things are moving on as quickly as we can. Is it going to handicap our process by the revisions being reviewed at next month's meeting. It puts us back one month. Sean: What I'll say is,we're going to proceed with preparing a bid package,because that does take some time. Then we'll have to see how it develops. Preston: Right,if there's an addendum to the bid package,we can deal with that. Sean: Or another alternative would be,if that opportunity is lost,we proceed with a technical package like we have here and just must,as we have a contractor on board,make changes or something like that. I hate to have it slide,because 1 month can easily turn into 3 or the next thing you know we're advertising for the next deal. Preston: That was going to be my suggestion Sean,that we proceed with soliciting a contractor, but in the meantime,we can continue to meet with the Conservancy Committee and address these concerns. John: If we do make these changes,it seems like it is a pretty bid change in scope,in other words,if we do landscaping over it,we'd being talking about waterproofing and doing different things. Would that change the scope significantly if we were to do that? Preston: I don't know that it would be significant,but that would be some change. Certainly. Sean: Yes. The bulk of the project is electrical. Gear. Preston: The percentage of the work for the actual vault is really sort of low. Jim: Is it too out-of-line to say let's consider that entire area for re-purposing or re-claiming it in a better way? Rob: That's exactly the point. Jim: There's a lot of concrete sticking up here and there and there are plates and a manhole cover and all that could be looked at and cleaned up. Steve: I would just jump in and say if we could depress this into the ground and foot then we'd have some options. Whether or not we reclaim this as an outdoor seating area for the cafe or it goes back to landscaping,at least we'd have an option of what to do here,rather than just having to accept the concrete lid. That's typically how we do it. Preston: I'll say this, I don't know that it changes your response,but just to point out that part of the design is that a portion of this lid can be removed to get the equipment in and out. If a piece of equipment that we're putting in ever needed to be replaced or something,we didn't want to have to cut the whole vault open,so a portion of it is designed to be removed,lifted off so the equipment could be replaced. That poses some concern about landscaping over the top of the vault. Maybe it's 7 not a big deal. It just would mean we'd have to remove the landscaping to take the lid of at some point. Rob: I think it needs to be studied and it hasn't been. I think having a site plan that shows this in relationship to the drive,to the building,what are the elevations. Right now,there is not enough information for us to really respond. Catherine: I agree. Steve: I would go out on a limb here, I don't mean to speak for everyone,but I kind of think that we might not approve it,if this is what we're voting on. I mean,I wouldn't necessarily approve this,if it were a big slab of concrete that was just sort of suddenly exposed right there. I just know that this is something I would not approve. I am not going to speak for the others. Preston: Okay. That makes sense. We'll continue to address your comments and continue to work on our end to develop some drawings that will better represent what's going to be there so the Committee can give it a more thorough review. Rob: Is it you're understanding that this area above grade is going to be used for seating and how are you approaching this from the standpoint of the client's needs or the landscaping and removal of lids and such? Are you under the assumption that Cytybird will go back? Preston: As Jim mentioned,that is up in the air as far as we've been instructed,but the thought was because now we've got some finished concrete Cytybird or some other tenant could now utilize it, because it's a paved,walkable surface,but there was no plan in our drawings to reconstruct any type of formal patio seating or anything at this point. Rob: Thank you. Steve: Are there any more comments or do we need a motion on this to summarize our comments in a motion? Jim: Because there's work to still dial this in a little closer,I think they should proceed with the rest of the project and getting all the documents in and re-address this like Preston said,with drawings. I'm not opposed to either way. Whatever Preston's team can work out and what the Committee thinks. I thought the concrete would be fine,but it's probably not going to work out. Joan: Do you think the Committee needs to make a motion to move this discussion to next month? Jim: Yes,but the Committee needs to consider that this project needs to keep moving forward and can't stall out. Do you agree, Sean? Sean: Yes. I think we proceed with the technical stuff,while we work around this issue around the vault and I think timing-wise,it will work out if we have good information in the next meeting to share that we ca hopefully get some approval to proceed with and then we could advertise,like immediately after. Jim: Yes. Even if we have it covered,there will still be a vault door if we can open, even though it won't be a concrete pad,it will be a vault door. Barbara: Even showing that in the drawings would be helpful. I don't know where the door is or how big it is,or how landscaping could work around it. 8 Steve: I think there's a creative way to make that door work with whatever revisions are made Jim: I think that would be your motion,but somebody who can speak better that I do,needs to put it together. Barbara: Do we need a motion or are we just asking for Archiplex to come back with more information? We are not approving or voting so do we need a motion? Jim: No,you are not voting so you don't need a motion. Rob: But we do want to memorialize comments for Archiplex to be able to respond. Jim: Yes,we need to give Archiplex enough direction that they don't have to wonder what we are thinking. Steve: Rob do you want to summarize the comments? Rob: I'll try. I think that we,as a committee are asking Archiplex to revisit the above grade circumstances for what will be there after this is built. For one, I think a detailed site plan of the design showing where the lid is and other details. Show the existing and then what it is going to be when complete. It's a design problem and I think we just want it more developed that it is at this point. Jim: Does this make sense to you Preston? Preston: Yea. This makes sense. I mean, I've been following along just fine,so that's certainly a fair statement. We can develop a more diagrammatic to clearly show the issues at hand,the concerns that the Committee has and how we're addressing those things. Rob: Thank you. Steve: What else do we have to discuss? Joan: That is all that we had on the agenda. Rob: I am just wondering if Archiplex is unsure who their client is and that they might be designing something in a void,which is why I asked about the Cytybird Cafe,if that's what they are working toward. Jim: We are not working towards outdoor dining. Rob: Okay. That's a given. Jim: Yes,that is the last official word that we had on that. Rob: Steve, I guess if there needed to be an interim meeting that you could determine a couple of people from the Committee to review some drawings, I think that might be applicable to. Steve: Unless Jim and Sean think it's necessary,I don't know that it is. I mean,what I am hearing is that we're going to move forward with the technical documents and then provide some additional design on the comments that the Committee made. Jim: That's correct,and it could be on-gong for a month or two, even until the time we get a contractor under contract. We hear your concerns,and we will address them. 9 Steve: Okay. I appreciate everyone's input here. It's nice to see everyone on the big screen. I was hoping more people would be here in person as this is the first time I have been to the City and County building in a couple of years. It's good to chat with you all. Thank you, Preston,for your preparation and we will look forward to raking you over the coals again next month. Steve thanked everyone for their comments and participation and asked if there is a motion to adjourn. Rob motioned to adjourn. Barbara seconded the motion. Steve called for a vote. The Committee voted unanimously to adjourn. 10