Loading...
1997-06-10 Work Session RECEIVED ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOA ® WORK SESSION NOTES (1 ' June 10, 1997 L. CALL TO ORDER C^-!, :: The session was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Gerry Cloudy, Chairman, at North Star School. IL ROLL CALL Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Gerry Cloudy Jeff LeDoux Kaye McClain Greg Hacker Gary Stevens Jay Johnston Joe Floyd-(School Board Rep.) Bob Tucker-(School Superintendent Designee) Torn Templeton Steve Hobgood-(Borough Mayor Designee) III. WALK-THROUGH OF NORTH STAR SCHOOL ® Tour of the facilities began on the exterior of the school at the main entrance. Mr. Tucker mentioned the electric light sensor is too sensitive, causing problems for the staff. He also mentioned a window warped in the library. It was replaced. Considerable rust was noted on the canopy. It was explained that it was wet when it was painted. As the tour started clockwise around the building, it was noted the siding was shrinking at the straight butts. Some of the panels appeared to be loose and the vertical cedar was losing paint. At the back of the building, Tucker noted they had a written communication from the Department of Environmental Conservation about the fuel stacks being too close to the building intakes. Architects Alaska replied they meet code. It was also noted the children climb the fuel lines to the roof of the building. Tucker commented the lines could be brought just above the ground(run in arctic pipe) so they couldn't do that. The playground area was the next stop. A low spot was noted. The playground gets a lot of use, the sand blows and tracks all over. Someone has stolen the rubber from the door stops on the exterior porches. It was recommended that access panels for the exterior be "spec'd" at heavy duty galvanized. Aluminum is not holding up in any of the exterior applications. Snow load on roofs were discussed. It was not too bad last winter even with the large amount of snowfall. The group entered the building and noted that file drawers in the classroom casework are not designed to be used with files or hanging files. They are not deep enough. Was this a spec ® error? Johnston: Are written lists from the users given to the Architects? Tucker: Maintenance gave them that, don't know about the teachers. Hacker: If you look at the specs and the punch lists, it's in there...what's missing is the hangers. Tucker: I did research that and those drawers are not made for hangers to be put in them. There was question about whether there was a "trade-off' somewhere along the line. Discussion wandered to previous projects and problems which occur early in the construction and aren't caught until final inspections. Tucker noted the tile put in North Star that had no expansion joints. So the contractor is going to cut the tile and install some expansion joints. Someone commented the contractor's have a retainage on their work. Is there such a thing as retainage on a Architect's work? If not, why not? Are Architects bonded? Another thought is for a project to be started much earlier in the "work schedule". Seems like deadlines come and go before the drawings and specs can be prepared adequately. Planning needs to be on a several year span, so the building will be completed a few months before planned occupancy. Waves and wobbles were noted in the cove base in the halls and some of the classrooms. The dry wall was held up from the floor and the cove base "warped" into the void. Why didn't the Architect pick up on some of the glaring problems? Some of the "defects" are just showing up after a year. The industry standard is after 1 year, the problem is the owner's. Other comments: There's a breaker box in the hall, convenient for the children. You can hear the hydronics in the building. FRP panels are the way to go. Nurse's office floor tile edges turned up. Door magnets are not backed, even though spec'd to be. A group of stained ceiling tile were noted near the skylight in the library. The fire alarm shut down on the - kitchen hood and vent doesn't work. The Review Board never got to see any of the specs on it the gym area. High echo area. The vent grates were put in the wrong places in the gym bleacher area. They are dented badly. The base cove used was not of heavy enough quality. Need trim on pads in gym. Padding poorly thought out. Craftsmanship lacking. Why is there a door under a basket? Safety devices on the baskets were put in by the School District. Contractor said that was not in his contract. The group discussed the use of cedar in the job and felt cedar should not be used in any future projects. The group discussed what they wanted to achieve. Might want to set up a procedure of construction. Set up a planning schedule. Should a"process" of what we find be created? Need some milestones in the schedule to help predict the cost impact on a project if it has to be pushed for a impractical deadline. Should a financial analysis be made of each job? What is the role of the Architectural Review Board? Need to do drawings and the bids a year before the construction and deadlines. How do you review something that is already being built? Seems like we are butting our heads against the wall when we come up with a process, we aren't being listened to. There was mention of a number of recommendations which were made to the architect and owner, but apparently ignored. A number of things were discussed: 1. Give the architect some financial penalties for not following the owner's recommendations. The skylight and the grading were two items discussed. 2. Are we getting what we want designed? Items that we know won't work here should not be included in a job. The architect at the point of contract should be made to understand that if we say something is out of the design, he needs to change it. 3. This review could go straight to the Assembly. The financial analysis should talk in ® 4. this economy. This is going to be a process which will help make future projects better and more economical. 5. Should we be looking at any major changes in the projects as they go along? Do we have a reason to see that.? We don't see Change Orders. 6. Does the Architect bring the project in on budget? If you had a sign off list of everybody's concerns going in that you could check once the project is in process and upon completion. Would that tell you if the Architect did his job? The Architects need to know what they are expected to do and by when. Are we getting what we designed? Is it good, bad or indifferent as far as its operation. Does it fit;the need or did we put in a lot of fluff or not put in enough? Does it function? How did it come out dollars and cents wise? We're always over budget. What causes that? Who originates the change orders (whose fault was it?) This information might point out errors in the planning time line, not enough float for weather, etc. VII. MINUTES Minutes of the previous meeting, May 9, 1997 were reviewed. Consensus was the minutes should be signed. coVIII. NEXT MEETING The group agreed to meet at 7 p.m. Wednesday, July 9th, in the School District Conference Room. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Minutes approved by: Submitted By: (..2 C ca�--, V*(1,etakti 7 /Gerry Cloudy, Date 7l ain, Date Chairperson / Projects Assistant 411 -• Kodiak Island Borough ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/ BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS Term Home Work Expires Phone phone Gerald Cloudy, Chair 1997 486-4510 486-4510 1958 Selief Kodiak, AK 99615 Jay Johnston, Vice Chair 1999 486-3595 486-3908 Box 433 Kodiak, AK 99615 Gregg Hacker 1998 486-4392 486-9204 Box 4168 Kodiak, AK 99615 Jeff LeDoux 1998 486-6548 486-8111 P. O. Box 2105 Kodiak, AK 99615 - Tom Templeton 1999 486-8499 486-8499 1217 Purtov Kodiak, AK 99615 Vacant 1997 Gary Stevens (Assembly Rep) 1997 486-4205 486-1230 Box 201 486-8414 (fax) Kodiak, AK 99615 Non-Voting ex-officios: School Superintendent designee: Bob Tucker, Maintenance and Operations Dir. 486-9238 School Board Representative: Joe Floyd 486-5142 Borough Mayor designee: Steve Hobgood, Engineering Facilities Director 486-9340 C) Revised 05/15/97 BOARDS/ROSTERS/ARCHITEC