2007-02-20 Regular Meeting
Minutes
A.
Architectural/Engineering Review Board Meetin
20 February 2007 - 7:00 pm ~ [E ~ [E ~ Wi [E ~
KIB Conference Room r----
Call to Order II MAR 2 7 2007
I
BOROUGH CLERf\'S OFFICE
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 7:00pm.
B. Roll Call
ARB Members present were Scott Arndt, Jerrol Friend, Gregg Hacker, Charlie
Jerling, Jay Johnston and Brent Watkins. Absent Member was Reed Oswalt.
Representing the School District was Robert Tucker. Representing Parks and
Rec was Ian Fulp. Representing the KIB Engineering and Facilities Department
were Bud Cassidy, Ken Smith and Sharon Lea Adinolfi.
C. Approval of Agenda
It was moved and seconded to approve the Agenda. There was a unanimous
affirmative voice vote.
D. Presentation/Discussion 65% Design/Cost Estimate - New Pool Project
T. Hyer began the presentation by saying that the team had completed the 65%
design drawings and the 65% cost estimate was completed and under budget.
He felt they were on track and doing quite well.
J. Shin began a slide presentation saying that he would be highlighting any
changes since the 35%, although there had not been anything too significant. He
showed the building with landscaping and a site plan, including parking,
indicating that the footprint had changed slightly.
There was a visual review of the outside of the building and interior of lobby, the
main level and lower level.
JS next showed a cross section of the building and explained the system dealing
with air supply and return.
Interior view - the wall material has been changed from cedar to a resin core
product which is recommended for humid environments. He will provide a
sample of this product.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070220 Minutes [2].doc
Page 1 of 10
Next was a discussion of the acoustics in the pool - he noted they were looking
at an acoustical roof deck - again a product made specifically for swimming
pools.
He continued showing a wall section [ventilation/heating] that acts as a structural
diaphragm for attachment of exterior materials and noted that this design will
warm the floor of the surrounding area due to the air plenum under the deck.
JS showed pictures of wood paneling to be used and said that it is very durable.
The wood paneling is designed for humid environments. The product is called
parklex 700 and is a wood veneer sheet material thermoset in resins. It also has
perforations which will function as an acoustical element as well as an air
distribution grille.
He moved to the exterior siding - a metal siding which uses integrated concealed
fasteners and offers reduced maintenance. The previous areas of painted
cement board siding were deleted due to inconsistent performance data. He said
they were recommending metal siding which has a proven track record as a
durable finish.
JS said, in summary, the overall building had been simplified.
JF questioned the kind of glass to be used.
JS said exterior would be double paned and the interior operable windows would
be single paned which provides a continuous air flow chamber within the wall
assembly. He said he would verify the cost v. energy saved by using triple
paned glass. He said they want to use fiberglass frame windows - they have a
high condensation resistance and the outside windows are insulated.
JJ asked if the operable windows would open wide.
JS said they had not gotten that detailed yet.
JF suggested looking at triple pane windows for the entry way - as an energy
savings.
JS said he would do "sunlight modeling" to mitigate crucial glare issues.
GH referred to the use of space in the alleyway in the site plan. He said they
would need to get a forklift through there and also snow removal equipment. The
path could double as a pedestrian walkway.
SA suggested the use of a retaining wall in lieu of gabions.
GH noted that the "sand pit" had been lost.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070220 Minutes [2].doc
Page 2 of 10
JS suggested its placement behind the retaining wall.
Tuck said there would need to be a ramp [for the forklift/snow removal
equipment].
GH said grading would need to be done around the existing storm drain to
prevent flooding. He also suggested at the same time while ditching, dropping a
communications line - a conduit to connect the buildings.
SA said he had an aversion to the planters shown - they create problems with
snow removal. He said the same problems would hold true for the pictured trees.
The consensus was to eliminate 50% of the trees.
landscaping/planters looked at by the landscape architect.
JS to have
JF questioned the parking spaces.
JS responded that as far as Community Development was concerned, the plan
met the requirements.
JF said he felt the entrance area and turn were going to be tight.
JS suggested that the KIB needs to look at the driveway.
SA/GH both said this issue needs to be addressed especially since buses will be
going in.
SA suggested carrying the parking lot over near classrooms - would reduce
grade and make it closer to a 90 degree angle at Upper Mill Bay.
Tuck said there needed to be access to the mechanical room and room for
chemical storage - will need a double door or roll up door.
SA questioned the aesthetics of the canopy - will it look like Northstar with
columns - could another method be used? He also noted that those columns will
get banged up with snow removal equipment.
JS said that you need to be careful about the structure of a natatorium wall.
Made a deliberate choice not to penetrate the insulation with structural steel
which would compromise the integrity of the wall.
SA suggested shortening the canopy to 20' and using galvanized posts.
JS said maybe the canopy could be cantilevered off close columns and reminded
that the canopy is not simply for aesthetics, but serves several purposes.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070220 Minutes [2].doc
Page 3 of 10
JF said he would like to see the canopy left in [as designed].
GH drew attention to the Site Drawing C-2 - needed physical separation and a
gate that could be locked at night to secure the voc-ed storage yard.
JF talked about the vestibule suggesting designing in 2 windows and 1 door,
framing it in at the beginning to be later used for the connecting canopy to the
other building.
CJ questioned access for the elementary school.
KS said that in conversations with the National Guard - they will want a stairway
down.
SA re slab on grade underneath the entrance - easier to carve out a storage
area/crawl space - there are more advantages to removing slab on grade; allows
for saving money on fill and retaining walls. He also suggested moving building
north 10' - would eliminate the bump out and give more space by the
maintenance shop. (post script - ECI/Hyer investigated with structural engineer
and determined that there would be increased cost associated with a crawl space
due to increased steel framing.)
BC suggested that this might be the time to discuss issues of project costs -
some of these changes being discussed could cost more.
JS said that the driveway off Mill Bay needs to be addressed - that would be a
big cost.
JF questioned how the perimeter would withstand salt air and would like to see
the concrete sealed - he does not like concrete left bare.
BW questioned items on pgs. 38 and 52 - had to do with natatorium ground
water and controls - didn't understand - statements appear in conflict
JS said he would look at it.
SA questioned the make up of the natatorium wall - asked about 1/2" barrier
JS reviewed the design and discussed the material.
SA questioned if there were a vapor barrier.
TH said that it was self sealing material.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070220 Minutes [2].doc
Page 4 of 10
JJ asked about the roof assembly and questioned if roof penetrations were
inside.
JS - Yes.
SA questioned the roof membrane, indicating he would prefer PVC.
Tuck said he thought it needed to be PVC.
JJ said PVC is much more user friendly to install.
JF commented that PVC allows for continuity between buildings - easier to do
repair work.
SA talked about rigid insulation.
TH/JS discussed differences between extruded and expanded foam insulation.
JJ said he preferred blue board.
SA questioned the vapor retarder.
JS said it was the same as the roof.
JF said it was a mandatory R40 on the roof.
JJ to check pricing and pass along direction.
Tuck requested that "tire tread" flooring not be specified for entries
He asked if an acoustical engineer had been employed.
TH answered no, but there is someone in Anchorage he is going to call.
JJ would like to see some assistance in acoustical designing now, but did not
want to throw out things that would then come back costing more.
TH said the biggest change in price would be for a civil engineer to work on the
parking loti driveway extension.
BC 'd th b . . C "t I P . t h 'II h k' t 't
sal _ ere may. e some mOnies In apl a _ rOJec s - .e u cec !nO I .
SA said the driveway could be an added alternate, but it needs to be addressed
and dealt with in this Project.
BC said the budget is only so big - we need to talk priorities.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070220 Minutes [2].doc
Page 5 of 10
JJ, looking at the electrical drawings, asked about the timing system - will it be
on the parking lot side of the pool. He said it needs to be at the upper left hand
area. Does this need to be specified and then we can look at the costs?
He moved to the PVC piping for the UV/Saline systems, saying that he had heard
there were problems in another facility with this piping - true?
BC said that at the other building there was a totally different environment - very
cold water and also a high salt content in the water and the pressure is much
higher at Near Island.
JJlTuck both agreed they would like this checked out - talk to Tundra.
(post script - TH spoke w/ Tundra, they did not describe any problems with
building piping)
KS indicated that in the last cost estimate provided there was $343K for
equipment costs that was not included by HMS, but is allowed by DEED.
JJ said he had priced scoreboards, rough ins, etc. and could not get to $50K.
SA said that we need to have a list of equipment - maybe KIB could purchase
and install.
JJ questioned how the bleachers divided up.
JS said there were breaks at every 20'. He said they would stack against the
wall protruding out 30" and the first row can be pulled out by itself. He noted that
the manufacturer strongly suggested against motorizing.
BW questioned the coaching lane and deck level - concerned about the
transition.
JS said they were thinking about spanning the transition with plastic mesh.
JJ discussed the paneling suggested and asked if the design team could give
some thought to the aesthetic application of the material so it didn't look like a
warehouse.
JS said they would take a look.
Tuck questioned carpeting to locker rooms and then transition. Why not leave it
all tile?
JS said the distance [from lobby to the locker rooms] wasn't enough to get dirt off
shoes, so had carried the carpeting further.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070220 Minutes [2].doc
Page 6 of 10
TH said it makes a demarcation as to where you take shoes off.
BC suggested that the bench area would be a good place to sit down and take
off shoes.
Tuck questioned the "ticket booth" - said the window needs to work sideways or
roll up. He also thought there needed to be more showers.
JS said they could put more showers on the wall - get up to 14. He noted there
were 120 lockers.
IF said the pool could only take 80 [people] at a time. He also talked about the
reception counter area - said that if there were only one window that could
create a line [obstruction] and it would be better to accommodate more than one
at a time.
Tuck talked about the gutters and asked if epoxy coating was the standard.
JS - Yes.
There was a brief discussion re tile v. diamond brite.
SA said he would like to move on to the details of the pool structure.
JS - bottom put in first - then walls - see SP 1.1. There are no expansion joints
- the temperature remains constant. The pool walls are reinforced.
SA questioned the construction under the pool - specifically drainage
accommodations - he said that taking care of percolating water was critical.
JS said he would check on that.
SA - mix of concrete?
TH said a concrete mix will be designed.
SA said plasticizer needs to be specified.
He went on to look at gutters and rebar placement.
TH said that rebar placement and gutter coating will be more detailed at 95%.
IF asked there would be a test core.
SA said he assumed there would be.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070220 Minutes [2].doc
Page 7 of 10
Tuck - re SP 3.0 - shows 3 sand filters but nothing is costed by HMS - one will
need to be purchased and installed.
SA asked if in terms of mechanical, electrical, water supply, sewer, etc., did the
design allow for expansion. He felt those needs should be accommodated now
[preconstruction] as they would become very expensive later.
JS said it was presumed this would be a stand alone - and asked if a redundant
pump was wanted.
Tuck responded saying as long as there was a spare pump and a spare cell.
IF asked about the locker rooms - if the high school swim team kept the same
lockers routinely - and locked - would there still be enough for others. He also
suggested 3 separate windows in the reception area instead of one long rollup.
JS suggested a single wide slider.
JS said the Board would like to see actual samples of the siding material, interior
and exterior finishes.
JJ asked if Centria [siding mfg.] was going to be sole sourced.
SA said quotes will be required and would be interested in warranties available.
Tuck said he would want to see manufacturer's details for cutting - spell it out for
contractor.
JJ said that typically you want to shear.
Tuck said he wanted the specs tight.
TH suggested painted aluminum and would look into it
Tuck said that painted aluminum works well except for field cuts.
E. Design Cost Increase
SA said that no action would be taken on this Agenda item this evening and
would propose a meeting on 22 February 2007 to review the issue.
TH asked if the ARB would be giving direction on the driveway because that is a
big item.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070220 Minutes [2].doc
Page 8 of 10
BC said that if there is going to be a contract change he will need to get it to the
Assembly.
SA asked if BC was going to present the cost increase to the Assembly.
BC said no - Terry Hyer would present it - telephonically to ARB - with
explanation - it looks like there is going to be a 35% increase.
Note: TH to be out of the country when the assembly meets
SA asked if the ARB would have an opportunity to review [the explanations].
BC said that he would get the information to the Board via email.
TH said to keep in mind two critical happenings: volatility in the economy and an
increased program.
JJ questioned the 35% presentation where ideas were exchanged, but there had
been no mention of cost increases.
TH said that had been his error. He had assumed when direction was given to
design to the program rather than the budget, people would understand there
would be an increase in the cost.
SA said the Board needs to see details [of the cost increases] and may need
some time before a recommendation could be made.
IF asked if a pool cover was a possibility. He felt it could add to the life of the
building and cut down on heating costs.
JS said his research had shown that the payback [when using a pool cover] was
quick.
JJ suggested that the figures he had seen came from different circumstances -
NYC - outdoor pool.
F. Public Comments
IF praised the ARB for its work on the plans. He found the questions to be
impressive.
G. Board Member Comments
JJ said he was excited about the building and was happy with what the 65%
drawings showed.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070220 Minutes [2].doc
Page 9 of 10
JF said the same thing and he appreciated TH and JS listening to the Board's
comments.
BW said the Architects had done a good job.
GH concurred.
SA concurred.
H. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted:
Date:d1
sU)~ ;9;11#
Scott Arndt, Chair
Architectural/Engineering Review Board
Date: :5 - ;2 7- ;;"00 7
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070220 Minutes [2].doc
Page 10 of 10