PS 20/A&L Shared Green Roof Feasibility Study

NYC School Construction Authority FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY PS 20/Arts & Letters, 225 Adelphi Street, Brooklyn, NY 11205
Building ID: K020 Design # D014292, LLW#:073178
Feasibility Study
29 June 2012
PS 20/Arts and Letters/ Open Road

Shared Green Roof
225 Adelphi Street Brooklyn, NY 11205 Building ID: K020 School District: 13 Design #:D014292 LLW#:073178 Description: FY 12 Reso A - Greenroof Block#: 2091 Lot#:3 Report prepared for: NYC School Construction Authority 30-30 Thomson Avenue, L.I.C., NY 11101-3045 Lorraine Grillo, President and CEO E. Bruce Barrett, RA, Vice President, Architecture & Engineering Elan Alberi, Director
Report Prepared by: Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects 48 West 37th Street, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10018
June 29, 2012
Feasibility Study PS 20/Arts & Letters/Open Road Shared Green Roof 29 June 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................3 1.0 2.0 3.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................4 Overview of Proposed Use.......................................................................................................................5 Existing Building Characteristics .............................................................................................................6 Building History and Configuration Existing Building Photographs Building Structure Structural Considerations i. Existing Structure ii. Proposed Structural Live Load iii. Existing Roof Capacity for Proposed Live Loads Existing Roofing Systems Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems 4.0 Building Code Compliance Issues ........................................................................................................22 5.0 Use and Occupancy, and Egress Fire/Life Safety Accessibility Other Code and Related Operational Issues
Design Approach/ Concept Diagrams ...................................................................................................24 The Shared Green Roof Project Origin of the Proposed Design Requirements to Support the Proposed Design Concept Diagrams Appendices ............................................................................................................................................33 A. Scope of Work for current renovation of roof, #D013851 B. Existing Condition Drawings C. List of Open DOB Violations D. Meeting Minutes 2/23/12 E. Choosing between an Extensive or Intensive Green Roof F. Green Roof Systems and Finishes Cost Estimate (Submitted Under Separate Cover)
6.0
Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects
Executive Summary The objective of the Feasibility Study is to identify the scope of required work and estimated construction cost to develop a green-roof on PS 20 / Arts & Letters, Brooklyn. The principals of the two schools; PS 20 / Arts & Letters, supported by their parent-teacher groups, have taken the initiative to propose and plan a Shared Green Roof, which will provide additional outdoor space where up to two classes of children (or up to 74 occupants) can meet, eat lunch, and study. Conclusion One of the most important factors in determining the programming of the roof is the analysis of the structural capacity of the existing roof to support the proposed uses. The structural capacity was found to be adequate to support an Extensive green roof system with vegetated trays (4-4 deep or less), or an extensive roof tray system with a greenhouse. Robert Silman Associates has indicated that a few probes need to be done in the next phase to determine whether any reinforcing of the column to beam connection at the roof level is necessary. Silmans office also suggests that we test the cinder concrete slab at the roof level as well. Probes have been identified and will be performed under D013851. We have found no mechanical, electrical or plumbing issues or code issues that would prevent this project from moving forward considering our preliminary budget for the various options proposed. The project team will need to verify that the proposed green roof design will qualify as a promenade, as per New York City Department of Building Code section 1607.11.2.2. The promenade designation allows for a minimum 60 psf live load at the roof and requires structural strengthening. The schools and project team will confirm with all parties that the roof will not be used as a place of assembly. Three options for a Shared Green Roof are proposed in this feasibility study. In all options, the Green Roof is located on the high roof of the school building and consists of primarily Extensive vegetated trays with limited Intensive vegetated trays areas due to structural constraints. The vegetated trays will be installed over the Kemper liquid roof system installed under project D013851. Concrete paver pathways connect the small and larger group areas with the access and egress stairs. The concrete pavers scope of work is under D013851 and therefore would be existing to the green roof project. Pavers would be removed as required for vegetated tray installation. The north side of the roof provides for a shaded seating area with picnic tables, which allow for additional breakfast and lunch seating, classroom activities and group study. An alternate on the south side of the high roof includes a green house, which could be phased over time depending on the cost. Significant structural reinforcement of the roof will have to be made to support the greenhouse. We will be providing cost estimates for each option and pulling out the greenhouse as an alternate feature in all three options. Option 3 provides for a green roof on the entire high roof of the school building. Options 1 and 2 are scaled back from Option 3 to provide a Phase 1 Scenario if the entire high roof cannot be developed at the same time due to budget constraints. Options 2 and 3 describe the development of the north roof. Option 2 conservatively considers FDNY access potential requirements and anticipated Landmark Preservation Commission concerns. The green house is an alternate feature in all options.
1.0 Introduction The scope and requirements of this Feasibility Study are to evaluate if the school administration and PTA generated program can work and is compatible with the existing structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing background of the building. Following our kick-off meeting, where we discussed structural constraints, we scaled back the program from an athletic roof to a green roof with sitting areas that accommodate up to 74 children and adults. We also determined that we would explore including a greenhouse as an option. The scope and requirements of the Shared Green Roof Feasibility Study are to evaluate the existing structural conditions and identify any other design influences relevant to the installation of a green roof for PS 20 / Arts & Letters, Brooklyn. The Study provides information that will influence the decisions regarding whether and how to develop the green roof design: Determine the load requirements for installation of the Shared Green Roof proposed and an alternate with a greenhouse Determine the load capacity of the main roof for installing the green roof as proposed. Determine that proposed use is compatible with NYC zoning regulations. Determine the building code use classification of the proposed concept, and review life safety requirements for the new use. Determine possible modifications required to adapt the existing exhaust systems and vents for the proposed use. Determine egress and handicap accessibility requirements and modifications for the proposed roof. Evaluate Green Roof options, including greenhouse, within load capacity. Recommend provisions for running water. Determine if the fire alarm can be expanded to include green roof. Determine if power is available to be brought up to the roof. Determine if existing water access and drainage is adequate. Investigate the roof construction and warranty of the high roof, and determine whether the new roof warranty is compatible with the proposed concept. Prepare budget cost estimates. In addition to analyzing the feasibility of implementing the proposed design, the Study provides alternate plan concepts and line items in the cost estimates, to facilitate consideration by the school of options for scope adjustment to meet available budget.
2.0 Overview of Proposed Use The Shared Green Roof Project is supported by the administration and PTA of both PS 20 and Arts & Letters. As the two schools grow, additional space will be needed and the Shared Green Roof will provide for space relief throughout the year, when the weather permits. The space will also provide for a learning environment that is unique to New York City and Brooklyn, considering the views of the historic brownstone and the cityscape beyond. PS 20 / Arts & Letters are planning to establish a Garden to School Cafe program which will increase students consumption of fresh vegetables and knowledge of healthful foods, farming and the local food system. This program will be supported on a small scale, in part, through the planting of vegetable gardens on the green roof, as well as gardens in the school yard and Fort Greene Park. The specific design elements include: Extensive growing areas throughout the roof accommodating a growing medium depth of less than 6 inches (See attached Illustration and Chart). Small Intensive gardens accommodating a growing medium of more than 6 inches. These small gardens will accommodate vegetables for the Garden to School Caf Program. Fruit trees and other woody plants in large containers Greenhouse structure as an alternate proposal. Compost area. Storage Areas (caged area adjacent to center stairwell) Hard-surfaced open-air classrooms for small groups meetings surrounded by Extensive growing and limited Intensive (vegetable garden) growing areas. Perimeter green fence, except at viewing areas.
3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Building History and Configuration The school was designed by Henry V. Murphy in 1947 and constructed in 1951. It is located in the Clinton Hill neighborhood of Brooklyn. The site is bounded by Adelphi Street to the West, Willoughby Avenue to the North and Clermont Avenue to the East. The main entrance is located on Adelphi Street. The building is located in the Fort Greene Historic District, designated September 26, 1978 and is SHPO eligible. The total floor area of the building is approximately 92,000 square feet. It is a three story brick masonry building with a basement. The rear section of the building is one story and houses kindergarten, cafeteria, auditorium and a gym. The playground on the south side adjoins a residential neighborhood. The building consists of steel frame, cinder concrete slab and exterior brick faade with sixth course as a header. The structural system comprises of concrete encased steel columns and beams. The exterior envelope consists of brick and limestone masonry. The school building is set back from the property line and is fenced with wrought iron fence at the front and side elevations and a chain link fence around the play yard and the rear side. According to the original construction documents, the school was designated as PS 12. The school was later renamed PS 20. In 2006, The Arts & Letters was founded and now shares the school building with PS 20.The student enrollment for PS 20 is listed at 334 and serves pre-K through fifth grade. The student enrollment for Arts & Letters is 424 and serves kindergarten through 8th grade. The total student population in the building is 758. According to the NYC School Construction Authority (SCA) Alchemy files, a SHPO report was submitted July 12, 2011. From this report, we gathered that a series of projects have been done in the past, including but not limited to the following: A boiler and oil tank repair was done in 1982. A Kitchen renovation job was done in 1984. A roof Replacement and Masonry repair project was done under design No: D1859 in 1997: SCA in house design. In 1999, a Project Cool Schools was done under the design No: D5377. A Hazardous Masonry and sidewalk bridging project was done under the design No: D6206 in 2001. In 2002, an Emergency Lighting project was done under the design No: D6535. A window renovation project was done in 2008 under the design No: D11280: designed by Bostwick Purcell Architects. A roof, parapet and exterior masonry repair scope of work is currently underway under Design No. D013851.
3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Photo Map
5 4 3
2
1
7
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Existing Building Photographs
1. Aerial view of Building
2. Aerial view of Block

3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Existing Building Photographs (cont.)
3. Center Bulkhead Interior
4. East Roof looking North 10

3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Existing Building Photographs (cont.)
5. Looking at South Roof
6. Looking at North Roof

11
3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Building Structure The structural drawings, dated 1949 indicate that the building construction is cast in place draped mesh stone and/or cinder concrete slabs spanning to concrete encased steel beams spanning to columns clad in terracotta tile. The roof slab apart from the fan room roof is made of cinder concrete. The building foundations are isolated spread footings at columns and strip footings below walls. The soil bearing capacity is 3 tsf. Structural Considerations Existing Structure From the original structural drawings, the design loads have been provided and the loads for the roof level are as follows: Main Roof 4 cinder concrete 36 psf Fill 22 psf Finish (waterproofing, insulation, protection board) 6 psf Steel 6 psf Ceiling, Lights, Ducts 10 psf Total Dead Load 80 psf Live Load (snow) 40 psf
Total Load 120 psf Note: From the existing drawing load schedule there is no mention of gravel on the roof as ballast and selfweight of steel is not included. This appears to have been added at a later date and is not accounted in the loading above. Proposed Structural Loads A review of the current New York City Building Code gives the following load criteria: Assembly areas that are not as specifically defined in the live load tables should be designed for not less than 50 psf and not more than 100 psf. However, clause 1607.11.2.2 Special-purpose roofs states that Roofs used for promenade purposes shall be designed for a minimum live load of 60 psf. Roofs used for roof gardens or assembly purposes shall be designed or a minimum live load of 100 psf. Roofs used for other special purposes shall be designed for appropriate loads, as directed or approved by the Commissioner. Clause 1607.11.2.3 also states that roofs that utilize a green roof system that is not intended for human occupancy can be designed for a uniform live load in the area covered by the green roof of 20 psf. According to the 3 options provided and the previous report identifying the soil options, the following loads should be considered: 12
3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Structural Considerations (cont.) 2 thick pavers 20/25 psf (assuming lightweight/normal weight concrete) Extensive Green Roof Planting: Fully-vegetated modular tray with 4 depth of light weight soil 27 - 29 psf Intensive Green Roof Planting with 6 Deep trays with saturated soil 40 50 psf Fiber glass planters (assume 18 wide x 24 long x 12 deep and saturated soil) 80 100 psf or 240 lbs 300 lbs each The tabulated proposed loads are as follows: Dead Loads Pavers (Lightweight/Normal weight concrete) - see note 1 Green Roof Planting with 4-1/4 deep trays Green Roof Planting with 6 Deep trays see note 2 10-0 high fence - see note 3 Benches - see note 3 Fiberglass Planters - see note 4 Total Dead Load (excluding planters) - see note 5 Live Loads - see note 7 Snow load (current code) Promenade Roof Roof Garden or Assembly Greenhouse - see note 6
20/25 psf 27 - 29 psf 40 - 50 psf N/A N/A 240 lbs - 300 lbs 27/40 - 29/50 psf
30 psf 60 psf 100 psf 40 psf
Notes: 1. The pavers are included in this table because even though they are not part of this scope of work (they are under current scope D13851) they are replacing the existing gravel which does not appear to have been part of the original roof load per the drawings. They are not included in the dead load summation but can be added if necessary. 2. It is assumed that the 4-1/4 trays and 6 trays will not be co-located and so the loads are not cumulative. 3. Self-weight of fence and/or bench negligible for the dead load assessment determination. 4. Fiberglass planters should be located preferably close to or over column locations. Planter loads are not concurrent with Green Roof Planting. 5. The total dead load is additional to the existing dead load of the roof. 6. The live load associated with the greenhouse is for the footprint of the greenhouse and is based on the assumption that it is used as a teaching environment (i.e. classroom to be verified by the architect). 7. Live loads do not happen concurrently
13
3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Structural Considerations (cont.) The use of lightweight or normal weight pavers on this roof is not impacted by any uplift due to wind. It is assumed that proper preparation for setting these will be carried out. While the new 10-0 green screen fence may not impose any appreciable dead load on the existing structure, there will be overturning forces due to wind that will have to be resisted either by anchoring positively to the structural slab or providing counterweights to resist the overturning forces. If the latter, these would have to be verified against the roof slab capacities. Existing Roof Capacity for Proposed Loads Roof probes were done last year to determine the buildup of the roof membranes and from the report it does not appear that the existing roof finish was removed in replacing the roofing membrane and in addition a gravel layer had been added. For our analysis, we have used the original loads as specified above to assess the possible roof capacity. As stated in the previous report, the roof slab construction is cinder concrete that is highly susceptible to water damage. Tests may need to be done to determine the concrete strength and also assess its capacity. Given the period of construction, we have assumed a steel allowable stress of 18,000 psi. In assessing the allowable capacities, we have determined the actual capacities of the footings, columns, primary beams and filler beams against the capacities based on the design loads above. The additional capacities of the members over and above the 120 psf above are as follows: Filler beams Primary beams Columns Footings 40 psf 25 psf 50 psf 45 psf
Conclusions The analysis indicates that the maximum additional load that can be carried by the existing roof beams is 25 psf. However, the connections for beam-to-beam and from beam-to-column will have to be checked to ensure they can carry the additional loads. The capacity of the cinder slab concrete cannot be readily determined without doing some tests of the concrete itself. Cores and non-destructive tests should be carried out on the cinder slab concrete to determine its strength and load carrying capacity. The table below summarizes the load combinations and impact on the roof slab and whether the roof structure needs to be strengthened. The strengthening determination is based solely on the capacity of the primary beams. These beams and possibly the cinder concrete slab would need to be strengthened to increase the capacity of the roof structure. Strengthening of these beams can be done by either plating the bottom flange of the beam or adding a structural WT to the bottom flange. The slab can be strengthened by introducing supplemental framing at mid-span of the slab supported by the primary beams. The connections will also require strengthening. 14
3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Structural Considerations (cont.) Proposed Roof Construction Min. New New Dead Live Load (psf) Load (psf) 27 40 27 40 27 40 27 40 30 30 60 60 40* 40* 100 100 Ex. DL + Ex. Min. New DL Structure and LL (psf) Capacity (psf) 137 150 167 180 147 160 207 220 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 Structure Strengthening Required No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Extensive Roofing (4-1/4 tray) Intensive Roofing (6 tray) Extensive Roofing with Promenade Intensive with Promenade Extensive with Greenhouse Intensive with Greenhouse Extensive with Roof Garden Intensive with Roof Garden
The live load of 30 psf is for snow. This table above does not include the pavers that are replacing the gravel on the roof. If they have to be added to the loads above, then the structure will need to be strengthened for all the above options. Existing Roofing Systems The building has one main roof above the three story portion of the school. The archive original design drawings refer to the roof as the Main Roof and the Construction Documents for Design No. D013851 refer to the roof as roof A. Refer to the Appendix for drawings. The existing roofing system of the Main Roof is a built up roof with gravel. The new roofing system under project D013851 is an insulated fluid applied resin waterproofing roof by Kemper Systems, Inc. Concrete pavers will be installed over the new roofing. Upon installation and inspection approval, the system will receive a 25 year pro-rated Labor and Material warranty from the manufacturer including overburden and a minimum two year workmanship warranty. Further research is required to determine responsibility for removal of green roof overburden for inspection and repair.
15
3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems Introduction Landmark Facilities Group, Inc. of Norwalk, Connecticut performed an assessment of the existing mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection and alarm systems at Arts & Letters and The Clinton Hill School PS 20 in Brooklyn, New York. This report describes the existing conditions of these systems. It then provides the feasibility and approaches for the implementation of these systems to support a newly constructed green roof. A site visit was performed to understand the existing conditions and analyze the data to identify the modifications required. Overview The school is a three story building with a full basement and a one story wing with a total square footage of approximately 92,000 square feet. There are two independent public schools which occupy this building for a total of about 800 students. The roof is accessed via three bulkheads, one of which contains the fan room. There is currently an active project taking place which is to replace the existing roof membrane and repair numerous leaks caused by an inadequate drainage system. Plumbing There are a series of sanitary waste system vent pipes penetrating through the roof of PS20. The vent pipes are generally located within a few feet of the parapet walls along the perimeter of the building. However, there are several vent pipes located more toward the center of the roof. All plumbing vents will have to be extended to a minimum of 7 feet above the deck. The extensions will have to be welded to the existing cast iron vent pipes to ensure stability without using guy wires. It may be possible to re-route certain vent pipes and combine them to reduce the number of pipes in the green space. We were unable to determine if there is adequate space above the ceilings of the classrooms to conceal the piping. If not, a soffit would be required. A frost free hose bibb will need to be provided for watering plants during dry periods. Any of the water lines serving sinks in the third floor classrooms can be tapped to feed the hose bibb. We recommend routing the water line through the roof fan room so a shut-off valve can be placed in the fan room. No sanitary drainage will be required from the roof. New pavers will be on pedestals so that water flow to existing roof drains will not be impeded. An approximation of the necessary materials would include: copper tube 75 lf valves 2 each backflow preventer 1 each Hose bibs 1 each
16
3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems (cont.) Greenhouse Option: A greenhouse would require a water supply for a utility sink and an irrigation system. One of the water lines serving a classroom on the third floor would be tapped to provide the water. Hot water is not required. The utility sink would require a new sanitary waste line. The waste line would be connected to a waste line serving one of the classrooms on the third floor. An approximation of the necessary materials would include: copper tube valves backflow preventer Hose bibs Utility sink Faucet for utility sink 2 cast iron soil pipe 75 lf 2 each 1 each 1 each 1 each 1 each 75 lf
Mechanical The proposed program does not require any mechanical systems in this phase. Greenhouse Alternate: A greenhouse would require a ventilation system consisting of intake vents and exhaust fans. Depending on the desired growing season, the greenhouse could be equipped with a steam heater fed from the building steam system. Additional research would be required to find a suitable place to tap into the steam system, but it seems likely that it could be done at the third floor level. Electrical Existing Conditions The building is currently served by two separate 208/120V, three phase, four wire electrical services from Con Edison, Service A and Service B, each metered separately. Each service entrance main disconnect switch is rated 600A and contain 500A fuses. The main feeders from these switches serve an open knife switchboard which serves the entire building. There is a third service switch rated 200A that is tapped off the line side of Service A and separately metered. This switch serves two emergency lighting panels for the building. It is such that if there is a utility outage, there would be no power to these emergency panels as well. There are subpanels throughout the building serving the classroom lighting, receptacles, individual air conditioning units and miscellaneous loads.
17
3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems (cont.)
Service Switch B (left) and Service Switch A (right) with respective CT cabinets and meters
There has been extensive leakage in the electrical room which is evident by the corrosion and rust on the fuses in each of the service switches. 18
3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems (cont.) Fire Alarm System The main fire alarm control panel is a digital Faraday System and resides in the mechanical room in the basement. The Faraday System is interconnected with a modified analogue Acme Fire Alarm System which appears to be the original fire alarm system from 1951. A data gathering panel (DGP) is installed to allow these two systems to communicate. The devices throughout the building consist of gongs and double action pull stations. There are also carbon monoxide detectors in the boiler room and science lab and it is anticipated that an additional one will be installed in the kitchen. The devices are antiquated and portions of the system are inaccessible. The following findings regarding the existing fire alarm system have been identified during this feasibility study: The original Certificate of Occupancy indicates Fire Department approvals were received by the Department of Buildings for fuel oil and interior fire alarm on 28 September 1951 and sprinkler system and fire extinguishing equipment on 15 April 1952 (Refer to Appendix G); According to the SCA, the main alarm panel appears to have been installed by the SCA in 2005; No letters of approval from the FDNY could be obtained from the Department of Buildings file or directly from the FDNY for the Fire Department approvals listed on the original Certificate of Occupancy or subsequent upgrades to the fire alarm system in 2005. As a result, the existing fire alarm system may be interpreted as non-compliant by FDNY for new work permit applications that involve the building fire alarm system. This would likely require replacement of the entire fire alarm system to comply with the 2008 NYC Construction Codes and the Rules of the Department of Buildings, 1 RCNY 4000-06 Fire Alarm Wiring and Power Sources. The extent of any future work for alterations to the existing fire alarm system would require review by the Department of Buildings and FDNY to obtain a letter of approval and define the specific scope; The Division of School Facilities, Brooklyn North has confirmed through their service provider, Star Fire Protection Co. that the existing fire alarm system is addressable and can accept additional devices or a possible direct run from the existing panel to the proposed green roof. However, in order to obtain a work permit for this alteration, FDNY would need to see a letter of approval for the existing fire alarm system.
19
3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems (cont.) Fire Alarm System (cont.)
20
3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems (cont.) Objective The objective of this study is to determine what modifications to the existing system are needed to support the newly constructed green roof that will consist of outdoor classroom space for up to 74 students and adults, green space and play area as well as reserve power to support miscellaneous loads for a future greenhouse including a fans, weatherstations and grow lights. This green roof will be required to meet all current codes for lighting, fire alarm, electrical wiring and life safety all while maintaining the sensitivity of a residential neighborhood. Recommendations The existing fire alarm system should be fully inspected by FDNY immediately to identify any existing deficiencies in the fire alarm system that pose a safety hazard to building occupants. For example, one pull station access door in the auditorium was observed during investigative work under this feasibility study to be shut closed. This deficiency has already been brought to the attention of the Division of School Facilities as a potential safety concern. The proposed green roof would require the installation of up to 9 new fire alarm devices including dual action pull stations with proper FDNY markings at each egress door on the green roof. Gongs and pull stations would also be required to provide proper coverage. These devices should be tied into the existing system and the fire alarm control panel reprogrammed to accept these new devices. According to Department of Buildings Technical Bulletin 2009-022, this work would require an alteration application for a work permit because the proposed green roof involves a change of use or occupancy. Because no letters of approval for the existing fire alarm system could be obtained under this feasibility study, the extent of alterations to the existing fire alarm system is subject to review by FDNY and Technical Affairs Division of the Department of Buildings. For the purposes of this feasibility study each design option assumes the existing fire alarm system can be addressed. Each option includes the programming of the existing fire alarm systems functionality in accordance with the 2008 NYC Construction codes, unless otherwise reviewed and approved by the Technical Affairs Division of the Department of Buildings. Each option would also include the installation of new fire alarm devices for the green roof in accordance with the 2008 NYC Construction Codes, supervision of such devices and Rules of the Department of Buildings, 1 RCNY 4000-06. Existing functional devices not affected by this new scope of work would remain. Alternatively, FDNY may require that the existing fire alarm system be replaced with a new fire alarm system within the entire school in accordance with the 2008 NYC Construction Codes to obtain a new letter of approval on file. A new fire alarm system would include the use of speaker strobes for notification which could be integrated with the building PA system if approved by FDNY. The new fire alarm system would disable a general PA announcement and alert the occupants of an alarm either with a pre-recorded or live message. All pull box stations throughout the building would need to be replaced at a lower height to meet ADA requirements in the code. The installation of a new main fire alarm panel would provide the capability to temporarily silence the green roof audible devices during the weekly testing to avoid disturbing the residents nearby.
21
4.0 Building Code Compliance Issues Use and Occupancy, and Egress According to the Department of Buildings, the building is a 1938 Code building (Class 1 Fireproof construction classification). Scope should comply with the 1938 code. 1968 or 2008 code can be applied if a determination is accepted by DOB. Evidence should be shown that there is no reduction in fire safety or structural safety of the building when said code is thus applied. In review of the filings done previously on the building, recent work has been filed under 1968 and 2008 codes. Regardless, all plumbing, mechanical, fuel/gas, sprinkler or Fire Alarm work must be in accordance with 2008 code. The addition of occupancy on the roof level will require a change to the Certificate of Occupancy. The use of the building will remain as group G educational. The student-occupied space at the roof is a non-simultaneous use with classrooms, so it does not increase the schools student population. It is the intent for stated occupancy of the main roof area to be 74 occupants, and is based on the population of two classrooms with instructors. While the overall occupancy of the school will not change with a non-simultaneous roof, egress must be provided for the amount of people that will occupy the roof. The number of persons is calculated by the paved area of the roof divided by the code factor of 20 square feet per person for classroom use. The design options presented in this Study will vary in paved area from 4,887 square feet (245 occupants) to 9,995 (500 occupants). A stated occupancy can be accepted for an actual number if the number generated by area is not realistic. Per 1968 code BC 27-259, using building sections and spaces for instruction and other educational purposes shall classify the space as group g-educational. Building Code requirements which apply to this project include (but are not limited to): Fire/Life Safety Minimum of two independent exits from each floor 44-inch minimum width in stairwells 36-inch minimum exit door width Exit signs and stair signs required per code Fire alarm devices required at the rooftop level Public Address system required at the rooftop level 10 tall fence required at roof edges Panic hardware required at egress doors Doors to stairs at roof to swing in if roof is occupied. Accessibility Per code, one must provide a handicap accessible route to the occupied roof. The building currently has no elevator and no plan for the installation of elevators. It is recommended that a waiver from the Mayors Office for People with Disabilities (MOPD) be obtained in order to occupy the roof. The design consultant will draft a waiver request with supporting drawings and photographs for review by the MOPD. The SCA requests that the MOPD Waiver request take place after funding has been secured for the project. The waiver request will be based on financial hardship and should be accompanied by a letter from the SCA stating that an elevator is not feasible due to limited resources and capital budget. Other requirements include: Code-compliant landings required at the top of stairs Code-compliant handrails 22
4.0 Building Code Compliance Issues Accessibility (cont.) The Building Code requires that existing mechanical and plumbing vents be raised to a height of 7 for all occupied areas of the roof. The existing parapets are not in good condition but will be replaced in their entirety under project D013851. The height of existing parapets is currently 3-6 above the roof. Installing green trays and precast concrete pavers on the roof will result in a non-compliant parapet height. The installation of a fence either set in from the parapets or anchored to the top of the parapets would maintain code compliance. Water service would be required to irrigate the plant material. Extensions of the existing security, public address and emergency lighting systems are anticipated. In addition to these elements, some electrical power work can be anticipated to support maintenance and operations on the green roof. Other Code and Related Operational Issues Preservation PS 20 / Arts & Letters is located in the Fort Greene Historic District and therefore subject to the standards of the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). The proposed Greenscreen Fences will be visible from the surrounding public ways. The school is not exempt from review by the LPC; therefore, any design which proposes any additions to the existing building must be presented to the LPC for review and approval. Zoning The building is located in residential zoning district R6B and is subject to residential district regulations for community facilities. Based on the height regulations outlined in the Zoning Resolution, the existing building height appears to be in compliance. Wire, chain link or other transparent fences are permitted obstructions and may penetrate a maximum height limit. Should alternate designs be presented in addition to fences or other permitted obstruction, a more in depth zoning analysis must be performed. Fire Code Fire department rooftop access will be required in accordance with Chapter 5 Fire Operations Features, Section FC 504.4 Rooftop access and obstructions of the 2008 NYC Fire Code. Options 1 & 3 propose parapetmounted fences with gates for FDNY access. Option 2 proposed roof-mounted fences along the street facing facades (Willoughby Avenue to the north and Adelphi Street to the west.) to allow for FDNY access to the roof without going through a fence and gate. Once on the roof, the FDNY would gain access to green roof portion of the roof through gates. The design team has submitted the feasibility options to Lieutenant Al Trinidad of FDNYs Rooftop Access Unit for unofficial, preliminary comments. A formal submission to FDNY of final construction documents for review and approval will be required in the design phase. DOB Violations The current roof project under 013851 will cure 6 of 18 open DOB and ECB Violations. For a complete list of open violations, please refer to Appendix C.
23
5.0 Design Approach / Concept Diagrams The Shared Green Roof Project Origin of the Proposed Design P.S. 20 / Arts and Letters administrations and PTA has been seeking to find solutions to overcrowding in the existing school building. One of the schools goals is to provide for additional space for both breakout classrooms and for eating lunch, considering the crowded state of the existing classrooms and cafeteria. Another goal of the schools is to join the Garden to Caf program, where students will grow healthy vegetables to be eaten at lunch in the schools shared cafeteria or on the proposed Shared Green Roof. The culture of the school is all about sending the children outdoors to learn, play, and exercise throughout the year. The proposed Shared Green Roof will provide breakout spaces for learning, gardening plots for the Garden to Caf program and outdoor space for eating. Breakfast or lunch can be enjoyed in an outdoor sustainable setting with views of historic architecture and New York City. An alternate piece of the plan is a proposed green house, which we have priced out separately. The green house would allow for a larger variety of plants and vegetables to be grown through the winter months. The Shared Green Roof aims to provide an outdoor space for learning that can be enjoyed by PS 20 and Arts & Letters. The goals are to promote a sharing environment between the two schools, increase outdoor space available to students, enhance the teaching/learning environment, and supplement the lunch program. Three concepts are represented in this section by plan diagram options 1, 2 and 3. Each concept provides PS 20 / Arts & Letters with paved areas for gathering, teaching and eating as well as green areas for observation and growing. Requirements to Support the Proposed Design The proposed Shared Green Roof described in Option 1 describes 4,657 sq. ft. of extensive planted trays, 4,887 sq. ft. of paved area, part of which is a shaded area with picnic tables. All of the above can be supported by the existing roof, with the caveat that prior to construction, probes will need to be made of the column to beam connections just below the roof surface and cinder concrete structural slab and reviewed by a structural engineer to confirm that the carrying capacity of the roof is 25 lb./ sq. ft. load . If necessary, reinforcements may need to be made to the column-beam connections which we have included in the budgets for all three options. The intensive planted areas, that will support vegetable growth, will need to be located strategically in areas within a certain radius of supporting columns. Additional structural measures will need to be taken to increase the loading capacity of the roof structure to accommodate a green house. Green Roof Systems Extensive green roof planting areas will consist of a modular tray system with an anticipated growing medium depth of 4-6. A modular tray system offers the following advantages: Shallow growing medium that is light weight and supports drought, wind and frost tolerant plant species Flexibility in planning and well-suited for existing rooftop areas All green roof components arrive together in one module Modules are easy to transport, handle and install, resulting in lower project costs and a cleaner installation; Pre-vegetated modules arrive for installation with fully grown plants and horticultural soils, reducing upfront intensive care to establish planting and discouraging weeds 24
5.0 Design Approach / Concept Diagrams Green Roof Systems (cont.) Modules interlock seamlessly to provide shared rooting volume for movement of water, nutrients and beneficial organisms across entire rooftop strata, avoiding a compartmental growing medium and unnatural grids expressed at the surface The ease of installation of this modular system allows for a partnership with a community We anticipate additional site visits during the design phase to evaluate adjacent context and buildings relative to solar issues, on-site views and microclimate influences. These findings will guide the final green roof design and plant selection. Extensive green roof plant species will be selected for urban and drought tolerance, seasonal interest and suitability for the microclimate of the rooftop. Each of the feasibility study options anticipates a palette of deciduous, semi-evergreen and evergreen sedums that are water conservers. All plant material will be locally grown and sourced for the project. Anticipated plant species for this project may include: Sedum hybridum Immergrunchen Sedum rupestre Angelina Sedum spurium Dragons Blood Sedum spurium Royal Pink Sedum album Coral Carpet Sedum floriferum Weihenstephaner Gold Sedum sexangulare Sedum reflexum
Extensive green roof benefits include: Outdoor education opportunities Reduced impervious coverage Reduced total and peak flows of stormwater into City sewer system Improved stormwater run-off quality Reduced heating and cooling loads Reduced greenhouse gas emissions Increased evapotranspiration / cooling Improved air and water quality Increased aesthetic value Reduced U.V. radiation/ photo degradation of roofing Increased life expectancy of roofing waterproofing Wildlife habitat for butterflies, insects and birds
The extensive green roof growing medium will consist of an engineered soil mix with locally sourced components used in conjunction with the tray system modular. The soil mix will include a blend of light weight organic and inorganic material conforming to German FLL granulometric standards, filter rainwater and buffer acid rain. Refer to enclosed soil analysis from Penn State University for an example of typical soil mix properties.
25
5.0 Design Approach / Concept Diagrams The final soil mix and depth will be identified as the design is developed to meet the existing roof top loading limits. The intensive green roof areas will consist of growing medium depths greater than 6, capable of supporting vegetables and herbs. We anticipate that these greater depths will be achieved through the use of larger modular tray systems and/ or light-weight fiberglass planters. The intensive green roof growing medium will also consist of light-weight engineered materials. Concept Diagrams Option 1 defines the northern half of the main roof as the occupied area. A parapet-mounted Greenscreen fence provides a safe and enclosed space for students. The top of the fence will be 10 feet above the new roof pavers. To ensure fire code compliance, the fences facing Willoughby Avenue to the north and Adelphi Street to the west will be equipped with 3 foot wide by 7 foot tall gates. This will allow firemen access to the roof from the street facing sides of the roof. Framed acrylic viewports located at strategic points on the fence will allow uninterrupted views north and west. 18 x 18 lightweight precast concrete pavers installed on leveling pedestals provide the main seating surface and egress path. We anticipate the pavers to be installed approximately 6 above the existing roofing to achieve a level path from the stairs. The stair landings will be raised to match the roof paver elevation. Vegetated modules (green trays) installed on top of a new slip sheet create a green edge throughout the perimeter of the roof. The specific soil mix and depth will identified as the design is developed but we assume a 4-6 soil depth capable of growing a variety of sedum. Smaller paved areas are mixed in with the central portion of the green tray area to encourage smaller meeting groups. Selected areas on the roof capable of supporting more load will receive 6 deep or greater green trays and/or fiberglass planters capable of growing vegetables and herbs. Students growing their own food will support the schools goal of supplementing the existing lunch program. An eating area with non-fixed seating is identified near the center stair. A manually operated awning attached to the existing center bulkhead provides shade to the seating area. Lastly, to enhance the green roof as a teaching tool, network coverage throughout the roof is proposed by installing a new wireless access point device in the existing fan room. Option 2 is similar to option 1 but locates a 10 foot high Greenscreen fence 6 feet from the north and west parapets. Providing a 6 foot wide gravel path along the street facing sides of the roof allows the fire department to access the roof without operating gates. Once on the roof, the fence would have gates to provide access to the green roof. This option also extends occupancy to the south of the center stair bulkhead and adds paved and green tray area to the roof. An aluminum and glass greenhouse is included as an alternate. A greenhouse would require the structural roof load capacity to be increased, irrigation systems, ventilation systems and grow lighting. Option 3 makes use of the entire main roof. The plan layout shown on the north portion of the roof would be repeated on the south side of the roof doubling the occupied area. The greenhouse as an alternate is also included in this option.
26
5.0 Design Approach / Concept Diagrams - Option 1
27
29
31
6.0
Appendices A. B. C. D. E. F. Scope of Work for current renovation of roof #D013851 Existing Condition Drawings List of open DOB Violations Meeting Minutes 2/23/12 Choosing between an extensive or Intensive Green Roof Green Roof Systems and Finishes
33
6.0
Appendices - B. Existing Condition Drawings
Plan of Site Existing Conditions
35
6.0
Existing Roof Plan

37
6.0
Existing East West Elevations
39
6.0
Existing North South Elevations
41
6.0
Existing Sections
43
Feasibility Study PS 20/ Arts & Letters Shared Green Roof 29 June 2012
6.0
Roof Plan A101 - Current Project D013851

45
6.0
Third Floor Plan A102 - Current Project D013851

47
6.0
Elevations A201 - Current Project D013851

49
6.0
Existing Column Schedule
51
6.0
Existing Roof Framing Plan
53
6.0

55
6.0

57
6.0
Appendices - C. List of open DOB Violations

225ADELPHISTREET
VIOLATION# DOB
V178167(225)
ISSUANCE DATE
DESCRIPTION
LATEFILING PENALTY
DEVICE#
HEARINGDATE
REMEDY
3/1/1967
ACOPYOFTHEVIOLATIONMUSTBEREQUESTEDTO DETERMINEDESCRIPTION.REQUESTHASBEENMADE ANDWILLBERECEIVEDWITHIN35BUSINESSDAYS. HAVINGSIGNAGEWITHSURFACEAREAEXCEEDING 12SQFTANDNOTLIMITEDTO THENAMEANDADDRESSOFTHEESTABLISHMENT. ACOPYOFTHEVIOLATIONMUSTBEREQUESTEDTO DETERMINEDESCRIPTION.35BUSINESSDAY REQUESTYEILDEDNORESULTS.REQUESTINGFROM ADIFFERENTDEPARTMENTWHICHMAYTAKE1015 BUSINESSDAYS. HAVINGINSTALLEDASIGNW/OPERMIT/HAVINGAN ILLUMINATEDSIGNW/OACURRENTPERMIT. HAVINGINSTALLEDASIGNW/OPERMIT/HAVINGAN ILLUMINATEDSIGNW/OACURRENTPERMIT. HAVINGINSTALLEDAFLAGPOLEW/OPERMIT HAVINGSIGNAGEPROJECTINGMORETHAN10'' ACROOSTHESTREETLINE. ACOPYOFTHEVIOLATIONMUSTBEREQUESTEDTO DETERMINEDESCRIPTION.35BUSINESSDAY REQUESTYEILDEDNORESULTS.REQUESTINGFROM ADIFFERENTDEPARTMENTWHICHMAYTAKE1015 BUSINESSDAYS. ACOPYOFTHEVIOLATIONMUSTBEREQUESTEDTO DETERMINEDESCRIPTION.35BUSINESSDAY REQUESTYEILDEDNORESULTS.REQUESTINGFROM ADIFFERENTDEPARTMENTWHICHMAYTAKE1015 BUSINESSDAYS. REISSUE#34919562R.EXTERIORSTEELGRADEAND PLATE(HOISTDOOR)ISCORRODEDANDLOOSE LOCATEDONADELPHISTREETADJACENTTOTHE MAINENTRANCE. REISSUE#34919561P,34919560N.THECONCRETE CEILINGISSPALLINGLEAVINGTHEREBARSLOCATED AT3RDFLOORBULKHEADANDELECTRICALROOMAT CELLARLEVEL. REISSUE#34919559X.SLOPSINKROOM212AON THE2NDFLOORHASLARGEHOLESINTHEWALLAND CEILING. WORKWITHOUTAPERMITWORKNOTEDAWING HASBEENCONSTRCUTEDABOVETHE1STFLLEVEL NORTHANDWESTSIDESOFBLDGREMEDYOBTAIN PERMITSAPPROVALSFORDOBAERSTOREPREMISES TOPRIORLEGALCONDITIONREMOVE. REISSUE34772536J.CONCRETECEILINGFALLING INSIDEELECTRICALPANELROOM. REISSUE:34692532MCEILINGATCELLARLEVEL ELECTRICALPANELROOMSPALLINGEXPOSING STRUCTURALSTEELTOPOFWALLANDHORIZONTAL CRACKRUNNINGALONGWALL. DEFECTIVEBRICKMASONRY.AT3RDFLR.ALONE WILLOUGHBYAVE.,2'VERTICALCRACKAND SPALLILNGCRIPPEDBRICKSBOTHSIDESOFLINTEL EASTWINDOW.ATEXIT#5AUDITORIUMEXITTO PLAYYAD,BULGINGBRICKSLEFTSIDEOFST. DEFECTIVEWALLL&CEILING.AT2NDFLR.MOPSINK ROOM#212A,LARGESECTIONOFCEILINGANDWALL OPENEDDUETOPRIORREPAIRSANDLEFTOPEN. REISSUE#34846417XDEFECTIVECONCRETECEILING. ATCELLARELECTRICROOMCONCRETECEILING CRUMBLINGWITHSECTIONSMISSINGEXPOSING CORRODEDREBAR. DEFECTIVECONRETECEILING.AT3RDFLRBULKHEAD, CRACKEDANDMISSINGSECTIONSOFCONCRETE EXPOSINGREBAR. DEFECTIVESTEELGRATEANDPLATES.ATFRONT LEFT,THESIDEWALKELEVATOR/HOISTDROPDOOR ANDGRATEARELOOSE,CORRODEDANDSTICKING UP.
N/A
N/A
N/A
INITIALREQUESTDIDNOTPRODUCEACOPYOFTHEVIOLATION. REQUESTINGFROMADIFFERENTDEPARTMENT.
092999ZC6102RR
9/29/1999
N/A
N/A
N/A
REMOVEILLEGALSIGNAGESUBMITDISMISSALREQUEST.
092999ZC6602RR
9/29/1999
N/A
N/A
N/A
COPYMUSTBEAQUIREDTOADVISE
080201CZSTF03RR
8/2/2001
N/A
N/A
N/A
080201CZSTF04RR
8/2/2001
N/A
N/A
N/A
080201ZSTF03RR
8/2/2001
N/A
N/A
N/A
080201ZSTF04RR
8/2/2001
N/A
N/A
N/A
ECB
34933971Z 1/18/2012
$0.00
N/A
NOHEARING; PLUBLICLY OWNED. NOHEARING; PLUBLICLY OWNED. NOHEARING; PLUBLICLY OWNED.
REPAIRAND/ORREPLACEMETALSTEELPLATE/DOORSANDSUBMIT CERTIFICATEOFCORRECTIONSANDAFFFIDAVITTO ADMINISTRATIVEENFORCEMENTUNIT. REPAIRAND/ORREPLACECONCRETE.SUBMITCERTIFICATEOF CORRECTIONSANDAFFFIDAVITTOADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENTUNIT. REPAIRAND/ORREPLACEWALLANDCEILING.SUBMITCERTIFICATE OFCORRECTIONSANDAFFFIDAVITTOADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENTUNIT.
34933972K
1/18/2012
$0.00
N/A
34933973M
1/18/2012
$0.00
N/A
34209713Z
5/10/1999
$0.00
N/A
WRITTENOFF
SUBMITCERTIFICATEOFCORRECTIONSANDAFFFIDAVITTO ADMINISTRATIVEENFORCEMENTUNIT.
34846417X
6/23/2010
$0.00
N/A
NOHEARING; PLUBLICLY OWNED. NOHEARING; PLUBLICLY OWNED.
REPAIRCEILING.SUBMITCERTIFICATEOFCORRECTIONSAND AFFFIDAVITTOADMINISTRATIVEENFORCEMENTUNIT.SCATO RESOLVE. REPAIRALLDEFECTSTHENSUBMITCERTIFICATEOFCORRECTION ANDAFFFIDAVIT.SCATORESOLVE.
34772536J
3/27/2009
$0.00
N/A
34919558Y
7/1/2011
$0.00
N/A
NOHEARING; PLUBLICLY OWNED.
REPAIRALLDEFECTSTHENSUBMITCERTIFICATEOFCORRECTION ANDAFFFIDAVIT.SCATORESOLVE.
34919559X
7/1/2011
$0.00
N/A
NOHEARING; PLUBLICLY OWNED. NOHEARING; PLUBLICLY OWNED. NOHEARING; PLUBLICLY OWNED. NOHEARING; PLUBLICLY OWNED.
REPAIRWALL&CEILINGTHENSUBMITCERTIFICATEOF CORRECTIONANDAFFFIDAVIT.SCATORESOLVE.
34919560N
7/1/2011
$0.00
N/A
REPAIRCONCRETECEILINGTHENSUBMITCERTIFICATEOF CORRECTIONANDAFFFIDAVIT.SCATORESOLVE. REPAIRCONCRETECEILINGTHENSUBMITCERTIFICATEOF CORRECTIONANDAFFFIDAVIT.SCATORESOLVE. REPAIR/REPLACEASREQUIREDTHENSUBMITCERTIFICATEOF CORRECTIONANDAFFFIDAVIT.
34919561P
7/1/2011
$0.00
N/A
34919562R
7/1/2011
$0.00
N/A
FDNY
REQUESTWASMADETOOBTAINVIOLATIONCOPIESSOTHATADDITIONALINFORMATIONCOULDBEAQUIRED.
59
6.0
Appendices - D. Meeting Minutes 2/23/12
Reso A Scope Phase Meeting Minutes

Architecture & Engineering
School: PS 20, Brooklyn 225 Adelphi Street Brooklyn, New York 11205 TBD TBD
Project Design#: LLW #:
Date of Meeting/Visit: 2/23/2012 Location:_PS 20_____________ Present: Name Mary Burnham Jose Miranda Steven Laudati John Cirincione Richard Peterson Paula Amram Hewitt Orlando Garcia Title Architect PM Engineer A&E DPM PM Principals Representative Custodian Organization MBB MBB Langan SCA, A&E JRC PTA PS 20 Phone 212-768-7676 212-768-7676 201-398-4521 718-472-8562 917-542-3650 646-645-4375 718-346-6244 Email Address mburnham@mbbarch.com jmiranda@mbbarch.com slaudati@langan.com jcirincione@nycsca.org rpeterson@rosecompanies.com openroadpark@gmail.com ck020@nyc.gov
Notes to Principal(s) and Custodian: The purpose of the Reso A project kick-off meeting is to discuss the project funded by the Resolution A grant in anticipation of developing a scope of work per SCA standards. At each phase of the project we will need to make sure that the project can be achieved within the funding available. If additional funds prove to be required, the SCA Reso A Coordinator will work with the elected officials providing the grant towards that end. Similarly, if the Reso A project description changes, the Reso A Coordinator will seek the concurrence of the grantor. Please note that if the proposed project will change the use of a room, a discussion with the ISC Facilities Planner is required. As the project is able to move forward from one phase to the next, you will be advised on the status and progress of the project. During the course of the project, you will be consulted concerning aspects of the project that will affect school operation. During the initial Scope Phase the designers project-related findings and recommendations are documented. At the completion of the Scope phase you will receive a summary of that information from the SCA Design Specialist, who will be your point of contact for this phase and the next. The next phase will be the Design Phase, during which time the designers will prepare construction drawings and specifications for Bid and Award. The SCA Design Specialist will advise you if any items in the original approved Scope of Work have required revision. Prior to the Bid/Award Phase you will be contacted by the SCAs Construction Project Officer to discuss phasing issues. The Project Office will be your point of contact during the Construction Phase of the project.
Approved Reso A Project: 1. {LLW# 0XXXXX Component Description, i.e., New Reso A Library} Meeting Minutes follow:
60
Page 1 of 3
06.0
Appendices -D. Meeting Minutes 2/23/12
1. Discussion of Reso A Project a. The feasibility study has been authorized to proceed by the SCA. The study will assess the existing conditions and explore the feasibility of introducing occupancy on the main roof. Potential program elements include a green roof and athletic surfacing. The design team will identify the roofs capacity, applicable codes, and propose a test fit design as per the SCA requirements for feasibility studies. b. There is a renovation project currently underway at PS 20/Arts & Letters that involves interior work as well as roof work. The design team will review the current projects contract documents and identify in the feasibility study potential infrastructure items that could be added to the current scope that would facilitate the roof occupancy project when approved. c. The green roof component will be explored in detail. The school is interested in exploring a teaching garden component on the roof that would grow food for the schools cafeteria. d. Outdoor furniture and shade structures on the roof are important. The design team will identify any code restrictions related to these items. e. MBB presented the green roof project at PS41 as a precedent. The Greenscreen fencing and vegetated trays used in PS41 could also be installed at PS20. f. PS 20s roof is approx. 20,000 square feet and is served by three stairs. The project could be phased so that only a portion of the roof is occupied at first, followed by later phases as funding becomes available. 2. School comments and requests a. The schools primary goal is to increase outdoor space by introducing occupancy on the roof; preferably two classes or 70 occupants. b. It is important to a common roof space that both PS 20 and Arts & Letters can share. 3. Next Steps/Follow up requirements a. The design team will submit a fee proposal to the SCA for review and approval. b. The design team will retrieve archive files and current project documents from the SCAs Alchemy system. c. A draft feasibility study report is due on 3/15/2012. d. The final feasibility study is due on 3/29/2012. e. The final cost estimate must be submitted to the City by 3/30/2012. An update of the status of this capital construction project will be provided at Scope Phase completion. At that time a brief summary of the scope of work will be developed and distributed. Should you have any questions related to the project, please contact the NYCSCA A&E Project Manager (Specialist) assigned to this project, John Cirincione at telephone 718-472-8562 or you can contact the NYCSCA Design Manager assigned to this project, {name} at telephone {phone}.
The writer believes that the above report is an accurate representation of the observations and discussions. If anyone attending believes contrary, please contact the A&E Project Manager (Specialist) within 5 days. Prepared by Jose Miranda, MBB Architects Date Prepared: 03/01/2012
Principals Concurrence: We need the concurrence of the school principal in order to make sure the scope of work described above meets with your satisfaction. Please use the space below to concur or provide your comments or questions, and forward the email to the SCA Design Specialist at {name@nycsca.org} I concur with the scope as presented above. Yes or No? _________ I have the following questions or comments (please enter these here): Copies to all listed in Project Directory: {Attach edited Master Contact Form}
Page 2 of 3
61
Feasibility Study PS 20/Arts & Letters/Open Road SharedLetters: Shared Green Roof Project March 1012 PS 20 / Arts & Green Roof 29 June 2012
PS Appendices - Letters: Shared Green Roof Feasibility Study 6.0 20 / Arts & E. Green Roof Systems
Choosing between an Extensive or Intensive Green Roof EXTENSIVE INTENSIVE
Growing Medium Depth Accessibility Fully Saturated Weight Advantages
6 or less
Greater than 6
Often inaccessible 10-35 PSF
Usually accessible 50-300 PSF
Lightweight Suitable for large areas Low maintenance costs More suitable for retrofit projects Lower capital costs No permanent railings required Less visible from street Can support an herb garden Cannot support a vegetable or fruit garden
Greater plant diversity Better insulation properties Better storm management Greater range of design Greater variety of human uses Greater biodiversity potential
Disadvantages
Higher capital costs Requires roof structure reinforcement Higher maintenance costs Requires permanent railings Higher visibility from street
62
Prepared for PS 20 / Arts & Letters by Jonathan Rose Companies

DRAFT Updated 3/13/2012
Feasibility Study Draft Feasibility Study PS 20/Arts & Letters/Open Road Shared Green Roof PS 20/ Arts & Letters Shared Green Roof 29 2012 16 MarchJune 2012
6.0 Appendices - Green Roof Systems and Finishes 6.0 Appendices - F. F. Green Roof Systems and Finishes Extensive Green Roof Plantings:
Plant species will be selected for urban and drought tolerance, seasonal interest and suitability for the microclimate of the rooftop. Each of the feasibility study options anticipates a palette of deciduous, semi-evergreen and evergreen plants that are water conservers. Plant species for may include: Sedum hybridum 'Immergrunchen' Sedum rupestre 'Angelina' Sedum spurium 'Dragon's Blood' Sedum spurium 'Royal Pink' Sedum album 'Coral Carpet' Sedum floriferum Weihenstephaner Gold Sedum sexangulare Sedum reflexum
Extensive Green Roof Planting Consisting of Decidious, Semi-evergreen and Evergreen Sedum Planting
All plant material will be locally grown and sourced for the project. The growing medium will consist of an engineered soil mix with locally sourced components used in conjunction with the tray system modular. The soil mix will include a blend of light weight organic and inorganic material.
Extensive Green Roof Maintenance Considerations:

Green roofs require continued maintenance to ensure peak performance. Typical maintenance activities of a modular extensive green roof system include: Do not use salt or other deicing agents around plantings, Irrigate during first growing season to support plant establishment. Provide supplemental irrigation during hot dry weather, Conduct hand weeding, Remove dead blossoms and plants, Inspect and clear roof drains, mechanical vents, etc. of Implement pest control measures and avoid use of pesticides wherever possible. Mow planting to remove dead flowers, if desired, Install new plantings in areas where planting have died or are not thriving, Apply fertilizer as required.
Extensive Green Roof Typical Planting Edge at Roof Ballast and Drain
Extensive Green Roof Utilizing Seemless Modular Tray System
63
Draft Feasibility Study PS Feasibility Study 20/ Arts & Letters Shared Green Roof 16 PS 20/Arts & Letters/Open Road Shared Green Roof March 2012 29 June 2012
6.0 Appendices - F. Green Roof Systems and Finishes 6.0 Appendices - F. Green Roof Systems and Finishes Green Screen Perimeter Fencing Elevation:
3" THICK GREEN SCREEN PANEL, (TYP.)
POST TO POST CENTERS = PANEL LENGTH + 4", (TYP.) HORIZONTAL PANEL MAX. 48" IN 2" INCREMENTS POST TO POST CLEAR = PANEL LENGTH + 1", (TYP.) 3" ROUND OR SQUARE STEEL TUBE W/ POST CAP, (TYP.)
#5104 CHANNEL TRIM OR #5105 STEEL EDGE TRIM OPTIONAL @ TOP EDGE OF PANEL, (TYP.) PANELS SIZED IN 2" INCREMENTS TO 168" MAX. +/-EQ.
#5145 POST CLIPS MOUNTED FRONT & BACK @ EACH LOCATION OR #5133 SNAP CLIPS @ ONE FACE W/ STAINLESS STEEL TEK SCREW, (TYP.)
10'-0" HEIGHT
+/-EQ.
3" THICK GREEN SCREEN PANEL, (TYP.) +/-EQ. FINISHED ROOF SURFACE
0'-6"
CONCRETE ROOF SLAB
ROOF STRUCTURE UNDER SCA DESIGN #013851 (TYP.)
Freestanding Green Screen Fence Elevation
64
Draft Feasibility Study PS 20/ Feasibility Study Green Roof Arts & Letters Shared 16 March 2012 PS 20/Arts & Letters/Open Road Shared Green Roof 29 June 2012
6.0
Appendices - F. Green Roof Systems and Finishes
6.0 Appendices - F. Green Roof Systems and Finishes Extensive Green Roof Conceptual Sections:
Typical Modular Tray System with Planting (6 depth)
Typical Modular Tray with Concrete Pavers (6 depth)
Typical Detail at Roof Drain
65
6.0 Appendices - G. Certificate of Occupancy
66

PS 20/A&amp;L Shared Green Roof Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PS 20/A&amp;L Shared Green Roof Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NYC School Construction Authority FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY PS 20/Arts & Letters, 225 Adelphi Street, Brooklyn, NY 11205

Building ID: K020 Design # D014292, LLW#:073178

PS 20/Arts and Letters/ Open Road

June 29, 2012

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Photo Map

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Existing Building Photographs

1. Aerial view of Building

2. Aerial view of Block

3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Existing Building Photographs (cont.)

3. Center Bulkhead Interior

4. East Roof looking North 10

3.0 Existing Building Characteristics Existing Building Photographs (cont.)

5. Looking at South Roof

6. Looking at North Roof

30 psf 60 psf 100 psf 40 psf

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

5.0 Design Approach / Concept Diagrams - Option 1

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

5.0 Design Approach / Concept Diagrams - Option 2

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

5.0 Design Approach / Concept Diagrams - Option 3

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Appendices - B. Existing Condition Drawings

Plan of Site Existing Conditions

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Appendices - B. Existing Condition Drawings

Existing Roof Plan

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Appendices - B. Existing Condition Drawings

Existing East West Elevations

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Appendices - B. Existing Condition Drawings

Existing North South Elevations

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Appendices - B. Existing Condition Drawings

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Appendices - B. Existing Condition Drawings

Roof Plan A101 - Current Project D013851

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Appendices - B. Existing Condition Drawings

Third Floor Plan A102 - Current Project D013851

PS 20/A&L Shared Green Roof Feasibility Study

PS 20/A&L Shared Green Roof Feasibility Study