ps 20/a&l shared green roof feasibility study

7/31/2019 PS 20/A&L Shared Green Roof Feasibility Study

1/66

Feasibility Study29 June 2012

PS 20/Arts and Letters/Open RoadShared Green Roof

225 Adelphi Street

Brooklyn, NY 11205

Building ID: K020

School District: 13

Design #:D014292

LLW#:073178

Description: FY 12 Reso A - Greenroo

Block#: 2091 Lot#:3

Report prepared or:

NYC School Construction Authority

30-30 homson 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

NYC School Construction Authority

FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY

PS 20/Arts & Letters, 225 Adelphi Street, Brooklyn, NY 11205

Building ID: K020

Design # D014292, LLW#:073178


2/66

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects2

Feasibility Study

PS 20/Arts & Letters/Open Road Shared Green Roof

29 June 2012

ABLE OF CONENS

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................3

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................42.0 Overview o Proposed Use .......................................................................................................................5

3.0 Existing Building Characteristics .............................................................................................................6

Building History and Conguration Existing Building Photographs Building Structure Structural Considerations

i. Existing Structureii. Proposed Structural Live Loadiii. Existing Roo Capacity or Proposed Live Loads

Existing Roong Systems Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems

4.0 Building Code Compliance Issues ........................................................................................................22

Use and Occupancy, and Egress Fire/Lie Saety

Accessibility Other Code and Related Operational Issues

5.0 Design Approach/ Concept Diagrams ...................................................................................................24 Te Shared Green Roo Project

Origin o the Proposed Design Requirements to Support the Proposed Design

Concept Diagrams

6.0 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................33

A. Scope o Work or current renovation o roo, #D013851B. Existing Condition DrawingsC. List o Open DOB ViolationsD. Meeting Minutes 2/23/12E. Choosing between an Extensive or Intensive Green RooF. Green Roo Systems and FinishesCost Estimate (Submitted Under Separate Cover)


3/66

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects 3

Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

Executive Summary

Te objective o the Feasibility Study is to identiy the scope o required work and estimated construction cost

to develop a green-roo on PS 20 / Arts & Letters, Brooklyn. Te principals o the two schools; PS 20 / Arts &Letters, supported by their parent-teacher groups, have taken the initiative to propose and plan a Shared GreenRoo, which will provide additional outdoor space where up to two classes o children (or up to 74 occupants)can meet, eat lunch, and study.

ConclusionOne o the most important actors in determining the programming o the roo is the analysis o the structuralcapacity o the existing roo to support the proposed uses. Te structural capacity was ound to be adequate tosupport an Extensive green roo system with vegetated trays (4-4 deep or less), or an extensive roo tray systemwith a greenhouse. Robert Silman Associates has indicated that a ew probes need to be done in the next phaseto determine whether any reinorcing o the column to beam connection at the roo level is necessary. Silmans

oce also suggests that we test the cinder concrete slab at the roo level as well. Probes have been identiedand will be perormed under D013851. We have ound no mechanical, electrical or plumbing issues or codeissues that would prevent this project rom moving orward considering our preliminary budget or the variousoptions proposed. Te project team will need to veriy that the proposed green roo design will qualiy as apromenade, as per New York City Department o Building Code section 1607.11.2.2. Te promenadedesignation allows or a minimum 60 ps live load at the roo and requires structural strengthening. Te schoolsand project team will conrm with all parties that the roo will not be used as a place o assembly.

Tree options or a Shared Green Roo are proposed in this easibility study. In all options, the Green Roois located on the high roo o the school building and consists o primarily Extensive vegetated trays withlimited Intensive vegetated trays areas due to structural constraints. Te vegetated trays will be installed overthe Kemper liquid roo system installed under project D013851. Concrete paver pathways connect the smalland larger group areas with the access and egress stairs. Te concrete pavers scope o work is under D013851and thereore would be existing to the green roo project. Pavers would be removed as required or vegetatedtray installation. Te north side o the roo provides or a shaded seating area with picnic tables, which allowor additional breakast and lunch seating, classroom activities and group study. An alternate on the south sideo the high roo includes a green house, which could be phased over time depending on the cost. Signicantstructural reinorcement o the roo will have to be made to support the greenhouse. We will be providing costestimates or each option and pulling out the greenhouse as an alternate eature in all three options.

Option 3 provides or a green roo on the entire high roo o the school building. Options 1 and 2 are scaled

back rom Option 3 to provide a Phase 1 Scenario i the entire high roo cannot be developed at the same timedue to budget constraints. Options 2 and 3 describe the development o the north roo. Option 2 conservativelyconsiders FDNY access potential requirements and anticipated Landmark Preservation Commission concerns.Te green house is an alternate eature in all options.


4/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

Te scope and requirements o this Feasibility Study are to evaluate i the school administration and PA

generated program can work and is compatible with the existing structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbingbackground o the building. Following our kick-o meeting, where we discussed structural constraints, wescaled back the program rom an athletic roo to a green roo with sitting areas that accommodate up to 74children and adults. We also determined that we would explore including a greenhouse as an option. Te scopeand requirements o the Shared Green Roo Feasibility Study are to evaluate the existing structural conditionsand identiy any other design infuences relevant to the installation o a green roo or PS 20 / Arts & Letters,Brooklyn.

Te Study provides inormation that will infuence the decisions regarding whether and how to develop thegreen roo design:

Determine the load requirements or installation o the Shared Green Roo proposed and an alternatewith a greenhouse

Determine the load capacity o the main roo or installing the green roo as proposed. Determine that proposed use is compatible with NYC zoning regulations. Determine the building code use classication o the proposed concept, and review lie saety

requirements or the new use. Determine possible modications required to adapt the existing exhaust systems and vents or the

proposed use. Determine egress and handicap accessibility requirements and modications or the proposed roo. Evaluate Green Roo options, including greenhouse, within load capacity. Recommend provisions or running water. Determine i the re alarm can be expanded to include green roo. Determine i power is available to be brought up to the roo. Determine i existing water access and drainage is adequate. Investigate the roo construction and warranty o the high roo, and determine whether the new roo

warranty is compatible with the proposed concept. Prepare budget cost estimates.

In addition to analyzing the easibility o implementing the proposed design, the Study provides alternateplan concepts and line items in the cost estimates, to acilitate consideration by the school o options or scopeadjustment to meet available budget.

1.0 Introduction


5/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

2.0 Overview o Proposed UseTe Shared Green Roo Project is supported by the administration and PA o both PS 20 and Arts & Letters.As the two schools grow, additional space will be needed and the Shared Green Roo will provide or space reliethroughout the year, when the weather permits. Te space will also provide or a learning environment thatis unique to New York City and Brooklyn, considering the views o the historic brownstone and the cityscapebeyond. PS 20 / Arts & Letters are planning to establish a Garden to School Cae program which will increasestudents consumption o resh vegetables and knowledge o healthul oods, arming and the local ood system.Tis program will be supported on a small scale, in part, through the planting o vegetable gardens on the greenroo, as well as gardens in the school yard and Fort Greene Park.

Te specic design elements include: Extensive growing areas throughout the roo accommodating a growing medium depth o less than 6

inches (See attached Illustration and Chart).

Small Intensive gardens accommodating a growing medium o more than 6 inches. Tese small gardenswill accommodate vegetables or the Garden to School Ca 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-suraced open-air classrooms or small groups meetings surrounded by Extensive growing and lim-

ited Intensive (vegetable garden) growing areas. Perimeter green ence, except at viewing areas.


6/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

3.0 Existing Building Characteristics

Building History and ConfgurationTe school was designed by Henry V. Murphy in 1947 and constructed in 1951. It is located in the Clinton Hillneighborhood o Brooklyn. Te site is bounded by Adelphi Street to the West, Willoughby Avenue to the Northand Clermont Avenue to the East. Te main entrance is located on Adelphi Street. Te building is located in theFort Greene Historic District, designated September 26, 1978 and is SHPO eligible.

Te total foor area o the building is approximately 92,000 square eet. It is a three story brick masonry build-ing with a basement. Te rear section o the building is one story and houses kindergarten, caeteria, auditoriumand a gym. Te playground on the south side adjoins a residential neighborhood. Te building consists o steelrame, cinder concrete slab and exterior brick aade with sixth course as a header. Te structural system com-prises o concrete encased steel columns and beams. Te exterior envelope consists o brick and limestone ma-sonry. Te school building is set back rom the property line and is enced with wrought iron ence at the ront

and side elevations and a chain link ence around the play yard and the rear side.

According to the original construction documents, the school was designated as PS 12. Te school was laterrenamed PS 20. In 2006, Te Arts & Letters was ounded and now shares the school building with PS 20.Testudent enrollment or PS 20 is listed at 334 and serves pre-K through th grade. Te student enrollment orArts & Letters is 424 and serves kindergarten through 8th grade. Te total student population in the building is758.

According to the NYC School Construction Authority (SCA) Alchemy les, a SHPO report was submitted July12, 2011. From this report, we gathered that a series o projects have been done in the past, including but notlimited to the ollowing:

A boiler and oil tank repair was done in 1982. A Kitchen renovation job was done in 1984. A roo 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 roo, parapet and exterior masonry repair scope o work is currently underway under Design No. D013851.


7/66

Murphy Burnham & Buttrick Architects

Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

1

4

3

56

2

3.0 Existing Building CharacteristicsPhoto Map


8/66

ThisPageIntentionallyLeftBlank


9/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

1. Aerial view o Building

2. Aerial view o Block


Existing Building Photographs


10/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

3. Center Bulkhead Interior

4. East Roo looking North


Existing Building Photographs (cont.)


11/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

5. Looking at South Roo

6. Looking at North Roo


Existing Building Photographs (cont.)


12/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

3.0 Existing Building CharacteristicsBuilding StructureTe structural drawings, dated 1949 indicate that the building construction is cast in place draped mesh stoneand/or cinder concrete slabs spanning to concrete encased steel beams spanning to columns clad in terracottatile. Te roo slab apart rom the an room roo is made o cinder concrete. Te building oundations are iso-lated spread ootings at columns and strip ootings below walls. Te soil bearing capacity is 3 ts.

Structural Considerations

Existing StructureFrom the original structural drawings, the design loads have been provided and the loads or the roo level are asollows:

Main Roo 4 cinder concrete 36 ps

Fill 22 ps

Finish (waterproong, insulation, protection board) 6 ps

Steel 6 ps

Ceiling, Lights, Ducts 10 ps

otal Dead Load 80 ps

Live Load (snow) 40 ps

otal Load 120 ps

Note: From the existing drawing load schedule there is no mention o gravel on the roo as ballast and sel-weight o steel is not included. Tis appears to have been added at a later date and is not accounted in the load-ing above.

Proposed Structural LoadsA review o the current New York City Building Code gives the ollowing load criteria:

Assembly areas that are not as specically dened in the live load tables should be designed or not less than 50ps and not more than 100 ps. However, clause 1607.11.2.2 Special-purpose roos states that Roos used orpromenade purposes shall be designed or a minimum live load o 60 ps. Roos used or roo gardens or assem-bly purposes shall be designed or a minimum live load o 100 ps. Roos used or other special purposes shall bedesigned or appropriate loads, as directed or approved by the Commissioner.

Clause 1607.11.2.3 also states that roos that utilize a green roo system that is not intended or human occu-pancy can be designed or a uniorm live load in the area covered by the green roo o 20 ps.

According to the 3 options provided and the previous report identiying the soil options, the ollowing loadsshould be considered:


13/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

3.0 Existing Building CharacteristicsStructural Considerations (cont.)

2thickpavers20/25psf(assuminglightweight/normalweightconcrete)ExtensiveGreenRoofPlanting:Fully-vegetatedmodulartraywith4depthoflightweightsoil27-29psfIntensiveGreenRoofPlantingwith6Deeptrayswithsaturatedsoil4050psfFiberglassplanters(assume18widex24longx12deepandsaturatedsoil)80100psfor240lbs300lbs each

Te tabulated proposed loads are as ollows:

Dead Loads

Pavers (Lightweight/Normal weight concrete) - see note 1 20/25 psf

Green Roo Planting with 4-1/4 deep trays 27 - 29 ps

Green Roo Planting with 6 Deep trays see note 2 40 - 50 ps

10-0 high ence - see note 3 N/A

Benches - see note 3 N/A

Fiberglass Planters - see note 4 240 lbs - 300 lbs

otal Dead Load (excluding planters) - see note 5 27/40 - 29/50 ps

Live Loads - see note 7

Snow load (current code) 30 ps

Promenade Roo 60 ps Roo Garden or Assembly 100 ps

Greenhouse - see note 6 40 ps

Notes:1. Te pavers are included in this table because even though they are not part o this scope o work (they are un-

der current scope D13851) they are replacing the existing gravel which does not appear to have been part othe original roo load per the drawings. Tey are not included in the dead load summation but can be addedi 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. Sel-weight o ence and/or bench negligible or the dead load assessment determination.4. Fiberglass planters should be located preerably close to or over column locations. Planter loads are not con-

current with Green Roo Planting.5. Te total dead load is additional to the existing dead load o the roo.6. Te live load associated with the greenhouse is or the ootprint o the greenhouse and is based on the as-

sumption that it is used as a teaching environment (i.e. classroom to be veried by the architect).7. Live loads do not happen concurrently


14/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

3.0 Existing Building CharacteristicsStructural Considerations (cont.)

Te use o lightweight or normal weight pavers on this roo is not impacted by any uplit due to wind. It is as-sumed that proper preparation or setting these will be carried out.

While the new 10-0 green screen ence may not impose any appreciable dead load on the existing structure,there will be overturning orces due to wind that will have to be resisted either by anchoring positively to thestructural slab or providing counterweights to resist the overturning orces. I the latter, these would have to beveried against the roo slab capacities.

Existing Roo Capacity or Proposed LoadsRoo probes were done last year to determine the buildup o the roo membranes and rom the report it does

not appear that the existing roo nish was removed in replacing the roong membrane and in addition a gravellayer had been added.

For our analysis, we have used the original loads as specied above to assess the possible roo capacity. As statedin the previous report, the roo slab construction is cinder concrete that is highly susceptible to water damage.ests may need to be done to determine the concrete strength and also assess its capacity. Given the period oconstruction, we have assumed a steel allowable stress o 18,000 psi. In assessing the allowable capacities, wehave determined the actual capacities o the ootings, columns, primary beams and ller beams against the ca-pacities based on the design loads above.

Te additional capacities o the members over and above the 120 ps above are as ollows:

Filler beams 40 ps Primary beams 25 ps Columns 50 ps Footings 45 ps

ConclusionsTe analysis indicates that the maximum additional load that can be carried by the existing roo beams is 25 ps.However, the connections or beam-to-beam and rom beam-to-column will have to be checked to ensure theycan carry the additional loads. Te capacity o the cinder slab concrete cannot be readily determined without

doing some tests o the concrete itsel. Cores and non-destructive tests should be carried out on the cinder slabconcrete to determine its strength and load carrying capacity.

Te table below summarizes the load combinations and impact on the roo slab and whether the roo structureneeds to be strengthened. Te strengthening determination is based solely on the capacity o the primary beams.Tese beams and possibly the cinder concrete slab would need to be strengthened to increase the capacity o theroo structure. Strengthening o these beams can be done by either plating the bottom fange o the beam oradding a structural W to the bottom fange. Te slab can be strengthened by introducing supplemental ram-ing at mid-span o the slab supported by the primary beams. Te connections will also require strengthening.


15/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

Structural Considerations (cont.)

Proposed Roof

Construction

Min. New

Dead

Load (psf)

New

Live

Load (psf)

Ex. DL +

New DL

and LL (psf)

Ex. Min.

Structure

Capacity

(psf)

Structure

Strengthening

Required

Extensive Roofing

(4-1/4 tray)

27 30 137 145 No

Intensive Roofing

(6 tray)

40 30 150 145 Yes

Extensive Roofing

with Promenade

27 60 167 145 Yes

Intensive with Prom-

enade

40 60 180 145 Yes

Extensive with

Greenhouse

27 40* 147 145 No

Intensive with

Greenhouse

40 40* 160 145 Yes

Extensive with

Roof Garden

27 100 207 145 Yes

Intensive withRoof Garden 40 100 220 145 Yes

Te live load o 30 ps is or snow. Tis table above does not include the pavers that are replacing the gravel onthe roo. I they have to be added to the loads above, then the structure will need to be strengthened or all theabove options.

Existing Roofng SystemsTe building has one main roo above the three story portion o the school. Te archive original design drawingsreer to the roo as the Main Roo and the Construction Documents or Design No. D013851 reer to the rooas roo A. Reer to the Appendix or drawings.

Te existing roong system o the Main Roo is a built up roo with gravel. Te new roong system under proj-ect D013851 is an insulated fuid applied resin waterproong roo by Kemper Systems, Inc. Concrete pavers willbe installed over the new roong. Upon installation and inspection approval, the system will receive a 25 yearpro-rated Labor and Material warranty rom the manuacturer including overburden and a minimum two yearworkmanship warranty. Further research is required to determine responsibility or removal o green roo over-burden or inspection and repair.



16/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems

IntroductionLandmark Facilities Group, Inc. o Norwalk, Connecticut perormed an assessment o the existing mechanical,electrical, plumbing, re protection and alarm systems at Arts & Letters and Te Clinton Hill School PS 20 inBrooklyn, New York. Tis report describes the existing conditions o these systems. It then provides the ea-sibility and approaches or the implementation o these systems to support a newly constructed green roo. Asite visit was perormed to understand the existing conditions and analyze the data to identiy the modicationsrequired.

OverviewTe school is a three story building with a ull basement and a one story wing with a total square ootage o ap-

proximately 92,000 square eet. Tere are two independent public schools which occupy this building or a totalo about 800 students. Te roo is accessed via three bulkheads, one o which contains the an room. Tereis currently an active project taking place which is to replace the existing roo membrane and repair numerousleaks caused by an inadequate drainage system.

PlumbingTere are a series o sanitary waste system vent pipes penetrating through the roo o PS20. Te vent pipes aregenerally located within a ew eet o the parapet walls along the perimeter o the building. However, there areseveral vent pipes located more toward the center o the roo. All plumbing vents will have to be extended to aminimum o 7 eet above the deck. Te extensions will have to be welded to the existing cast iron vent pipes toensure stability without using guy wires. It may be possible to re-route certain vent pipes and combine them to

reduce the number o pipes in the green space. We were unable to determine i there is adequate space above theceilings o the classrooms to conceal the piping. I not, a sot would be required.

A rost ree hose bibb will need to be provided or watering plants during dry periods. Any o the water linesserving sinks in the third foor classrooms can be tapped to eed the hose bibb. We recommend routing thewater line through the roo an room so a shut-o valve can be placed in the an room.

No sanitary drainage will be required rom the roo.

New pavers will be on pedestals so that water fow to existing roo drains will not be impeded.

An approximation o the necessary materials would include: copper tube 75 l valves 2 each backfow preventer 1 eachHose bibs 1 each



17/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems (cont.)

Greenhouse Option:A greenhouse would require a water supply or a utility sink and an irrigation system.One o the water lines serving a classroom on the third foor would be tapped to providethe water. Hot water is not required.

Te utility sink would require a new sanitary waste line. Te waste line would beconnected to a waste line serving one o the classrooms on the third foor.

An approximation o the necessary materials would include:

copper tube 75 l valves 2 each backfow preventer 1 eachHose bibs 1 eachUtility sink 1 eachFaucet or utility sink 1 each2 cast iron soil pipe 75 l

MechanicalTe proposed program does not require any mechanical systems in this phase.

Greenhouse Alternate:A greenhouse would require a ventilation system consisting o intake vents and exhaust ans. Depending onthe desired growing season, the greenhouse could be equipped with a steam heater ed rom the building steamsystem. Additional research would be required to nd a suitable place to tap into the steam system, but it seemslikely that it could be done at the third foor level.ElectricalExisting ConditionsTe building is currently served by two separate 208/120V, three phase, our wire electrical services rom ConEdison, Service A and Service B, each metered separately. Each service entrance main disconnect switch is rated

600A and contain 500A uses. Te main eeders rom these switches serve an open knie switchboard whichserves the entire building. Tere is a third service switch rated 200A that is tapped o the line side o ServiceA and separately metered. Tis switch serves two emergency lighting panels or the building. It is such that ithere is a utility outage, there would be no power to these emergency panels as well.

Tere are subpanels throughout the building serving the classroom lighting, receptacles, individual air condition-ing units and miscellaneous loads.



18/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

Service Switch B (let) and Service Switch A (right) withrespective C cabinets and meters



Tere has been extensive leakage in the electrical room which isevident by the corrosion and rust on the uses in each o the serviceswitches.


19/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012



Fire Alarm SystemTe main re alarm control panel is a digital Faraday System and resides in the mechanical room in the base-ment. Te Faraday System is interconnected with a modied analogue Acme Fire Alarm System which appearsto be the original re alarm system rom 1951. A data gathering panel (DGP) is installed to allow these twosystems to communicate. Te devices throughout the building consist o gongs and double action pull stations.Tere are also carbon monoxide detectors in the boiler room and science lab and it is anticipated that an addi-tional one will be installed in the kitchen. Te devices are antiquated and portions o the system are inaccessible

Te ollowing ndings regarding the existing re alarm system have been identied during this easibility study: Te original Certicate o Occupancy indicates Fire Department approvals were received by the Department

o Buildings or uel oil and interior re alarm on 28 September 1951 and sprinkler system and re extin-guishing equipment on 15 April 1952 (Reer to Appendix G);

According to the SCA, the main alarm panel appears to have been installed by the SCA in 2005; No letters o approval rom the FDNY could be obtained rom the Department o Buildings le or directly

rom the FDNY or the Fire Department approvals listed on the original Certicate o Occupancy or sub-sequent upgrades to the re alarm system in 2005. As a result, the existing re alarm system may be inter-preted as non-compliant by FDNY or new work permit applications that involve the building re alarmsystem. Tis would likely require replacement o the entire re alarm system to comply with the 2008 NYCConstruction Codes and the Rules o the Department o Buildings, 1 RCNY 4000-06 Fire Alarm Wiring

and Power Sources. Te extent o any uture work or alterations to the existing re alarm system wouldrequire review by the Department o Buildings and FDNY to obtain a letter o approval and dene the spe-cic scope;

Te Division o School Facilities, Brooklyn North has conrmed through their service provider, Star FireProtection Co. that the existing re alarm system is addressable and can accept additional devices or a pos-sible direct run rom the existing panel to the proposed green roo. However, in order to obtain a workpermit or this alteration, FDNY would need to see a letter o approval or the existing re alarm system.


20/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012



Fire Alarm System (cont.)


21/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012



ObjectiveTe objective o this study is to determine what modications to the existing system are needed to support thenewly constructed green roo that will consist o outdoor classroom space or up to 74 students and adults, greenspace and play area as well as reserve power to support miscellaneous loads or a uture greenhouse including aans, weatherstations and grow lights. Tis green roo will be required to meet all current codes or lighting, realarm, electrical wiring and lie saety all while maintaining the sensitivity o a residential neighborhood.

RecommendationsTe existing re alarm system should be ully inspected by FDNY immediately to identiy any existing decien-cies in the re alarm system that pose a saety hazard to building occupants. For example, one pull station access

door in the auditorium was observed during investigative work under this easibility study to be shut closed.Tis deciency has already been brought to the attention o the Division o School Facilities as a potential saetyconcern.

Te proposed green roo would require the installation o up to 9 new re alarm devices including dual actionpull stations with proper FDNY markings at each egress door on the green roo. Gongs and pull stations wouldalso be required to provide proper coverage. Tese devices should be tied into the existing system and the realarm control panel reprogrammed to accept these new devices. According to Department o Buildings ech-nical Bulletin 2009-022, this work would require an alteration application or a work permit because the pro-posed green roo involves a change o use or occupancy. Because no letters o approval or the existing re alarmsystem could be obtained under this easibility study, the extent o alterations to the existing re alarm system is

subject to review by FDNY and echnical Aairs Division o the Department o Buildings.

For the purposes o this easibility study each design option assumes the existing re alarm system can be ad-dressed. Each option includes the programming o the existing re alarm systems unctionality in accordancewith the 2008 NYC Construction codes, unless otherwise reviewed and approved by the echnical Aairs Divi-sion o the Department o Buildings. Each option would also include the installation o new re alarm devicesor the green roo in accordance with the 2008 NYC Construction Codes, supervision o such devices and Ruleso the Department o Buildings, 1 RCNY 4000-06. Existing unctional devices not aected by this new scopeo work would remain.

Alternatively, FDNY may require that the existing re alarm system be replaced with a new re alarm systemwithin the entire school in accordance with the 2008 NYC Construction Codes to obtain a new letter o ap-proval on le. A new re alarm system would include the use o speaker strobes or notication which could beintegrated with the building PA system i approved by FDNY. Te new re alarm system would disable a generalPA announcement and alert the occupants o an alarm either with a pre-recorded or live message. All pull boxstations throughout the building would need to be replaced at a lower height to meet ADA requirements in thecode. Te installation o a new main re alarm panel would provide the capability to temporarily silence thegreen roo audible devices during the weekly testing to avoid disturbing the residents nearby.


22/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

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 construc-

tion classication). Scope should comply with the 1938 code. 1968 or 2008 code can be applied if a determi-nation is accepted by DOB. Evidence should be shown that there is no reduction in re safety or structuralsafety of the building when said code is thus applied. In review of the lings done previously on the building,recent work has been led under 1968 and 2008 codes. Regardless, all plumbing, mechanical, fuel/gas, sprinkleror Fire Alarm work must be in accordance with 2008 code. The addition of occupancy on the roof level willrequire a change to the Certicate 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 theschools 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 occupythe roof. The number of persons is calculated by the paved area of the roof divided by the code factor of 20square feet per person for classroom use. The design options presented in this Study will vary in paved areafrom 4,887 square feet (245 occupants) to 9,995 (500 occupants). A stated occupancy can be accepted for anactual number if the number generated by area is not realistic. Per 1968 code BC 27-259, using building sectionsand spaces for instruction and other educational purposes shall classify the space as group g-educational. Build-ing Code requirements which apply to this project include (but are not limited to):

Fire/Life Safety

Minimum of two independent exits from each oor 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.

AccessibilityPer code, one must provide a handicap accessible route to the occupied roo. Te building currently has no

elevator and no plan or the installation o elevators. It is recommended that a waiver rom the Mayors Oceor People with Disabilities (MOPD) be obtained in order to occupy the roo. Te design consultant will drata waiver request with supporting drawings and photographs or review by the MOPD. Te SCA requests thatthe MOPD Waiver request take place ater unding has been secured or the project. Te waiver request will bebased on nancial hardship and should be accompanied by a letter rom the SCA stating that an elevator is noteasible due to limited resources and capital budget. Other requirements include:

Code-compliant landings required at the top o stairs Code-compliant handrails


23/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

Accessibility (cont.)

Te Building Code requires that existing mechanical and plumbing vents be raised to a height o 7 or all oc-cupied areas o the roo. Te existing parapets are not in good condition but will be replaced in their entiretyunder project D013851. Te height o existing parapets is currently 3-6 above the roo. Installing green traysand precast concrete pavers on the roo will result in a non-compliant parapet height. Te installation o a enceeither set in rom the parapets or anchored to the top o the parapets would maintain code compliance.

Water service would be required to irrigate the plant material. Extensions o the existing security, public addressand emergency lighting systems are anticipated. In addition to these elements, some electrical power work can beanticipated to support maintenance and operations on the green roo.

Other Code and Related Operational Issues

PreservationPS 20 / Arts & Letters is located in the Fort Greene Historic District and thereore subject to the standards othe Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). Te proposed Greenscreen Fences will be visible rom the sur-rounding public ways. Te school is not exempt rom review by the LPC; thereore, any design which proposesany additions to the existing building must be presented to the LPC or review and approval.

ZoningTe building is located in residential zoning district R6B and is subject to residential district regulations orcommunity acilities. 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 ences are permitted obstructions andmay penetrate a maximum height limit. Should alternate designs be presented in addition to ences or otherpermitted obstruction, a more in depth zoning analysis must be perormed.

Fire CodeFire department rootop access will be required in accordance with Chapter 5 Fire Operations Features, Sec-tion FC 504.4 Rootop access and obstructions o the 2008 NYC Fire Code. Options 1 & 3 propose parapet-mounted ences with gates or FDNY access. Option 2 proposed roo-mounted ences along the street acingacades (Willoughby Avenue to the north and Adelphi Street to the west.) to allow or FDNY access to the roowithout going through a ence and gate. Once on the roo, the FDNY would gain access to green roo portion

o the roo through gates. Te design team has submitted the easibility options to Lieutenant Al rinidad oFDNYs Rootop Access Unit or unocial, preliminary comments. A ormal submission to FDNY o nal con-struction documents or review and approval will be required in the design phase.

DOB ViolationsTe current roo project under 013851 will cure 6 o 18 open DOB and ECB Violations. For a complete list oopen violations, please reer to Appendix C.

4.0 Building Code Compliance Issues


24/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

5.0 Design Approach / Concept Diagrams

Te Shared Green Roo Project

Origin o the Proposed DesignP.S. 20 / Arts and Letters administrations and PA has been seeking to nd solutions to overcrowding in theexisting school building. One o the schools goals is to provide or additional space or both breakout classroomsand or eating lunch, considering the crowded state o the existing classrooms and caeteria. Another goal o theschools is to join the Garden to Ca program, where students will grow healthy vegetables to be eaten at lunchin the schools shared caeteria or on the proposed Shared Green Roo. Te culture o the school is all aboutsending the children outdoors to learn, play, and exercise throughout the year.

Te proposed Shared Green Roo will provide breakout spaces or learning, gardening plots or the Garden toCa program and outdoor space or eating. Breakast or lunch can be enjoyed in an outdoor sustainable setting

with views o historic architecture and New York City. An alternate piece o the plan is a proposed green house,which we have priced out separately. Te green house would allow or a larger variety o plants and vegetables tobe grown through the winter months.

Te Shared Green Roo aims to provide an outdoor space or learning that can be enjoyed by PS 20 and Arts &Letters. Te goals are to promote a sharing environment between the two schools, increase outdoor space avail-able to students, enhance the teaching/learning environment, and supplement the lunch program. Tree conceptsare represented in this section by plan diagram options 1, 2 and 3. Each concept provides PS 20 / Arts & Letterswith paved areas or gathering, teaching and eating as well as green areas or observation and growing.

Requirements to Support the Proposed Design

Te proposed Shared Green Roo described in Option 1 describes 4,657 sq. t. o extensive planted trays, 4,887sq. t. o paved area, part o which is a shaded area with picnic tables. All o the above can be supported by theexisting roo, with the caveat that prior to construction, probes will need to be made o the column to beam con-nections just below the roo surace and cinder concrete structural slab and reviewed by a structural engineer toconrm that the carrying capacity o the roo is 25 lb./ sq. t. load . I necessary, reinorcements may need to bemade to the column-beam connections which we have included in the budgets or all three options. Te inten-sive planted areas, that will support vegetable growth, will need to be located strategically in areas within a certainradius o supporting columns. Additional structural measures will need to be taken to increase the loading capac-ity o the roo structure to accommodate a green house.

Green Roo SystemsExtensive green roo planting areas will consist o a modular tray system with an anticipated growing mediumdepth o 4-6. A modular tray system oers the ollowing advantages:

Shallow growing medium that is light weight and supports drought, wind and rost tolerant plant species Flexibility in planning and well-suited or existing rootop areas All green roo 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 or installation with ully grown plants and horticultural soils, reducing up-

ront intensive care to establish planting and discouraging weeds


25/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012


Green Roo Systems (cont.)

Modules interlock seamlessly to provide shared rooting volume or movement o water, nutrients andbenecial organisms across entire rootop strata, avoiding a compartmental growing medium and unnatu-ral grids expressed at the surace

Te ease o installation o this modular system allows or a partnership with a community

We anticipate additional site visits during the design phase to evaluate adjacent context and buildings relativeto solar issues, on-site views and microclimate infuences. Tese ndings will guide the nal green roo designand plant selection. Extensive green roo plant species will be selected or urban and drought tolerance, seasonalinterest and suitability or the microclimate o the rootop. Each o the easibility study options anticipates apalette o deciduous, semi-evergreen and evergreen sedums that are water conservers. All plant material will be

locally grown and sourced or the project. Anticipated plant species or this project may include:

Sedum hybridum Immergrunchen Sedum rupestre Angelina Sedum spurium Dragons Blood Sedum spurium Royal Pink Sedum album Coral Carpet Sedum forierum Weihenstephaner Gold Sedum sexangulare Sedum refexum

Extensive green roo benets include:

Outdoor education opportunities Reduced impervious coverage Reduced total and peak fows o stormwater into City sewer system Improved stormwater run-o 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 o roong Increased lie expectancy o roong waterproong Wildlie habitat or butterfies, insects and birds

Te extensive green roo growing medium will consist o an engineered soil mix with locally sourced com-ponents used in conjunction with the tray system modular. Te soil mix will include a blend o light weightorganic and inorganic material conorming to German FLL granulometric standards, lter rainwater and bueracid rain. Reer to enclosed soil analysis rom Penn State University or an example o typical soil mix properties.


26/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

Te nal soil mix and depth will be identied as the design is developed to meet the existing roo top loadinglimits.

Te intensive green roo areas will consist o growing medium depths greater than 6, capable o supportingvegetables and herbs. We anticipate that these greater depths will be achieved through the use o larger modulartray systems and/ or light-weight berglass planters. Te intensive green roo growing medium will also consisto light-weight engineered materials.

Concept DiagramsOption 1 denes the northern hal o the main roo as the occupied area. A parapet-mounted Greenscreen enceprovides a sae and enclosed space or students. Te top o the ence will be 10 eet above the new roo pavers. oensure re code compliance, the ences acing Willoughby Avenue to the north and Adelphi Street to the west

will be equipped with 3 oot wide by 7 oot tall gates. Tis will allow remen access to the roo rom the streetacing sides o the roo. Framed acrylic viewports located at strategic points on the ence will allow uninterruptedviews north and west. 18 x 18 lightweight precast concrete pavers installed on leveling pedestals provide themain seating surace and egress path. We anticipate the pavers to be installed approximately 6 above the existingroong to achieve a level path rom the stairs. Te stair landings will be raised to match the roo paver elevation.Vegetated modules (green trays) installed on top o a new slip sheet create a green edge throughout the perim-eter o the roo. Te specic soil mix and depth will identied as the design is developed but we assume a 4-6soil depth capable o growing a variety o sedum. Smaller paved areas are mixed in with the central portion othe green tray area to encourage smaller meeting groups. Selected areas on the roo capable o supporting moreload will receive 6 deep or greater green trays and/or berglass planters capable o growing vegetables and herbs.Students growing their own ood will support the schools goal o supplementing the existing lunch program. An

eating area with non-xed seating is identied near the center stair. A manually operated awning attached to theexisting center bulkhead provides shade to the seating area. Lastly, to enhance the green roo as a teaching tool,network coverage throughout the roo is proposed by installing a new wireless access point device in the existingan room.

Option 2 is similar to option 1 but locates a 10 oot high Greenscreen ence 6 eet rom the north and west para-pets. Providing a 6 oot wide gravel path along the street acing sides o the roo allows the re department to ac-cess the roo without operating gates. Once on the roo, the ence would have gates to provide access to the greenroo. Tis option also extends occupancy to the south o the center stair bulkhead and adds paved and green trayarea to the roo. An aluminum and glass greenhouse is included as an alternate. A greenhouse would require the

structural roo load capacity to be increased, irrigation systems, ventilation systems and grow lighting.

Option 3 makes use o the entire main roo. Te plan layout shown on the north portion o the roo would berepeated on the south side o the roo doubling the occupied area. Te greenhouse as an alternate is also includedin this option.



27/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

5.0 Design Approach / Concept Diagrams - Option 1


28/66



29/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012



30/66



31/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012



32/66



33/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

A. Scope o Work or current renovation o roo #D013851B. Existing Condition DrawingsC. List o open DOB ViolationsD. Meeting Minutes 2/23/12E. Choosing between an extensive or Intensive Green RooF. Green Roo Systems and Finishes

6.0 Appendices


34/66



35/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

6.0 Appendices - B. Existing Condition Drawings

Plan o Site Existing Conditions


36/66



37/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012


Existing Roo Plan


38/66



39/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012


Existing East West Elevations


40/66



41/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012


Existing North South Elevations


42/66



43/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012


Existing Sections


44/66



45/66


Feasibility Study

PS 20/ Arts & Letters Shared Green Roof

29 June 2012

Roof Plan A101 - Current Project D013851



46/66



47/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012


Tird Floor Plan A102 - Current Project D013851


48/66



49/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012


Elevations A201 - Current Project D013851


50/66



51/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012


Existing Column Schedule


52/66



53/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012


Existing Roo Framing Plan


54/66



55/66


56/66



57/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012


Elevations A203 - Current Project D013851


58/66



59/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

6.0 Appendices - C. List o open DOB Violations

VIOLATION#ISSUANCE

DATE DESCRIPTION

LATEFILINGPENALTY DEVICE# H EA RI NGDATE REMEDY

DOBV178167(225) 3/1/1967

ACOPYOFTHEVIOLATIONMUSTBEREQUESTEDTO

DETERMINEDESCRIPTION.REQUESTHASBEENMADE

ANDWILLBERECEIVEDWITHIN35BUSINESSDAYS.

N/A N/A N/AINITIALREQUESTDIDNOTPRODUCEACOPYOFTHEVIOLATION.

REQUESTINGFROMADIFFERENTDEPARTMENT.

092999ZC61 02 RR 9 /2 9/1 99 9

HAVINGSIGNAGEWITHSURFACEAREAEXCEEDING

12SQFTANDNOTLIMITEDTO

THENAMEANDADDRESSOFTHEESTABLISHMENT.

N/A N/A N/A REMOVEILLEGALSIGNAGESUBMITDISMISSALREQUEST.

092999ZC66 02 RR 9 /2 9/1 99 9


DETERMINEDESCRIPTION.35BUSINESSDAY

REQUESTYEILDEDNORESULTS. REQUESTINGFROM

ADIFFERENTDEPARTMENTWHICHMAYTAKE1015

BUSINESSDAYS.

N/A N/A N/A COPYMUSTBEAQUIREDTOADVISE

080201CZSTF03RR 8/2/2001HAVINGINSTALLEDASIGNW/OPERMIT/HAVINGAN

ILLUMINATEDSIGNW/OACURRENTPERMIT.N/A N/A N/A REMOVEILLEGALSIGNAGESUBMITDISMISSALREQUEST.

080201CZSTF04RR 8/2/2001

HAVINGINSTALLEDASIGNW/OPERMIT/HAVINGAN

ILLUMINATEDSIGNW/OACURRENTPERMIT.

HAVINGINSTALLEDAFLAGPOLEW/OPERMIT

HAVINGSIGNAGE

PROJECTING

MORE

THAN

10''

ACROOSTHESTREETLINE.

N/A N/A N/A REMOVEILLEGALSIGNAGESUBMITDISMISSALREQUEST.

0 80 20 1Z ST F0 3R R 8 /2 /2 00 1





BUSINESSDAYS.


0 80 20 1Z ST F0 4R R 8 /2 /2 00 1





BUSINESSDAYS.


ECB

34 933971Z 1 /18/2012

REISSUE#34919562R.EXTERIORSTEELGRADEAND

PLATE(HOISTDOOR)ISCORRODEDANDLOOSE

LOCATEDONADELPHISTREETADJACENTTOTHE

MAINENTRANCE.

$0.00 N/A

NOHEARING;

PLUBLICLY

OWNED.

REPAIRAND/ORREPLACEMETALSTEELPLATE/DOORSANDSUBMIT

CERTIFICATEOFCORRECTIONSANDAFFFIDAVITTO

ADMINISTRATIVEENFORCEMENTUNIT.

3 4933972 K 1/18 /2012

REISSUE#34919561P,34919560N.THECONCRETE

CEILINGISSPALLINGLEAVINGTHEREBARSLOCATED

AT3RDFLOORBULKHEADANDELECTRICALROOMAT

CELLARLEVEL.

$0.00 N/A

NOHEARING;

PLUBLICLY

OWNED.

REPAIRAND/ORREPLACECONCRETE.SUBMITCERTIFICATEOF

CORRECTIONSANDAFFFIDAVITTOADMINISTRATIVE

ENFORCEMENTUNIT.

3 49 33 97 3M 1 /1 8/ 20 12

REISSUE#34919559X.SLOPSINKROOM212AON

THE2ND

FLOOR

HAS

LARGE

HOLES

IN

THE

WALL

AND

CEILING.$0.00

N/A

NOHEARING;

PLUBLICLY

OWNED.

REPAIRAND/ORREPLACEWALLANDCEILING.SUBMITCERTIFICATE

OFCORRECTIONS

AND

AFFFIDAVIT

TO

ADMINISTRATIVE

ENFORCEMENTUNIT.

3420971 3Z 5/10 /199 9

WORKWITHOUTAPERMITWORKNOTEDAWING

HASBEENCONSTRCUTEDABOVETHE1STFLLEVEL

NORTHANDWESTSIDESOFBLDGREMEDYOBTAIN

PERMITSAPPROVALSFORDOBAERSTOREPREMISES

TOPRIORLEGALCONDITIONREMOVE.

$0.00 N/A WRITTENOFFSUBMITCERTIFICATEOFCORRECTIONSANDAFFFIDAVITTO

ADMINISTRATIVEENFORCEMENTUNIT.

3 4846417 X 6/23/2010REISSUE34772536J.CONCRETECEILINGFALLING

INSIDEELECTRICALPANELROOM.$0.00 N/A

NOHEARING;

PLUBLICLY

OWNED.

REPAIRCEILING.SUBMITCERTIFICATEOFCORRECTIONSAND

AFFFIDAVITTOADMINISTRATIVEENFORCEMENTUNIT.SCATORESOLVE.

34 772536J 3/27/2009

REISSUE:34692532MCEILINGATCELLARLEVEL

ELECTRICALPANELROOMSPALLINGEXPOSING

STRUCTURALSTEELTOPOFWALLANDHORIZONTAL

CRACKRUNNINGALONGWALL.

$0.00 N/A

NOHEARING;

PLUBLICLY

OWNED.

REPAIRALLDEFECTSTHENSUBMITCERTIFICATEOFCORRECTION

ANDAFFFIDAVIT.SCATORESOLVE.

3491955 8Y 7/1/2 011

DEFECTIVEBRICKMASONRY.AT3RDFLR.ALONE

WILLOUGHBYAVE.,2'VERTICALCRACKAND

SPALLILNGCRIPPEDBRICKSBOTHSIDESOFLINTEL

EASTWINDOW.ATEXIT#5AUDITORIUMEXITTO

PLAYYAD,BULGINGBRICKSLEFTSIDEOFST.

$0.00 N/A

NOHEARING;

PLUBLICLY

OWNED.

REPAIRALLDEFECTSTHENSUBMITCERTIFICATEOFCORRECTION

ANDAFFFIDAVIT.SCATORESOLVE.

349195 59X 7 /1/2011

DEFECTIVEWALLL&CEILING.AT2NDFLR.MOPSINK

ROOM#212A,

LARGE

SECTION

OF

CEILING

AND

WALL

OPENEDDUETOPRIORREPAIRSANDLEFTOPEN.$0.00

N/A

NOHEARING;

PLUBLICLY

OWNED.

REPAIRWALL&CEILINGTHENSUBMITCERTIFICATEOF

CORRECTIONAND

AFFFIDAVIT.SCATORESOLVE.

34919 560N 7 /1/2011

REISSUE#34846417XDEFECTIVECONCRETECEILING.

ATCELLARELECTRICROOMCONCRETECEILING

CRUMBLINGWITHSECTIONSMISSINGEXPOSING

CORRODEDREBAR.

$0.00 N/A

NOHEARING;

PLUBLICLY

OWNED.

REPAIRCONCRETECEILINGTHENSUBMITCERTIFICATEOF

CORRECTIONANDAFFFIDAVIT.SCATORESOLVE.

34 919561P 7/1/20 11

DEFECTIVECONRETECEILING.AT3RDFLRBULKHEAD,

CRACKEDANDMISSINGSECTIONSOFCONCRETE

EXPOSINGREBAR.

$0.00 N/A

NOHEARING;

PLUBLICLY

OWNED.

REPAIRCONCRETECEILINGTHENSUBMITCERTIFICATEOF

CORRECTIONANDAFFFIDAVIT.SCATORESOLVE.

34 919562R 7/1/20 11

DEFECTIVESTEELGRATEANDPLATES.ATFRONT

LEFT,THESIDEWALKELEVATOR/HOISTDROPDOOR

ANDGRATEARELOOSE,CORRODEDANDSTICKING

UP.

$0.00 N/A

NOHEARING;

PLUBLICLY

OWNED.

REPAIR/REPLACEASREQUIREDTHENSUBMITCERTIFICATEOF

CORRECTIONANDAFFFIDAVIT.

FDNY

REQUESTWASMADETOOBTAINVIOLATIONCOPIESSOTHATADDITIONALINFORMATIONCOULDBEAQUIRED.

225ADELPHISTREET


60/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

Reso A Scope Phase Meeting MinutesArchitecture & Engineering

School: PS 20, Brooklyn225 Adelphi StreetBrooklyn, New York 11205

Project Design#: TBDLLW #: TBD

Date of Meeting/Visit: 2/23/2012Location:_PS 20_____________

Present:

Name Title Organization Phone Email AddressMary Burnham Architect MBB 212-768-7676 [email protected]

Jose Miranda PM MBB 212-768-7676 [email protected] Laudati Engineer Langan 201-398-4521 [email protected] Cirincione A&E DPM SCA, A&E 718-472-8562 [email protected] Peterson PM JRC 917-542-3650 [email protected] Amram Hewitt Principals

RepresentativePTA 646-645-4375 [email protected]

Orlando Garcia Custodian PS 20 718-346-6244 [email protected]

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 Agrant in anticipation of developing a scope of work per SCA standards. At each phase of the project we willneed to make sure that the project can be achieved within the funding available. If additional funds prove tobe required, the SCA Reso A Coordinator will work with the elected officials providing the grant towards thatend. Similarly, if the Reso A project description changes, the Reso A Coordinator will seek the concurrence ofthe grantor.Please note that if the proposed project will change the use of a room, a discussion with the ISC FacilitiesPlanner is required.As the project is able to move forward from one phase to the next, you will be advised onthe status and progress of the project. During the course of the project, you will be consulted concerningaspects of the project that will affect school operation.

During the initial Scope Phase the designers project-related findings and recommendations aredocumented. At the completion of the Scope phase you will receive a summary of that informationfrom 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 anyitems 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 todiscuss phasing issues. The Project Office will be your point of contact during the ConstructionPhase of the project.

Approved Reso A Project:

1. {LLW# 0XXXXX Component Description, i.e., New Reso A Library}

Meeting Minutes follow:

6.0 Appendices - D. Meeting Minutes 2/23/12


61/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

1. Discussion of Reso A Projecta. 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. Potentialprogram elements include a green roof and athletic surfacing. The design team will identify theroofs capacity, applicable codes, and propose a test fit design as per the SCA requirements forfeasibility studies.

b. There is a renovation project currently underway at PS 20/Arts & Letters that involves interiorwork as well as roof work. The design team will review the current projects contract documentsand identify in the feasibility study potential infrastructure items that could be added to the currentscope 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 ateaching 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 identifyany code restrictions related to these items.

e. MBB presented the green roof project at PS41 as a precedent. The Greenscreen fencing andvegetated 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 fundingbecomes available.

2. School comments and requestsa. 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 requirementsa. 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. Atthat 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 718-472-8562or you can contact theNYCSCA 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 scopeof work described above meets with your satisfaction. Please use the space below to concur or provide yourcomments or questions, and forward the email to the SCA Design Specialist at {[email protected]}

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}

06.0 Appendices -D. Meeting Minutes 2/23/12


62/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

Choosing between an Extensive or Intensive Green Roof

EXTENSIVE INTENSIVE

Growing Medium

Depth

6 or less Greater than 6

Accessibility Often inaccessible Usually accessible

Fully Saturated

Weight

10-35 PSF 50-300 PSF

Advantages 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

Greater plant diversity

Better insulation properties

Better storm management

Greater range of design

Greater variety of human uses

Greater biodiversity potential

Disadvantages Cannot support a vegetable or fruit

garden

Higher capital costs

Requires roof structure reinforcement

Higher maintenance costs

Requires permanent railings

Higher visibility from street

6.0 Appendices - E. Green Roo Systems


63/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

Extensive Green Roof Plantings:

Extensive Green Roof Typical Planting Edge at

Roof Ballast and Drain

Extensive Green Roof Planting Consisting of

Decidious, Semi-evergreen and Evergreen

Sedum Planting

Extensive Green Roof Utilizing Seemless

Modular Tray System

Plant species will be selected for urban and droughttolerance, 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

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.

6.0 Appendices - F. Green Roo Systems and Finishes


64/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012


Green Screen Perimeter Fencing Elevation:

Freestanding Green Screen Fence Elevation

ROOF STRUCTURE UNDER SCA

DESIGN #013851 (TYP.)

3" THICK GREEN

SCREEN PANEL, (TYP.)

FINISHED ROOF SURFACE

#5145 POST CLIPS MOUNTED FRONT &BACK @ EACH LOCATION OR #5133

SNAP CLIPS @ ONE FACE W/

STAINLESS STEEL TEK SCREW, (TYP.)

#5104 CHANNEL TRIM OR #5105 STEEL EDGE

TRIM OPTIONAL @ TOP EDGE OF PANEL, (TYP.)

3" ROUND OR SQUARE STEELTUBE W/ POST CAP, (TYP.)

HORIZONTAL PANEL MAX. 48" IN 2" INCREMENTS

POST TO POST CLEAR = PANEL LENGTH + 1", (TYP.)

POST TO POST CENTERS = PANEL LENGTH + 4", (TYP.)

3" THICK GREEN SCREEN PANEL, (TYP.)

CONCRETE

ROOF SLAB

10'-0"HEIGHT

PANELSSIZED

IN

2"INCREMENTSTO168"MAX.

+/-EQ.

+/-EQ.

0'-6"

+/-EQ.


65/66


Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

Extensive Green Roof Conceptual Sections:

Typical Detail at Roof Drain

Typical Modular Tray with Concrete Pavers (6 depth)

Typical Modular Tray System with Planting (6 depth)



66/66

Feasibility Study


29 June 2012

6.0 Appendices - G. Certifcate o Occupancy