for - alexandria city public schools · 2017. 3. 3. · azjargal e. bartlett construction program...

1

1701 North Beauregard

Feasibility Study for Conversion to School

Henry Adams Engineers

October 14, 2016

DRAFT

Alexandria City Public Schools

Dr. Alvin L. Crawley Superintendent of Schools

Clarence Stukes Chief Operating Officer

Richard L. Jackson Director of Educational Facilities

Elijah V. Gross Director of Planning, Construction and Design

Erika Gulick Facilities Planner

Azjargal E. Bartlett Construction Program Manager

Design Team

Henry Adams Engineers Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Engineering, Contract Engineer

J. Douglas Tebera, PE, Managing Principal

Noelker and Hull Architects Architect

Robert M. Asbury, AIA, Principal

Daniel M. McDougal, Project Manager

A. Morton Thomas and Associates Site Planning and Civil Engineering

Charles O’Connell, Project Manager

Albrecht Engineering Structural Engineering

Rachel Albrecht, PE, President

2

Executive Summary

Following an initial property assessment, ACPS asked the Henry Adams/Noelker and Hull design team to examine strategies for conversion of the existing 1998 office building at 1701 N. Beauregard to a K‐5 elementary school under two conditions:

A six‐story school

A four‐story school with office space on floors 5 and 6

Like the conversion of the Torpedo Factory to an arts center in 1974, the conversion of 1701 is an example of adaptive re‐use. Such re‐purposing of an existing building that was designed for a different use brings an increased level of regulation, demanding that the building be brought up to current building code requirements for the new use while addressing existing deficiencies. Since a school involves more occupants and is subject to more stringent restrictions on height, area and construction type than an office building, substantial measures are required to address the change in use.

Under the six story concept the entire steel building structure would require an upgrade to its fireproof coating to a two‐hour rating, necessitating the removal and replacement of the exterior skin of the building to allow access to all sides of the framing. This concept yields at least six classrooms per grade, for a potential capacity of 888 students, not including spare classrooms in grades K‐2.

Under the four story concept the building’s skin would remain intact and only the core steel would be upgraded to two hour protection to allow re‐use of the existing elevators and to support modifications to the stairs. This concept yields a capacity of 592 students in four classrooms per grade, not including extra classrooms. The two upper floors would be available for strictly business use, unconnected with the school below or with any assembly or after‐school use.

For both concepts the interior stair system would be enlarged, with structural modifications to internal framing to allow larger floor openings, and an exterior stair/elevator tower would be created to comply with the increased occupant load resulting from the change from an occupant density of about 100 square feet per occupant in an office situation to an average of about 30 square feet per occupant for a school. In the four story concept the additional elevators would provide separate access to the office spaces through a separate entrance from the school spaces. In the six story concept a high‐capacity elevator would offer additional capacity and the option to transport entire classes in one car.

Ground floor spaces are proposed for assembly and administrative uses. Two alternative arrangements are shown. The top level of the parking deck is proposed as playground space, which will require additional exiting and fire protection upgrades to the parking structure. A bridge is proposed to connect the third floor of 1701 to the top level of the deck. For a future phase, pending planning and zooming consultation, a gymnasium may be placed between 1701 and the parking structure on an elevated podium across the bus lanes.

The floors are to some extent modular in nature. Classroom spaces are not specific to individual grade levels, apart from the distinction between kindergarten and grades 1‐5. Individual floor plans are not tied to floors, so the media center, presently shown on the third floor, could be moved higher in the building if desired with no effect on capacity.

5

Summary

Following an initial building assessment by the design team in the summer of 2016, Henry Adams/Noelker and Hull were asked to perform a detailed feasibility study to investigate site and building plan options for the conversion of the office building at 1701 North Beauregard for use as an elementary school. The study scope includes proposed technical measures to resolve building code and operational issues identified during the building assessment associated with the change of occupancy.

Two options were requested:

Full occupancy of all six stories, with a K‐5 student count of between 700 and 900

Occupancy of the lower four floors by a K‐5 school with 500 to 600 students, with office space on floors 5 and 6.

Both options would address appropriate site planning measures associated with school use, including possible use of the adjoining parking structure at 1705 N. Beauregard as a potential play space location.

Building Description

1701 N. Beauregard was built in 1998 as a six‐story office building, of about 122,000 square feet overall, with about 20,300 square feet per floor. The rectangular building has a compact plan with tenant space on each floor and a central core comprising mechanical, electrical and service areas, toilets, two stairs and three traction elevators. Surrounding this core is a ring of tenant space. The structure is arranged so that in most cases the structure spans clear from the core to the outside walls, allowing for relatively large column‐free interior spaces. The building exterior is brick veneer with punched windows. The building structure is steel framing with a composite deck, with a one‐hour structural fire rating provided by spray‐applied mineral fireproofing on the framing and by the composite floor deck construction. The building has a complete fire sprinkler system.

The parking structure (1705) is a five‐level structure, built using pre‐cast concrete double tee units in standard parking structure construction. It is served by two stairs and two elevators. As built it was listed with no structural fire rating and a partial sprinkler system.

6

Building Code Summary

Under the 1996 BOCA code 1701 was built to the maximum allowable height of six stories for a business occupancy with a one‐hour structural fire protection rating and a sprinkler system. Since stair and elevator shafts connecting more than three stories are required to have a two‐hour fire rating, the gypsum shaftwall enclosures are of two‐hour construction. However, these assemblies are not self‐supporting, depending on the building structure to maintain their structural integrity in a fire. Since the building’s structural fireproofing is only one hour, the stair and elevator enclosures are not appropriately protected. A more usual practice in such circumstances would have been to increase the structural fire rating of the entire building to two hours, or to build the stair and elevator towers as self‐supporting two‐hour masonry structures. These measures were not taken in the original building design.

Conversion from business occupancy to a school triggers requirements of the 2012 Virginia Construction Code/2012 International Building Code and 2012 Virginia Building Rehabilitation Code/2012 International Existing Building Code to bring the building into full compliance with current building code requirements for the new occupancy, in this case, educational occupancy. Requirements for educational occupancies are more restrictive than for business occupancies. A school with one‐hour structural fire protection and sprinklers can only be up to four stories high. Six stories require a two‐hour structural fire rating and sprinklers. Additionally, any existing deficiencies, such as the stair support structure must be brought into compliance with current code when the use is changed. Additional requirements apply due to increased occupant density, resulting in more and wider stairs.

Compliance measures include upgrading the building’s lateral support bracing to standards appropriate to the higher structural risk factor associated with schools.

Since the parking deck was designed and permitted as a structure with no inherent fire rating, use of the top level as an occupied roof becomes a concern since it is four levels above grade. Unrated educational occupancies may be only two stories high, or three stories with sprinklers.

7

Mixed occupancy

Under the four‐story concept the top two floors would continue to be used for office occupancy. This would allow the project to avoid removing and replacing the exterior skin of the building to upgrade otherwise inaccessible structural fireproofing. Educational occupancy would extend to the fourth floor, as permitted for a one‐hour‐rated sprinklered building, while business occupancy would extend to the sixth floor as permitted. The required one‐hour separation between the business and educational occupancies would be accommodated by the building’s inherent one‐hour structural and slab fire rating. Stair support would still have to be addressed, either by replacing the stairs with self‐supporting internal or external stair towers, or by upgrading the structural fire rating of the building’s core to two hours.

While a fireproofing upgrade would allow the existing stair openings to be re‐used almost as‐is, the additional occupant load associated with the school occupancy will require either one very large exterior egress stair to be added, or two smaller stairs. One new stair tower is required in any case, since the proposed educational occupancy exceeds 500 per floor, the maximum for two exits.

Mixed occupancy introduces access control issues associated with two different user groups. The school should have an entrance that is separate from the office entrance, and elevator access should not require office occupants to traverse the school lobby. Two elevators would be preferable for access to the fifth and sixth floors if they have office occupancy. If these face into both the office and school lobbies they could be used with card access for either.

The occupants of the office floors must be separate and distinct from school activities that are likely to involve students. Administrative offices associated with the school itself may not be on the fifth or sixth floors, as that would represent an extension of the school upwards. Likewise, an associated program that would involve children may not be located in these spaces.

From the 2015 Virginia Construction Code/International Building Code:

“Business Group B occupancy includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for office, professional or service‐type transactions...”

“Educational Group E occupancy includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, by six or more persons at any one time for educational purposes through the 12th grade.”

This precludes use of the fifth and sixth floors by students in any capacity without upgraded structural fire protection, including administrative offices for the school itself or for after‐school activities. Any substantive use for after‐school activities or for girls’ or boys’ club activities would be either an educational occupancy or an assembly occupancy. Assembly occupancies are even more strictly regulated than educational occupancies, prohibiting assembly use above the third floor in comparable structures.

8

STREET VIEW

Elevators

If fireproofing is upgraded around the existing elevators they could continue to be used essentially as is. If the four‐story option with offices on the fifth and sixth floors is pursued, at least one additional elevator would be needed to access the top levels securely. With front and rear doors this elevator could provide rescue litter accommodation and handicapped evacuation under emergency power instead of adapting the existing elevators. Although one elevator may be all that is strictly needed for the office floors, two elevators may be needed to satisfy expectations for prompt service, since those floors will otherwise be entirely dependent on one elevator in normal use. The existing elevators would be dedicated to school use from floors 1‐4 and would be locked out for floors 5‐6.

The six‐story option will place even greater demands on vertical circulation at the beginning and end of the day and at lunch time that the three existing elevators will probably not be able to handle. We believe that an additional elevator will be required. In order to operate most efficiently in a school environment, where a premium is placed on transportation of groups, as opposed to office conditions where individuals are being moved, the elevator should be as large as possible. A 5000‐lb elevator would have a 51 square foot cab. At 3sf/person it could carry 17 adults, or about 25 children. It will need a correspondingly large emergency generator, since it would be the evacuation elevator for disabled occupants of upper floors.

Should it not prove feasible to upgrade fireproofing in the building core, three or four elevators in a new tower on the outside of the building will be required. The existing elevator space would be reclaimed.

9

Since it appears to be possible to improve the structural fire protection in the core this option has not been pursued.

Co‐locating new elevators with the required third means of egress at the front of the building allows the creation of an area of refuge for disabled occupants, separated from the building by fire doors, with access to both an egress stair and elevators with emergency power. Evacuees would be able to wait for rescue from upper floors in a protected environment.

Elevator use will require the installation of programmable access control systems. For the six‐story option the system would restrict elevator operation to school staff via proximity card access. For the four‐story option the system would be augmented to allow flexible use of the new lobby elevators for either school or office use, and to restrict access for school occupants to floors 1‐4 and office occupants to floors 1 (office lobby), 5 and 6, with the existing elevators restricted to floors 1‐4 under normal circumstances.

School use could similarly be restricted, either by operational protocol or by software, so that at rush hours elevators would go only to floor 3 (and 5 for six stories), with occupants for floors 2 and 4 (and 6) walking up one level. This would reduce the number of stops and increase throughput, making stair usage comparable to a 2‐story school. Such an arrangement would place a premium on accessory stairs linking floors 3/4 and 5/6.

Stairs

In order to avoid costs and spatial inefficiencies resulting from replacement stair towers on the outside of the building, the existing interior stairs may be enlarged to accommodate additional occupant load and brought up to current code requirements for structural support and railing design. Because calculated occupancies for each floor for building code purposes will exceed 500 occupants, a third stair will be needed at the front of the building to allow direct discharge to the outside. Stair sizing must take into account the unique nature of school evacuation, in which the entire population is usually evacuated in about 90 seconds.

Additionally, a second stair tower is proposed for the rear of the building to allow a dedicated path for evacuation of kindergarten and first grade students without overrunning traffic from higher (both literally and in age) grades. This would only extend to the third floor in a six story scheme or to the second floor in a four story arrangement. This tower would reduce pressure on the lower levels during simultaneous evacuation.

10

Fireproofing

In order to use all six stories of the building for a school, all structural framing members and slabs must be verifiably protected with two‐hour fire resistive materials, or must have an inherent two‐hour fire rating. Roof framing members may be protected with one‐hour fireproofing. The assembly used for the composite floor slabs is listed by UL for either one or two hours and should not require further modification. The structural framing is protected by nominal one‐hour spray fireproofing and will require upgrading (see attached report).

Access to structural framing is obstructed by internal partitions, column enclosures, duct housings, stair and elevator enclosures, piping and conduit runs and the exterior wall cladding. All of these elements must be removed at least partly to allow all sides of every framing member to be accessed, inspected and upgraded. This means that the building must be stripped down to its structural frame, leaving as many of the central systems in place as possible. The building’s skin must be removed to allow access to the exterior faces of beams and columns. All of these elements must then be put back, and brought into compliance with current code requirements once they have been touched by construction operations.

It is not practical to upgrade the exterior wall fireproofing in situ. Columns and beams must be verifiably protected by full thicknesses of properly adhered fireproofing material on all sides, and the exterior sides of beams are made either partially or entirely inaccessible by sheathing, flashings, brick veneer or lintels, or by the configuration of the steel itself. Blindly filling wall spaces at columns or beams is not advisable, as such measures would obstruct required drainage behind masonry in exterior walls and invite deterioration and mold in wet fireproofing materials.

If the four‐story option is chosen with preservation of the internal stairs and elevators, the interior of the building must be gutted to an extent sufficient to allow access to the structural framing supporting the vertical stair, elevator and shaft runs to address the existing incompatibility between two‐hour enclosures supported by one‐hour construction. Fireproofing upgrades must at least encompass the areas between column lines B and C and 2 to 6, including the columns at the perimeter of that area. Beams outside this box should be upgraded to the inside of the exterior walls to address heat transfer concerns from less‐protected framing.

11

Building envelope and fireproofing upgrade

Under the four‐story concept the building exterior will remain essentially intact, with modifications for stair and elevator towers.

Under the six‐story concept, the building skin must be removed to allow unobstructed access to the outside faces of the exterior wall framing. Depending on the as‐built condition of the exterior wall infill framing, the framing may have to be modified or replaced to ensure full coverage by upgraded fireproofing. This means the demolition of the brick veneer façade, the windows, doors and sheathing. Since the existing envelope was built to 1990s practice, with R‐19 insulation covered by gypsum sheathing, any replacement will have to be designed to current wall assembly standards. Since the 1990s the role of metal wall framing in heat transfer has become better understood, and current model codes require continuous insulation to be applied outside such framing to provide a thermal break. This will increase the overall thickness of the walls.

The 1701 exterior wall design is unusual in that the insulated envelope is offset at columns to the inside of the building columns. The fireproofed columns are, according to design documents, uncovered by sheathing and exposed to the cavity behind the masonry veneer. Normally the sheathing, at least, would cover the columns and beams. This may have in fact been done during construction, as it would be easier to build, to provide weathertight flashing and to manage junctions between columns and beams. Without destructive investigation, it is impossible to tell if this is the case.

Should the building skin be removed, it would be required that the new sheathing be extended across the face of columns and beams to provide a continuous surface for flashing and for the continuous air barrier membrane that is now required by energy conservation codes. This would in turn serve as the base for the required continuous insulation course outside the sheathing, which also will address energy loss through slab edges.

Continuous insulation has in the past been provided by foam plastic insulation, but due to concerns about the fire performance of foams and adequate moisture transfer in exterior wall assemblies a fire‐resistant and more vapor‐permeable product is preferred, such as rigid mineral fiber. To meet the minimum R‐7.5 continuous insulation requirement of the IECC, two inches of rigid mineral fiber insulation will be required in the drainage cavity between the wall sheathing and the back of the brick veneer. At least a 1‐1/2” wall cavity should be maintained between the face of the insulation and the back of the brick veneer. This pushes the new face of brick out at least 3‐1/8” from the existing face, requiring new relieving angles at each floor level. This does not take into account column fireproofing thicknesses that will further extend required clearances, with up to 2” of fireproofing on column faces that presently appear to coincide with the face of sheathing. This may represent a cumulative 3” extension of the exterior wall face, with consequent extension of the brick veneer relieving angles. All brick veneer anchors would require replacement, which must be compatible with the continuous insulation.

Since the windows would necessarily be replaced the new windows and frames would be required to comply with current standards for insulation, thermal break, air barrier continuity and emissivity. The window system must be compatible with the increased depth between the exterior wall infill framing and the inside of the brick veneer, requiring extended‐depth frames or adapters. Copings and parapets

12

would have to be replaced and the roof tied in. This may represent a good time for the roof to be replaced.

If consensus can be found for a reconsideration of the overall building look, a new wall system might be preferable to adapting the existing building appearance to the new circumstances. A curtain wall system in lieu of replacement masonry would offer a way to avoid scheduling impact due to winter weather, at some increased cost of construction.

Since a large new entrance/elevator/stair structure is proposed, we do not believe that the existing decorative metal screen structure should be replaced if the building is re‐skinned, and is of doubtful value even if it is not. The metalwork exists to accent the corner of the building and to call attention to the otherwise inconspicuous existing building entrance. With a new structure at the front of the building no such device will be required. Design emphasis should be placed on the new exterior element, which provides an opportunity for a transparent, welcoming design element that could highlight the building’s changed use.

If the six‐story option is exercised the decision to do so should be made at the beginning of the project. It is not feasible to do this later, once the investment has been made in interior reconfiguration. We anticipate that re‐cladding the building will add four to six months to the overall project depending on time of year given the need to carefully deconstruction the exterior walls, apply fireproofing and then rebuild the envelope. Interior finish work cannot be pursued until the building is once again weathertight.

14 MAIN ENTRY WITH STAIR/ELEVATOR TOWER

Evacuation

The proposed design options increase the size of the existing internal stair towers. While they are adequate for office use, the occupant density will be higher and increased stair capacity is needed. Increased capacity is also dictated by school evacuation procedures. In most school fire drills the school is fully evacuated in 90 seconds, which means that the stairs must be able to handle converging traffic from all building occupants in a short time period.

Once the occupants have left the building they must have a secure place to assemble. In traditional schools there are play areas and playing fields at some distance from the school that can be used. In this case there will be no playing fields. The parking structure may accommodate a proportion of the students if the top level is used for play areas, but the main evacuation route from 1701 discharges through the ground floor. The interior of the parking structure will be occupied by cars, but offers shelter and the lower levels are accessible without having to climb stairs. In this case it may be best to consider the parking structure as one might consider an open parking lot, with the advantage that in a security alert situation the evacuees aren’t easily visible. Otherwise, there are no suitable secure areas for students to assemble. We must assume that the courtyard area between 1701 and 1703 will need to be kept clear for fire department access.

If a gymnasium is built in a future phase it would provide a potential haven, since it would have to be built as a separate assembly‐occupancy building with fire separations between it and the main building. With appropriate provision for egress from that space it could accommodate the students and staff of the school, as long as suitable measures to protect egress paths are taken in the initial conversion of the main building to allow for this possibility. This arrangement parallels those measures used in hospitals and nursing homes where evacuation is made to a separate, protected portion of the building.

15

Building arrangement and interior environment

Large spaces on all levels lay out most efficiently with classrooms around the perimeter, with smaller spaces in the interior. This allows classrooms maximum access to natural light, but leads to a core that is entirely dependent on artificial lighting. Existing windows do not open: if the building skin is replaced it will allow an opportunity for some natural ventilation. Large assembly spaces should mainly be located on the ground floor so that ample exit capacity can be provided for concentrated use. No single area on the ground floor is large enough to provide a gymnasium‐sized space, either in terms of area or of clear height.

The four story design concept is based on a minimum for four classrooms per grade. The six story scheme is based on six classrooms per grade.

The floors are to some extent modular in nature. Classroom spaces are not specific to individual grade levels, apart from the distinction between kindergarten and grades 1‐5. Individual floor plans are not tied to floors, so the media center, presently shown on the third floor, could be moved higher in the building if desired with no effect on capacity.

The six‐story scheme illustrates a ground floor arrangement with a large flexible space extending from the front of the school to the back. The six‐story scheme has enough uncommitted space beyond six classrooms per grade to allow activity spaces to be placed on upper floors, reducing vertical traffic to the ground floor. Uncommitted space in excess of four classrooms per grade exists for the four story version as well. For illustrative purposes those spaces are shown as extra classrooms for K, 1 and 2.

Maximum possible ceiling height is probably about 10 to 11 feet on the ground floor and 9 feet on upper levels, although individual areas may pop up another 12 to 18 inches with careful ductwork arrangement. Exposed structure and open ceilings are inadvisable due to the presence of easily‐damaged and unattractive fireproofing. Acoustical ceilings will also help with sound control within spaces and from floor to floor. Careful attention to detail will be needed to control impact noise from higher floors to lower floors especially where hard flooring surfaces are used. The use of carpeting in corridors would require periodic replacement, but will help with noise reduction.

16

Food service

Food service is shown for a serving kitchen only. A prep kitchen for a school of this size would be twice as large, with significant commitments for cooler and dry storage space, as well as increased ventilation and cleanup requirements. The configuration of the building would make a full‐sized kitchen of a bout 2200 programmed square feet larger than that in this building, at a cost to dining space. However, should the sacrifice of common space be accepted, a full kitchen could be accommodated. For a serving‐only kitchen the transport of food from a central prep location such as T.C. Williams would require the use of hot food carts, which would require parking and maneuvering space for carts between the kitchen and the loading dock, which must be balanced against space for preparation. The arrangement shown for the six story school would lend itself better to a full prep kitchen.

The existing loading dock would be preserved and upgraded for food service delivery. Limited space exists alongside the building for cooler box units, but such provisions must be carefully examined in view of site planning regulations. A portion of the parking deck would be suitable for storage use, but the parking structure will be subject to competing demands for play space and parking, particularly with the six‐story scheme.

17

POTENTIAL ELEVATED GYM STRUCTURE

Gymnasium

Design studies indicate that a gymnasium will fit in the space between the parking structure and the main building. Using flat‐slab concrete construction a platform could be built at the second floor level that would allow bus passage beneath, with at least 14‐foot headroom, which corresponds to highway clearance. A small gymnasium on this podium could accommodate a standard basketball court. The gym would be separated from the main building by a fire separation, making it eligible for use as an evacuation route since it would be a separate building.

Due to the relative elevations of 1701 and the parking structure, there is a choice of elevations for the gymnasium, which will require study to determine the most efficient layout. A connection at the second floor would obstruct fewer windows, but a connection at the third floor would allow a more direct connection between the parking area play spaces and the gym, nearer a common elevation.

Construction of a gym would affect rooms on the north side of the second and third floors, blocking windows. On the other hand, there would be an opportunity for interaction between spaces on the fourth floor and the gym roof level, which could become a rooftop plaza and a transitional space between the main building and the parking structure, replacing the bridge link.

Any gym would require extensive discussion with planning authorities, as it would cause the overall project to exceed floor area ratio limits. A special exception would be required.

18

Parking structure and play space

The existing parking structure at 1705 N. Beauregard is a five‐level precast‐concrete structure. The topmost level is open to the sky and is proposed as a potential play area for the school, linked to the main building by a bridge. The parking structure as originally designed was not designed or reviewed with any structural fire rating, as permitted for a parking structure of this size.

As with the main building, the parking structure is subject to reassessment under the building code if an educational occupancy is placed on the top level in place of parking. Although the proposed play area is on the fifth level of the structure it would be considered an “occupied roof” and would be permitted as long as the structure beneath is treated as a four‐story school structure, especially since the lowest level of the structure is largely below grade, leaving four levels above grade, of which the play area would be the fourth.

Because the lowest level is below grade, it has a dry‐pipe sprinkler system. With this infrastructure in place the system can be extended with relative ease.

In order to allow an educational occupancy on the top level the structure below must be one‐hour fire‐rated with a sprinkler system throughout, or else two‐hour fire rated with no sprinkler system. Based on the documents provided, the existing structure, though nominally unrated, appears to meet requirements for a one‐hour structural fire rating, based on the deck thicknesses shown and on requirements for concrete cover over reinforcement.

Alternatively, spray fireproofing material may be used to provide thermal protection for the concrete. While this would provide a certain remedy for any structural fire rating deficiency and would avoid sprinkler requirements in sufficient thickness, it would also degrade the look of the lower levels since it would impart a rough texture to all concrete surfaces and would have to be a product that resists abrasion, as it would be exposed. Because of the large area of horizontal and vertical concrete beam surfaces to be treated it would be relatively more expensive than fireproofing in the main building, balanced somewhat by ease of access for the work.

The parking structure has a stair/elevator tower on the side facing 1701. With modifications to enclose the stairs with fire‐resistant construction it is suitable for use as one element of the required evacuation routes from play areas on the top of the parking structure since the stairs discharge outside. The other existing stair is not usable as an exit since it discharges into garage space on the ground floor. At least one new stair structure will be required for existing from the play area. The bridge to 1701 can supplement egress but is too close to the main stair/elevator tower to be considered sufficiently remote as the second exit. With two exits the play space can be up to 25,000 square feet in area if calculated at 50 square feet per occupant, for 500 occupants. For 501 to 1000 occupants a third means of egress would be required.

However, if more than 40% of the top level is used for play area it will require retrofitting of lateral bracing.

Library / Media

Media Center 3,000 3,105

Media Storage 200 205

Small Group Room 150 182

Small Group Room 141

Office / Work Room 200 218

Tech Processing Room 200 171

Device Charging Room 150 141

Office Storage 37

Total Media 3,900 4,200

Physical Activity

Physical Activity 6,500 3,495

Storage 250 106

Storage 216

Office 150 114

TLT 55

Total PA 6,900 3,986

Support Areas Programmed NSF Actual NSF

Administration

Administration Suite 2,893

Teacher Lounge 356

Teacher Lounge 367

Teacher Lounge 367

Teacher Lounge Storage 174

Total Administration 2,893 1,264

Cafeteria & Food Service

Dining / Multi-Purpose 3,000 3,481

Kitchen 2,150 1,577

Storage 194

Storage 228

Total Cafeteria & Food Service 5,150 5,480

Programmed NSF Actual NSF

Custodial & Maintenance Area

Utility 1,489

Total Custodial & Maint. Area 0 1,489

*Not included in building area tabulation

Programmed NSF Actual NSF

INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM SPACE & SUPPORT AREAS 51,393 49,350

EXISTING GROSS BUILDING AREA 83,946

TOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION 6,220

TOTAL AREA 90,166

NET TO GROSS RATIO 55%

NOTES

SUMMARY OF SPACES - FOUR STORIES

Instructional Program Space Programmed NSF Actual NSF

Pre-K & Kindergarten

Kindergarten Classroom 1,175 1,039





Kindergarten Storage 416

Total Pre-K & K 5,875 5,672

Elementary School - Grades 1-5

Grade 1 Classroom 900 897






















Resource Classroom 900 719

Resource Classroom 900 1,209

Student Services 100 344

Student Services 100 220

Student Services Storage 158

Itinerant Hoteling 600 494

Extended Learning 600 650



Total Elementary School 24,200 24,684

Specialty Classrooms

Art Lab 1,200 1,113

Kiln 75 70

Art Storage 315

Vocal Music 1,200 1,077

Total Specialty 2,475 2,575

SUMMARY OF SPACES - FOUR STORIES

abartlettCalloutGym - Phase IINot Part of Scope

Booklet_8x11CoverNarrativeDivider_1_Detailed ReportNarrativeDivider_2_Summary of CostsNarrativeDivider_2a_6 Story ConceptCost Estimate 6 storyDivider_2b_4 Story ConceptCost Estimate 4 storyDivider_3_Notes & AppendicesNarrativeDivider_4_Drawing and Area SummariesDivider_5_6 Story Concept

Booklet_11x17Powerpoint Base_6 story_1Powerpoint Base_6 story_2Powerpoint Base_6 story_3Powerpoint Base_6 story_3_ALTPowerpoint Base_6 story_4Powerpoint Base_6 story_5Powerpoint Base_6 story_6

Booklet_8x111701 - Summary of Spaces 10-15-2016 6 storiesDivider_6_4 Story Concept

Booklet_11x17Powerpoint Base_4 story_1Powerpoint Base_4 story_2Powerpoint Base_4 story_3Powerpoint Base_4 story_4Powerpoint Base_4 story_5Powerpoint Base_4 story_6

Booklet_8x111701 - Summary of Spaces 10-15-2016 4 stories1701 - Summary of Spaces 10-15-2016 4 storiesDivider_7_Site Drawings

Booklet_11x17Site Plan_Phase ISite Plan_Phase II

Booklet_8x11Back

1701_1705 Revised Concept Plan Package Final.pdfC-000-LayoutCS-101_16-0526-Layout1CS-102_16-0526-Layout1CT-101_16-0526-CT 101_16-0526CT-101_16-0526-CT 102_16-0526CS-501 Operation Plan-Layout

1701 Updated Elevations, Floorplans, Section, Conceptual Site Plan.pdfELEVATION_2017-0107.pdfELEVATION_GYM_2017-0107.pdf1701 Floor Plans and Section.pdf16909_FLOOR 016909_FLOOR 116909_FLOOR 216909_FLOOR 316909_SECTION

Raised Median on Rayburn.pdf

for - alexandria city public schools · 2017. 3. 3. · azjargal e. bartlett construction program...

Documents