Renovation Feasibility Study
Longfellow Elementary School
HOWARD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
June 26, 2012
Smolen  Emr  Ilkovitch Architects office@seiarch.com
Renovation Feasibility Study
June 26, 2012
Longfellow Elementary School
FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOWARD COUNTY:
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Sandra H. French
Frank J. Aquino, Esq.
Members
Allen Dyer, Esq.
Ellen Flynn Giles
Brian J. Meshkin
Janet Siddiqui, M.D
Cynthia L. Vaillancourt
Student Member
Tomi Williams
Superintendent
Sydney L. Cousin
Deputy Superintendent
Mamie Perkins
Executive Director
Facilities Planning and Management
Ken Roey
Director
School Construction
Bruce Gist
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 1 of 104
THIS PAGE NOT USED
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 2 of 104
Table of Contents
Project Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology............................................................................................................................ 4
Objectives and Goals .............................................................................................................. 5
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 6
Option 1................................................................................................................................... 6
Option 2................................................................................................................................... 7
Option 3................................................................................................................................... 8
Options Comparison ............................................................................................................... 9
Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 10
Existing Site .......................................................................................................................... 11
Existing Building .................................................................................................................... 12
Existing Structure .................................................................................................................. 15
Existing Masonry Wall Investigation...................................................................................... 16
Existing Mechanical Narrative ............................................................................................... 20
Existing Electrical Narrative .................................................................................................. 28
Proposed Options ....................................................................................................................... 30
Option 1 Description.............................................................................................................. 31
Option 2 Description.............................................................................................................. 36
Option 3 Description.............................................................................................................. 41
Proposed Mechanical Recommendations............................................................................. 46
Proposed Electrical Recommendations ................................................................................ 48
Appendix A: Estimate Clarification .............................................................................................. 51
Appendix B: Option 1 Detailed Cost Estimate ............................................................................ 56
Appendix C: Option 2 Detailed Cost Estimate ............................................................................ 62
Appendix D: Option 3 Detailed Cost Estimate ............................................................................ 68
Appendix E: Faulkner Ridge Center Temporary Holding School Feasibility Study ..................... 74
Project Introduction ............................................................................................................... 74
Existing Conditions................................................................................................................ 76
Proposed Recommendations ................................................................................................ 88
Estimate Clarification ............................................................................................................ 96
Breakdown and Feasibility Cost Estimate ............................................................................. 99
Cost and Construction Duration Impact to Longfellow Elementary School ......................... 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 3 of 104
Project Introduction
General
Smolen Emr Ilkovitch Architects was tasked to investigate the existing Longfellow Elementary
School facility and determine if a renovation with a limited addition was feasible. This report
documents the existing conditions found at the school site and investigates three potential
approaches toward the improvement of this facility.
The information, proposed solutions, and conclusions contained in this report were prepared by
Smolen Emr Ilkovitch Architects and their consultants and conducted for the Howard County
Public School System (HCPSS) and the Board of Education of Howard County.
Design Team
The following firms collectively represent the design team, whose contributions were essential to
this report:
Smolen Emr Ilkovitch Architects
Fisher Collins and Carter
Meyer Consulting Engineers
Gipe Associates
Lend Lease
KaRon Masonry
Architect
Civil Engineer
Structural/Masonry Investigation Engineer
Mechanical/Plumbing/Electrical Engineer
Cost Estimator/Construction Specialist
Masonry Contractor for wall investigation
Methodology
The existing school has been evaluated by the design team to determine several approaches to
address the conditions and concerns indicated by the HCPSS. The evaluation was conducted
with the intent of improving the facility to comply with the HCPSS "Guidelines Manual for
Renovations and Modernizations of Existing Schools" (renovation guidelines). Under this
direction, all teaching spaces will achieve the minimum 660 square feet (s.f.), but will strive to be
750 s.f. each. The evaluation is based on the following:




Analysis of the existing physical facility. The design team conducted non-destructive
visual evaluations where possible. To evaluate the existing exterior masonry walls,
limited destructive investigations were performed with the assistance of KaRon Masonry.
Review of existing construction documents provided by the HCPSS.
Analysis of existing site feature: Existing amenities, utilities and site access were
reviewed to determine if they were capable of supporting the proposed options.
Development of multiple building options to address the concerns in differing levels of
construction.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 4 of 104
Objectives and Goals
The objective of this study is to investigate the existing facility, the feasibility of a renovation to
the existing building, and present approaches to improve Longfellow Elementary School. A
critical component to the improvement of the existing facility will be its requirement to meet all of
the applicable codes which govern the design. These codes include, but are not limited to, the
most current publications of the International Building Code (IBC), National Fire Protection
Association Life Safety Code (NFPA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The following are goals and directives established by the design team in conjunction with
HCPSS staff:












Determine if it is feasible to renovate the facility in a predetermined schedule with an
estimated budget of approximately:
o Planning ..................................... $1,587,000
o Construction ............................. $16,370,000
o Equipment & Furnishing .................. $50,000
o TOTAL ...................................... $18,007,000
Provide natural light throughout the new areas of the building and increase the natural
light to the existing facility.
Renovate the existing school in compliance with the renovation guidelines.
Minimize construction disruptions for students and staff as this project will need to be a
phased while occupied project.
Determine the quantity of temporary facilities that will be needed to accomplish the
renovations.
Evaluate the constructability of each option to be completed by August of 2014.
Provide a better circulation pattern throughout the building.
Address the multiple levels within the existing facility.
Maintain the current count of teaching spaces. The project is not to increase the
capacity or classroom count.
Increase the security of the school with the inclusion of a secured vestibule.
Assess the possibility of providing a Geothermal HVAC system.
Develop a project to be a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
certified.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 5 of 104
Executive Summary
Option 1
Area of Existing Building ......................... 56,458 gsf
Area of Demolition ........................................ 387 gsf
Area of Renovation.................................. 41,094 gsf
Area of Additions ....................................... 8,586 gsf
Area of New High Roof.............................. 3,264 gsf
Total Area .............................................. 64,657 gsf
Duration ................................................... 17 months
Phases ................................................................... 4
Temporary Relocatable Classrooms ...................... 6
Construction Subtotal ............................ $ 11,371,110
LEED Contingency ............................................ $79,598
Design/Construction Contingency (15%) ..... $1,717,606
Escalation Contingency (5%) .......................... $658,416
GRAND TOTAL ........................................ $ 13,826,730
Attributes:

Classroom addition creates swing space for occupied construction phases.

-5’ level raised to 0’ eliminating major circulation and ADA issues. Roofs of low volume
areas on this level will be raised to match adjacent roofs.

Extended Learning Room (ELR) lightwells bring natural light into interior classrooms,
corridors.

Vertical circulation concentrated in central commons connecting instructional spaces to
administrative area and volume spaces.

Individual bathrooms in each first grade classroom.

Simplified, symmetrical circulation with long lines of vision for staff supervision.

Relocation of the stage means that the parking lot will not be affected by stage
enlargement/ramp access.

Administrative area relocated to entrance for secured vestibule. This will require a new
kitchen, mechanical space, and utility hook-ups.

Provides a loop circulation pattern for access to all spaces.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 6 of 104
Option 2
Area of Existing Building .......................... 56,458 gsf
Area of Demolition ......................................... 387 gsf
Area of Renovation................................... 43,810 gsf
Area of Additions ........................................ 9,060 gsf
Total Area ................................................ 65,131 gsf
Duration .................................................... 17 months
Phases .................................................................... 5
Temporary Relocatable Classrooms ....................... 8
Construction Subtotal ............................. $ 11,483,692
LEED Contingency ............................................. $80,386
Design/Construction Contingency (15%) ...... $1,734,612
Escalation Contingency (5%) ........................... $664,935
GRAND TOTAL ......................................... $ 13,963,625
Attributes:

Three separate floor levels remain, with moderate level of infilling of 0’-0” level. Vertical
circulation down to lowest level centralized and located onto a primary circulation axis.

Current high volume gymnasium refitted as administrative area to allow for secured
vestibule, new gymnasium built next to outdoor playing field.

Existing stage removed and replaced with enlarged accessible stage, taking space away
from loading dock and parking lot.

Existing kitchen, utility hook-ups, and mechanical platform remain in current location.

Cleaner circulation pattern than the existing facility.

Increased circulation paths from Option 1 with single path access to limited areas.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 7 of 104
Option 3
Area of Existing Building ......................... 56,458 gsf
Area of Demolition ..................................... 1,145 gsf
Area of Renovation.................................. 40,931 gsf
Area of Additions ....................................... 8,426 gsf
Total Area .............................................. 63,739 gsf
Duration ................................................... 17 months
Phases ................................................................... 5
Temporary Relocatable Classrooms ...................... 6
Construction Subtotal ............................ $ 10,706,061
LEED Contingency ............................................ $74,942
Design/Construction Contingency (15%) ..... $1,617,150
Escalation Contingency (5%) .......................... $619,908
GRAND TOTAL ........................................ $ 13,018,061
Attributes:

Three separate floor levels remain, with minimal infilling of floor levels. Access to -5’ level
remains perpendicular to primary circulation axis.

Administrative area addition built at front allows for secured vestibule. Addition will require
demolition of 1993 entrance and relocation of parking lot to permit visibility of bus loop from
front door.

No changes to existing high volume spaces; no additional high volume spaces constructed.

Existing kitchen, utility hook-ups, and mechanical platform remain.

Circulation pattern primarily based on existing pattern with improvements.

Limited areas of single path access.

Minimal addition of instructional space to aid temporary configurations.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 8 of 104
Options Comparison
Option 1
Area of Existing Building……... 56,458 gsf
Area of Demolition…………….. 387 gsf
Area of Renovation…………… 41,094 gsf
Area of Addition.………………. 8,586 gsf
Total Area……………………... 64,657 gsf
Duration………………………… 17 months
Temporary Relocatables ...…
6
Phases……………….….……… 4
Cost……………………............ $13,826,730
Option 2
Area of Existing Building……… 56,458 gsf
Area of Demolition……………
387 gsf
Area of Renovation…………… 43,810 gsf
Area of Addition.………………. 9,060 gsf
Total Area……………………... 65,131 gsf
Duration……………………….
17 months
Temporary Relocatables ...…
8
Phases……………….….……… 5
Cost………………………......... $13,963,625
Option 3
Area of Existing Building……… 56,458 gsf
Area of Demolition……………
1,145 gsf
Area of Renovation…………… 40,931 gsf
Area of Addition.………………. 8,426 gsf
Total Area……………………... 63,739 gsf
Duration……………………….
17 months
Temporary Relocatables ...…
6
Phases……………….….……… 5
Cost……………………….......... $13,018,061
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 9 of 104
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Longfellow Elementary School, located at 5470 Hesperus Drive, Columbia, MD 21044, is
located approximately two miles west of US 29, and south of Route 108. Located in a
residential area, Longfellow is surrounded by both detached single family homes and
townhouse communities adjacent to a community swimming pool.
Longfellow Elementary Vicinity Map
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 10 of 104
Existing Site
The Longfellow Elementary School site is approximately nine acres which includes the recently
renovated parking lot. The site has a downward slope from the high point in the northwest to
the lowest points in the southeast areas. There are three exceedingly steep regions of the site,
with an approximate slope of 33 percent (located on the aerial image with yellow circles):
1. A berm along the site’s southwest edge
2. Hills along the north side of the site
3. Sloping grades on the southeast portion of the site
The berm on the southwest is very close to the 2007 kindergarten addition and is held back with
a 4’ tall retaining wall made of wood 8”x6”s. At this location, the building is extremely close to
the property and building restriction lines. At the crest of the slope on the southeast there is a
storm water management pond. Due to existing regulations, this pond would not be allowed to
be increased to accommodate any new impervious area. Trees cover the majority of the site
north of the building, and surround the parking and storm water management pool.
Aerial Photo, scale approximate
Facility floor plan and site plan overlaid on aerial photo
There are currently two relatively flat open spaces (east and west of the building), one fenced in
rubberized play area (next to the 2007 kindergarten addition), and a paved play area and
playground (northeast of the building). Located on the larger of the two open spaces, the school
currently utilizes two portable classrooms to house a music class and a technology class. The
paved play area and playground are not adjacent to the building, and are not visible from any
classroom. These are also located on a hill 4’ above the nearest classroom finish floor and 6’
above the play field. Access to the play area is achieved by a paved ramp at a slope of
approximately 7 percent with a continuous run of approximately 75’. This ramp contains no
handrails and is longer than the permitted run, so it is not compliant with ADA requirements.
The parking lots contains 99 parking spaces, including 4 reserved for handicapped parking. Of
the 99 spaces, 31 of these spaces are placed in the center of the bus loop. The bus loop is the
only vehicular entrance and exit for the site with two individual access points, and must be used
to access all of the parking spots.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 11 of 104
Existing Building
The original facility, constructed in 1969, has gone through a major renovation in 1986, as well
as additions and renovations in 1993 and 2007. The school has an enrollment of 428 students.
The current square footage of the facility is 56,458 gross square feet (gsf). The school currently
utilizes two temporary portable classrooms to house a music class and a technology classroom.
To address the site topography, multiple levels were utilized in the original design. The main
level houses the main entrance, the administrative area, and media center. The lowest level,
which is five feet down, contains the high volume cafetorium, kitchen, and visual & performing
arts classrooms. This level is accessed by switchback ramps with two runs of 30' each. The
upper level, accessed through the media center, is 2' higher than the main level and houses the
instructional spaces. Originally designed with an open classroom concept, in 1986 the interior
received a major renovation including the enclosure of the pods from the media center. In 1993
a new entrance lobby and adjoining gymnasium were added to the front of the school; while a
classroom addition was added to the upper level in the rear. These additions to the original
building created two courtyards. In 2007 a kindergarten addition was constructed and
renovation was provided to the adjacent classroom pod. The ramps that access this addition
comply with the ADA standards, however doors in this hallway do not allow for adequate clear
space at the landings, making this an inaccessible path. A large amount of circulation space in
the facility is devoted to the multiple level changes of the various portions of the building.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 12 of 104
With the 1993 addition of the gymnasium and new front lobby, the administrative area and
health room are located in the interior of the building without full view of the entrance. This does
not allow for the required security for a school, as a visitor can access the gymnasium and even
the rest of the school without checking into the main office. Adjacent to the administrative area,
the health room for the school is currently comprised of a single room without private areas.
This space does not comply with the state's COMAR regulations for a health suite.
As the building was designed with an open classroom/pod concept, there are few defined
circulation corridors. Typically classrooms are accessed through common areas and the
centrally located media center. Due to this fact, the media center acts as a circulation hub for
the school, detracting from its ability to function as an effective teaching space. A large amount
of space is also used in the ramps reaching down to the cafetorium and other rooms on the
lowest level. As it is currently configured, the cafetorium is only reached via a pair of switchback
ramps. The two ramps share a middle landing, where classes may have to cross paths to reach
different rooms. The landings at the bottom of the ramps are disproportionately small compared
to the number of students that may have to wait to enter the cafetorium or performing and visual
arts area. The ramp connecting to the cafetorium is the only interior path to access or exit the
space. The same holds true for the ramp to the music and art rooms.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 13 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School requires 16 teaching spaces to accommodate the current
enrollment. This includes the two portable classrooms previously mentioned. The projections
provided by the school indicate that one additional classroom will be required next year. Ten of
the spaces utilized within the school for teaching spaces do not reach the minimum 660 s.f.
required per the renovation guidelines. Three more teaching spaces are above the minimum of
660 s.f. but fall below 700 s.f.
The existing facility presents multiple issues with regards to compliance with the ADA. As
indicated in the graphic below, there are few doors, bathrooms and ramps that could be
considered to comply. Currently only the four classroom bathrooms in the 2007 addition and
the communal bathrooms in the 1993 classroom addition, are handicapped accessible per the
code when they were constructed. These toilet rooms would not comply with the new 2010
ADA standards. Doors throughout the building, indicated in green, do not have sufficient
clearance for accessibility or the appropriate hardware.
The main entrance to the school is accessed via an exterior ramp, however this ramp does not
contain handrails per ADA and the IBC code. The most significant ADA compliance concern at
Longfellow Elementary, is the different floor levels. Due to the multiple levels, approximately 2/3
of the instruction spaces do not have an ADA accessible path. This condition also exists at the
stage within the cafetorium, as it is reached only by stairs.
ADA Concerns
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 14 of 104
Existing Structure
The structure is single storied with a small mezzanine in the original building. The original
construction has three different floor elevations with a maximum difference in elevations
between the highest and the lowest portions at approximately 7’-0”. The floor is a concrete slab
on-grade and the roof is comprised of mainly long span open web joists spanning the northwest
to southeast direction. The shorter spans are framed with open web regular roof joists. The
joists are spaced at 5’-0” on center. The joists bear on exterior cavity walls. With the exception
of the southeast wing of the original construction that houses the cafetorium, the exterior
composite walls are made of 4” concrete masonry unit (CMU) and 4“ brick. The cafetorium walls
are 4” brick and 6” CMU. In both cases there is a 2” air space between the brick façade and the
CMU block. The roof joist bearing elevations in this part of the building is either at 12’-0” or 12’8” above the finished floor below.
Out of the two sections of the building that were constructed in 1993, the pod has composite
CMU bearing walls along east and west sides made of 8” CMU and 4” brick with 2” space in
between. The roof framing comprises of open web steel joists bearing on two sets of
intermediate steel beams and the east and west walls. The north and south non-bearing exterior
walls have the same composition as the exterior bearing walls as described above. The joist
bearing elevation is at 12’-8” above finished floor level.
The other portion of the 1993 addition is the gymnasium with long-span open web joists framing
the roof and spanning in the north-south direction. The joist bearing is at 25’-4” above finished
floor below and the bearing wall is 12” CMU and 4” brick composite construction with 2” air
space in between.
The latest addition to the school building was the west wing which has an open web joist roof
framing spanning in the eastwest direction. The joists bear on a composite masonry exterior
wall 8” CMU and 4” brick with 2” air space in between and the maximum joist bearing elevation,
at the corridor, is 13’-0” above the finished floor elevation.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 15 of 104
Existing Masonry Wall Investigation
During our site investigation, representatives of masonry contractor KaRon Masonry, Inc. were
available to open up the brick façade at multiple representative locations. We observed the
condition of the walls and the backup concrete masonry units along with the connections
between them. Openings were made in the structures built in the three different phases. We
also observed the bearing condition and the roof framing condition at multiple locations from
inside the building by removing ceiling tiles at different sections of the building.
Photograph: Masonry tie at 14” composite wall
(Pod)
Photograph: Masonry tie at 12” composite
exterior wall of the cafetorium
We observed that the composite masonry walls are structurally sound. The ties between the
brick and the block were in place and show no sign of deterioration or structural failure. This
observation is valid in all types (thicknesses) of bearing walls around the building as well as the
walls that were built at different times. We also observed obvious signs of façade brick
replacement, which can be attributed to past repair and renovation in the oldest part of the
building. The one location where such replacement stands out is in the exterior wall along the
cafetorium along the parking lot to the west of the building. We also noted lack of joints in the
masonry wall in the original construction. However, the absence of joints does not appear to
have adversely affected the integrity of the walls since there was no perceptible bowing or
arching of the masonry at any of the locations.
In the oldest part of the school building, the steel lintels appear to be rusting almost universally
along the exposed edges of the lintel angles. At most locations, this is not a cause for any
structural concern at this time. If left unaddressed, the expansion of the steel due to rusting
may soon adversely affect the façade brick at the bearing. A masonry crack at a bearing
location may lead to an unwanted water penetration problem.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 16 of 104
Photograph: Cracked masonry at lintel bearing
Photograph: Masonry tie in 10” composite wall
near side entrance
Another effect of a rusted lintel is warping of the steel itself that may result in uneven movement
in the brick façade resting on the angle. This problem is most prominently evident along the
northeast side of the building near and at the side entrance to the school.
A minor vertical crack in the brick was observed mostly at the corner of part of the structure that
houses the cafetorium. There are some masonry cracks at the side entrance as described
earlier, mostly at the lintel bearing locations.
Photograph: Vertical crack in brick
along corner of building
Photograph: Rusted lintel near side
entrance
Our site investigation of the roof framing from inside the building revealed no evidence of
structural concern. At the representative locations where the joist bearings were inspected, no
masonry cracks or horizontal movement of the bearing was observed. Neither was any vertical
crack in the CMU observed, nor any sign of water penetration or previously done structural
repair.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 17 of 104
We have analyzed the exterior load-bearing walls (all types and from all three construction
periods) and the roof framing members. According to the existing drawings, our selective site
observation and structural analysis of the observed conditions, it appears that:


The roof framing is structurally adequate to support 30 psf design live load that it was
originally designed for.
The exterior bearing walls are structurally adequate to support the roof framing members
as designed.
Though the site masonry walls are not strictly part of a building structure, we observed that the
short masonry wall to the west of building is severely damaged and is either cracked beyond
repair or partially broken. It was not possible for us to verify the composition of the site knee
walls, but from visual observation it appears that the site masonry walls are not reinforced.
We also observed what appeared to be a significant settlement of the exterior concrete slab ongrade outside the main entrance to the school building. Unless the old concrete slab had been
entirely replaced and what we observed is a new slab, it appears that the settlement is uniform
and has not resulted in cracking of the concrete.
Recommendations:
Based on our observation of the deficiencies that may potentially cause future structural
problems, we recommend that:

The site masonry walls be removed and replaced. The walls should be designed to act
as short retaining walls.

The steel lintels, especially those in the oldest section of the structure, should be
cleaned and repainted. In the very unlikely condition of substantial loss of material
section of the steel lintels, portions of the existing lintels may have to be replaced.

Cracks in the brick façade be caulked and sealed.

The joint between the exterior slab on-grade and the building exterior wall be caulked to
prevent water penetration to the wall foundation.
Photograph: Joist bearing in the oldest section of
the building
Photograph: Joist bearing in the pod (construction
period: 1993)
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 18 of 104
Photograph: Joist bearing in the oldest section
of the building
Photograph: Joist bearing in the kindergarten
section (construction period: 2007)
Photograph: Warped steel lintel in older
section of the building
Photograph: Severely damaged site masonry wall to
the west side of the building
Photograph: Apparent settlement of exterior
concrete slab on-grade at main entrance
This report and our observations are limited by the constraints inherent to visual observation of
the readily accessible portions of the masonry walls, which alone may not accurately predict
future building performance and accurately detect hidden or latent building defects. No
destructive testing other than the ones stated earlier in this report were performed. As such, it is
not the intent of this report or our work to guarantee or warranty the future performance of the
structure.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 19 of 104
Existing Mechanical Narrative
General
A rooftop replacement project was completed in 1990, resulting in the replacement of nine (9)
existing gas-fired rooftop units. These units were replaced in kind with similar gas-fired rooftop
units. Refer to Attachment 'A' for a full description of the Building Evolution Diagram.
Existing Mechanical Systems:
A. Existing Heating/Cooling Plant:
No central heating or cooling plant exists within the building. The existing building is heated
in its entirety by perimeter electric resistance heaters (horizontal, cabinet heater and/or fintube radiation) and gas-fired furnaces located in existing rooftop units. The rooftop units
utilize direct expansion (R-22) as a base of cooling.
B. Existing HVAC Systems:
The current existing HVAC of the building is accomplished by twelve (12) roof-mounted air
handling units and two (2) indoor heating and ventilating (H/V) units. One (1) rooftop unit
serving the gym is heating & ventilating only. Eleven (11) rooftop units are heating and
cooling units, of which nine (9) units are constant volume, one (1) is a variable air volume
(VAV) type, and one (1) unit is a multi-zone type. Of the two (2) indoor H/V units, one (1)
serves the lobby/vestibule area and the other unit provides make-up air for the kitchen.
Refer to Table 1 for existing air handling unit characteristics.
Cooling is generated by packaged air-cooled condensing units utilizing R-22 reciprocating,
hermetically sealed compressors, integral with the RTUs. Heating is generated by gas-fired
heat exchangers within the RTUs.
Table 1: Longfellow Elementary - Existing Air Handling Unit Characteristics
EX
DESIGNATION TYPE
LOCATION
SERVICE
COOLING
TONS
MANUFACTURER AGE (yrs)
RTU-MP
CV
Roof
Cafetorium
25
Lennox
21
RTU-G
VVT
Roof
Music/Art
15
Lennox
21
RTU-LD
CV
Roof
Lower Division
20
Lennox
21
RTU-MD
CV
Roof
Middle Division
20
Lennox
21
RTU-UD
CV
Roof
Upper Division
20
Lennox
21
RTU-K
CV
Roof
Kindergarten
20
Lennox
21
RTU-LR
CV
Roof
Media Center
25
Lennox
21
RTU-TP
CV
Roof
Computer Lab
7.5
Lennox
21
RTU-A
MZCV
Roof
Office/Admin
25
Mammoth
21
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 20 of 104
RTU-1
CV
Roof
Classroom Addition
(1993)
RTU-2
CV
Roof
Gymnasium Addition
(1993)
(H/V Only)
N/A
VAV
Roof
Kindergarten
Addition (2007)
AHU-1
CV
Mezzanine
(Gym)
N/A
CV
Mezzanine
(Kitchen)
20
York
17
Reznor
17
20
McQuay
3
Lobby/Vestibule
Addition (1993)
(H/V Only)
York
17
Kitchen
(Make-up)
(H/V Only)
-
-
Notes:
1. CV = Constant Volume; VVT = Variable Volume/Variable Temperature; VAV = Variable Air Volume;
MZCV = Multi-Zone Constant Volume.
2. Computer Lab served by RTU-TP. This area is supplemented by an 1½ ton Ductless Split A/C
System.
3. Media Production Room served by RTU-LR. It is the main hub for the building's network. The
cooling for this area is supplemented by a 2-ton Ductless Split A/C System.
4. Refer to page 27 for Existing HVAC Zoning Diagram.
C. Existing Air Distribution System:
Cafetorium and Stage: Supply air is delivered by an overhead air distribution duct system
serving ceiling mounted supply air diffusers. Ducted return air collects from multiple vertical
in-wall grilles located in the Cafetorium as well at the stage landing. Perimeter electric
resistance vertical cabinet unit heaters are present to offset any infiltration losses from
exterior doors.
Music and Art: Supply air is delivered by an overhead Variable Volume, Variable
Temperature (VVT) air distribution duct system serving ceiling mounted supply air diffusers.
A VVT system uses a constant air volume unit in conjunction with variable air flow to
individual spaces by modulating a thermostatically controlled supply air duct/zone damper
and static pressure controlled supply to return air bypass damper. The control system
determines if the air handling unit operates in a heating mode or cooling mode by polling
space thermostats, resets the supply air temperature, then allows room thermostats to
modulate the quantity of supply air delivered to the space. This system is split into three (3)
zones (art, music and ensemble areas).
Ducted return air collects from multiple vertical in-wall grilles and ceiling mounted registers
located in each area. Perimeter electric resistance vertical cabinet unit heaters are present
to offset any infiltration losses from exterior doors.
Lower, Middle, Upper and Kindergarten Divisions: Supply air is delivered by an overhead air
distribution duct system with surface mounted (i.e. not flush) ceiling supply air diffusers
which were necessary due to lack of ceiling plenum space. Ducted return air collects from
large ceiling registers centrally located in the areas. Transfer air (or jumper ducts) assist in
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 21 of 104
the collection of return air back to the source. The transfer ducts were installed when full
height partitions were constructed to define teaching areas within the existing open
landscape areas.
Media Center: Supply air is delivered by an overhead air distribution duct system with
surface mounted supply air diffusers due to lack of ceiling plenum space. Ducted return air
collects from two (2) vertical in-wall grilles located on each side of the media center. The
media production room is the main hub for the building's network. The cooling for this area is
supplemented by a 2-ton Ductless Split A/C System. The indoor unit is a wall-mounted type
as manufactured by Mitsubishi and its associated remote condensing unit is located on the
roof directly above the space
Computer Lab: Supply air is delivered by an overhead air distribution duct system serving
ceiling mounted supply air diffusers. Ducted return air collects from two (2) vertical in-wall
grilles located on each side of the space. A full height partition was constructed to separate
the area into a true computer lab and a teaching space. The computer lab portion of the
area is supplemented by an 1½-ton Ductless Split A/C System. The indoor unit is a wallmounted type as manufactured by Sanyo and its associated remote condensing unit is
located on the roof directly above the space.
Office/Administrative: Supply air is delivered by an overhead multi-zone air distribution duct
system serving ceiling mounted supply air diffusers. Multi-zone units have multiple
independent duct systems connected to the hot and cold deck supply outlet of the air
handling system, which supplies a constant volume of variable temperature air to individual
spaces/areas controlled by thermostats. The rooftop unit has a cold air deck and a hot air
deck, which (through a thermostatically controlled automatic control damper) modulate the
amount of hot air and cold air such that the mixed air streams provide correct temperature of
air to offset space/area heat gains/losses. The units are comprised of a return fan, mixing
box/economizer section, filters, supply fan, direct expansion cooling coil (cold deck), gasfired furnace (hot deck), zone damper section, and air-cooled condensing section. This
system is split into eight (8) zones.
Ducted return air collects from two (2) large registers centrally located in the office area and
in the corridor. Under-cut doors and door louvers assist in the collection of return air back to
the source. Perimeter electric resistance heaters are present to offset exterior door/wall heat
and infiltration losses. Ducted exhaust collects from adjacent gang and individual toilets
rooms and terminates to exhaust fans on the roof.
Classroom Pod (1993 Addition): Supply air is delivered by an overhead air distribution duct
system serving ceiling mounted supply air diffusers. Ducted return air collects from multiple
vertical in-wall grilles and grid mounted registers located in each area. Sound attenuators
incorporated in the supply and return air ductwork aide in-room acoustics as the RTU is
centrally located on the roof of the addition. Ducted exhaust collects from a single gang toilet
room and storage room and terminates to an exhaust fan on the roof.
Gymnasium (1993 Addition): Supply air is delivered by an overhead exposed air distribution
duct system serving concealed, mounted linear slot diffusers. The supply air duct is split into
two (2) equal sections and runs along the perimeter of the gym. Ducted return air collects
from a single large vertical in-wall grille and grid mounted registers located in the adjacent
storage areas. Sound attenuators incorporated in the supply and return air ductwork aide inroom acoustics as the RTU is located on the roof of the gym. Ducted exhaust collects from a
single toilet room and terminates to an exhaust fan on the roof. The physical education
teacher’s office is not served by the gym H/V Unit. This area is served by a 3/4-ton Ductless
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 22 of 104
Split A/C System. The indoor unit is a wall-mounted type as manufactured by Mitsubishi and
an its associated remote condensing unit is located on the roof.
Lobby/Vestibule (1993 Addition): Supply air is delivered by an overhead air distribution duct
system serving ceiling mounted supply air diffusers. Ducted return air collects from a single
ceiling mounted register located in the lobby. The lobby/vestibule is served by an indoor,
gas-fired, H/V unit located in a mezzanine/storage area, above the physical education
teacher’s office. Access to this mezzanine is from the gym storage room.
Kindergarten Wing (2007 Addition): Supply air is delivered by an overhead air distribution
duct system serving multiple standard pressure reducing VAV room terminal units, each with
individual control. The VAV units are provided with electric re-heat, which provide the
necessary supplemental heating. The VAV units serve ceiling mounted supply air diffusers.
The return air system utilizes the plenum space above the ceiling as a means of returning
air to the RTU. Classrooms use above ceiling transfer ducts to convey air back into the
corridor to a common open-end duct from the RTU above. Ducted exhaust collects from
multiple individual classroom associated toilet rooms and terminates to exhaust fans on the
roof. Perimeter electric resistance heaters are present to offset any infiltration losses from
exterior doors.
D. Existing Utilities:
Water Service: The existing building is served by a three inch incoming water service. The
cold water service originates in the exterior 'Gas Meter' room. Access to this area is from
outside the southeast portion of the building. The fire protection system is fed independently
by public source. This system will be described below.
Sanitary: The existing building is served by a six inch sanitary line connected to the public
sanitary system. The six inch line enters the building below the kitchen area in the southwest
portion of the building. During the 1993 classroom pod and gymnasium additions, two (2),
four inch sanitary lines exited the respected areas and tied into the existing main six inch
sanitary main. When the 2007 kindergarten addition was constructed, a four inch sanitary
line exited the new addition and tied into the adjacent 1993 classroom addition four inch
sanitary line.
Gas Service: The existing building is served in its entirety by a natural gas service. The gas
service was installed in 1969 and originates in the exterior 'Gas Meter' room. Access to this
area is from outside the southeast portion of the building.
E. Existing Plumbing System:
A three inch incoming service as described above, serves the building in its entirety. Hot
water generation is supplied by a gas-fired hot water heater and associated storage tank
located in a small mezzanine above the kitchen area. Access to this area is from a roof
hatch located in the exterior 'Gas Meter' room on the southeast portion of the building. Hot
water and hot water recirculation lines are distributed in parallel fashion adjacent to the cold
water line throughout the building.
Gang toilet rooms reside on the southwest and northeast side of the building that were a
part of the original 1969 envelope. These toilet rooms served the entire student population
at the time. Two (2) exterior individual toilet rooms are accessed from outside the southeast
portion of the building. Also as part of the original 1969 envelope, the office/admin area has
two (2) gang toilet rooms for the staff and individual toilet rooms for the health room and
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 23 of 104
Principal. The 1993 classroom pod addition design provided ADA gang toilet rooms. In
addition to the 1993 additions, an individual toilet room was constructed for the physical
education teacher’s office, located by the gym. In 2007, the kindergarten addition provided
individual, ADA classroom toilet rooms.
F. Existing Fire Protection System:
Presently, the entire building is fully sprinklered. An independent six inch incoming water
service located in a storage room adjacent to the gym serves the fire protection/sprinkler
system. This room can be accessed from the gym or from the exterior on the south end of
the building. A full sprinkler system was constructed in 1993, at the time serving the new
additions and in 2007 was extended to serve the entire existing 1969 building and 2007
kindergarten addition. The gym and 1993 classroom pod addition zone valves are located in
the storage room mentioned above. The remaining zone control valves are located in a
custodial office on the northeast part of the building.
Existing Mechanical Systems Evaluations:
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE),
estimates the median service life for single-zone and multi-zone rooftop air conditioning units to
be fifteen years. As provided in Table 1, nine (9) of the twelve (12) rooftop units, manufactured
by Lennox and Mammoth are twenty-one years old, two (2) are seventeen years old,
manufactured by York and Reznor, and one (1), manufactured by McQuay is three years old.
The existing units, with the exception of the McQuay unit installed in 2007, are past their
anticipated life expectancy. The age of these units makes them subject to casing deterioration,
which leads to water infiltration, and potential indoor air quality issues within the building. The
condenser section frames are rusted out and the condenser fins are damaged. A majority of the
units have had the casing taped over and re-caulked as water infiltration has occurred due to
age and outdoor conditions. The units also utilize R-22 refrigerant, which has been phased out.
A majority of the ductwork still remains from the original 1969 construction of Longfellow ES.
These areas include the cafetorium, kitchen, media center and portions of the original
classroom wings, with the exception of renovations and improvements throughout the years.
The original ductwork is forty-one years old. ASHRAE indicates that ductwork has a thirty year
median life expectancy, and its associated insulation has a twenty-four year median life
expectancy. Similarly, air terminal devices (diffusers, registers and grilles) have a twenty-seven
year median life expectancy. Renovations dating back to 1986 are close to end-of-life ASHRAE
numbers.
Although some existing air flow ventilation rates were revised during the 1990 rooftop
replacement project, there are still some areas with ventilation rates as low as 10 percent.
These numbers are based on five cubic feet per minute (CFM) per person, not the current 15
CFM per person, as presently required by code. The ventilation air flow rates need to be
increased to meet current requirements, this increasing the building's heating and cooling load
capacity and associated power requirements.
With the exception of the 2007 kindergarten addition, there is no re-heat for any of the systems.
The school has varying humidity levels and stratification is an issue in the high volume spaces
such as the cafetorium and gymnasium. Infiltration of the existing forty year old building
envelope is a concern.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 24 of 104
In areas with limited ceiling plenum space, supply air diffusers are rather noisy. This is due to
the supply diffusers being installed directly out of the bottom of the supply main/branch. Most of
these areas have surface mounted diffusers that extend 3"-4" below the finished ceiling height.
The incoming water service feeds the building directly from the public system without the use of
a backflow preventer. The fire protection service is fed independently from public source.
Majority of the domestic water system (cold, hot and hot water recirculation) is original to the
building. Various renovations and additions have reused the mains and fed newer portions of
the building. It is recommended that these mains be replaced as well as up-sizing the incoming
water service.
The existing fixtures in the lower, middle, upper, and kindergarten, office/admin, cafetorium
areas (1969 construction) are original, not water efficient and do not meet current handicapped
code requirements. All fixtures excluding the 2007 kindergarten addition are recommended to
be replaced in their entirety.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 25 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 26 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 27 of 104
Existing Electrical Narrative
Existing Electrical Systems:
A.
Electrical Distribution System:
The building main distribution panel (MDP) is 3000A, 208/120V, three-phase, four-wire,
located in a small electrical room with exterior access only. A Baltimore Gas and
Electric (BG&E) pad-mounted transformer located near the main entrance serves the
building. The meter is located in the electrical room. The MDP is original to the building
and is a Federal Pacific Equipment (FPE) switchboard with three service disconnects.
One service disconnect is a 1600A breaker feeding a distribution section attached to the
main section that serves panelboards throughout the school and the portable trailers.
The other two service disconnects are 800A breakers serving distribution panelboards
located in the mezzanines.
The building electrical distribution system is a combination of equipment manufactured
by FPE, Square D and/or Cutler Hammer that have been added and replaced through
various renovations and additions. Panelboards are typically located flush mounted in
corridor walls, serving lighting and receptacle loads. Most of these panelboards are
filled to maximum physical capacity.
B.
Emergency Distribution System:
A 20kW propane generator was installed around 1993 to provide emergency power for
the building in accordance with current codes. This was originally accomplished with a
tap ahead of the building main, which was a code recognized emergency source when
the building was constructed. The normal side of the automatic transfer switch (ATS) is
fed from the tap ahead of the main in the switchboard and fed through a circuit breaker.
The ATS is located in a dedicated electrical room and feeds a panelboard with lighting
and generator circuits. There is also a sub-feed for a small panel in the main electrical
room serving fire alarm circuits, time clocks and security circuits.
C.
Lighting:
Lighting in classrooms, offices and other areas are typically surface mounted with some
recessed 2x4 and 1x4 lensed troffers. The fixtures in the original part of the building are
surface mounted and are in fair to poor condition, with yellowing lenses and bent frames.
Control of corridor lighting is through the use of keyed switches. The classrooms and
offices lighting controls are on/off via a single toggle switch.
Emergency lights are located throughout the building. These fixtures were wired
separately when the emergency generator was added. LED exit signs were also added
at this time. The classrooms in the addition have recessed parabolic louvered fixtures
and dual level switching of inboard/outboard lamps. One of classrooms has fluorescent
dimming. Lighting controls are manual only throughout the building. The lamps appear to
all be 32W-T8 lamps. In the gymnasium 400W metal halide high bay fixtures are utilized.
Building mounted HID wall packs are located around the perimeter of the building for
area lighting. The parking lot has a number of pole mounted HID fixtures throughout.
The poles are only 12’ to 15’ high mounted on concrete bases and appear to be
relatively new. They are controlled with a timeclock/photocell with a timed manual
override.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 28 of 104
D.
Fire Alarm System:
A Silent Knight Fire Alarm 5820XL system was installed in the building in 1993 to
replace the existing system. The system consists of manual pull stations at the main
corridor doors and exits, sprinkler flow and tamper switches, duct detectors, and
horns/strobes in the corridors and classrooms. The system is a zoned system and
appears to be ADA compliant with coverage and mounting heights. The original control
panel, located in the electrical room, is tied back to the Silent Knight Panel located in the
mechanical mezzanine near the gymnasium.
E.
Telecommunications System:
The telephone main point-of presence (MPOP) is located in the building electrical room.
Service is routed underground adjacent to the incoming electrical service. Data and
CATV service appears to be extended to the main distribution frame (MDF) in the media
center equipment room. This media room is also where the Verizon fiber MPOP is
located.
A Rauland Teledata Center TC4180 public address system, located in media equipment
room, serves the entire school and portable trailers. Telephone handsets in each
classroom are connected to the system for in-building service and have the capability to
call out. Public address (PA) system speakers are located in the classrooms on walls
and ceiling mounted in corridors. Program bells are though the PA speakers. Speaker
horns are located on the exterior of both buildings. The PA rack also has a AM/FM/Tape
radio with amplifier. Announcements are made from both the media rack and through
administrative telephones in the main office. In addition to the telephones, each
classroom has a call-switch with two-way speaker. The telephones automatically
override the local speaker, once the handset is lifted. A Simplex Time Control master
panel is located in the administrative area. Classrooms clocks are not connected to the
central system and are battery operated.
The CATV equipment rack and media retrieval system is located in the media equipment
room adjacent to the media center. Cabling is distributed to individual outlets throughout
the building from this location. Each classroom has a CATV outlet, although not all
classrooms have permanently mounted televisions.
Data outlets have been installed throughout both buildings for computer use, all fed from
the MDF. There are two (2) open racks with switches and patch panels, an enclosed
server rack, and a telephone backboard with 110 blocks.
F.
Security System:
The security system consists of an intrusion detection system, video surveillance and
access control system. The intrusion detection system consists of motion sensors
located in the main corridors. Proximity card readers with magnetic locks and request to
exit devices are located on main egress doors and exterior doors to the portable
classrooms only. A keypad for arming/disarming the system is located in the main
lobby. Altronix system control panels are located in the media center equipment room
and a storage closet next to the main office.
Video surveillance cameras are located in the main lobby to monitor the exit to the
portable trailer area. The General Electric headend rack with monitor and DVR is
located in the main lobby.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 29 of 104
Proposed Options
Common Elements
The following common elements and approaches appear in various forms throughout each of
the proposed options.
A.
All applicable building, fire, life safety, and accessibility codes will be met.
B.
The building will be systemically improved to current standards. This work includes
mechanical, plumbing, electrical, data, and life safety systems. All systemic narratives
provided within this report, both base and alternate, are applicable to each of the three
options. See narratives below for more information.
C.
All of the building’s associated systems and equipment will be capable of supporting the
most state-of-the-art technology available today.
D.
A phased occupied construction will be required. Temporary relocatable classrooms will
be utilized during construction.
E.
The programmatic spaces existing in the current building act as a guideline for the
renovated building.
F.
Major spatial deficiencies will be addressed for each program. All spaces will be brought
up to the square footage goals outlined in the HCPSS Guideline Manual for Renovations
and Modernizations of Existing Schools. Particular attention was paid to ensure all
classrooms have a minimum of 750 s.f., and that the health suite will meet COMAR
standards.
G.
Circulation will be removed from the media center and classroom pod commons and
located into dedicated corridors in order to limit distractions within learning
environments.
H.
The existing narrow exterior passageways will be closed off and utilized for storage in
the renovation.
I.
The 2007 kindergarten addition will remain as is. An exception to this is the minor
expansion of the smallest kindergarten classroom in Option 2.
J.
The ADA compliant group bathroom in the 1993 classroom addition will remain.
K.
Options 2 & 3 retain the two front bathroom locations in the 1969 original building. Both
of these bathrooms will still need renovation in order to accommodate ADA
requirements.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 30 of 104
Option 1 Description
Proposed Site
Option 1 is proposing a classroom addition and stage addition along the north side of the
existing school. The proposed additions will require storm water management and water quality
to be in compliance with the current regulations. There will be a forest conservation obligation
required based on the limits of disturbance. The obligation can be addressed by recording an
easement on the existing forest or paying a fee-in-lieu through a waiver petition. The proposed
classroom addition at the north end of the school will require the existing pathway to be
relocated along with grading the existing slope. A retaining wall should not be required based
on the top of slope being approximately 30 feet from the existing toe of the slope.
Proposed Building
Option 1 proposes major renovations and additions to the building. The most drastic
transformation will be the renovation work within the original 1969 building. The 1993 additions
are proposed to receive non-structural renovation, with no changes to the gym or entrance.
This central space of the 1993 addition will accommodate the new media center location and its
related programmatic elements. The central portions of the original building will be renovated to
help even out the multiple levels in the facility.
Within the 1969 building, the varying levels will be addressed by raising the floors to reduce the
elevation change to only two levels. The lower (-5’) level will be raised to the existing entry (0’)
level. Raising the floor level will require raising the roofs above the kitchen and art room to the
level of the high volume roof over the cafetorium and music room. As the parapet surrounding
the lower and upper roofs are continuous, this will not require entirely new walls. The current
kitchen location will house the new administrative area, enabling a secure vestibule for the
school. The loading dock and utility hook-ups, currently located by the kitchen, will need to be
relocated. The kitchen and cafetorium will relocate into the current cafetorium space, and a new
addition will house an enlarged and accessible stage at the end of this block.
In the instructional areas of the 1969 building, the entry level will be infilled to the upper (2’-0”)
level. A sky lit commons off the lobby will serve as both a focal point connecting the
instructional spaces to the rest of the building and as a centralized point of vertical circulation.
The performing and visual arts programs are located by this commons to further mediate
between the instructional and more public spaces of the school.
The instructional spaces on the upper level will be rearranged to become bilaterally
symmetrical, allowing for clearer circulation patterns. The long corridors, with its central
intersections, also allow a single teacher to monitor a vast amount of space. The plan
symmetry is organized orthogonally to the structural grid to facilitate mechanical systems and
maximize ceiling heights. A new classroom addition will be placed mirroring the 2007
kindergarten addition. The two mirrored sides will each house grade clusters. Early education
and first grade classes will be located to the left of the plan, and second through fifth on the
right. These two sides will each have a sky lit central extended learning room to provide
borrowed natural lighting to interior classrooms. These extended learning rooms are carved out
of the existing structural grid to minimize structural work while providing day lighting.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 31 of 104
Proposed Structural
Option 1 includes raising significant floor area to address the multiple floor level issue by
reducing elevation changes to only two at 2'-0" level change. Due to the existing outside grade
level, this will mean infilling against the existing masonry walls.
The existing masonry walls are not designed to act as basement retaining walls and therefore,
we recommend that the existing wall be kept independent by building a secondary knee wall
next to the existing ones. However, if raising the floor elevations does not result in backfilling
against existing exterior walls, this option will not affect the structure in any significant manner.
The new additions will follow the dialogue provided by the existing facility. The floor will be slab
on-grade concrete with open web bar joist for roof support. The walls of the additions will be
wall bearing at a minimum of an 8" concrete masonry and 4" insulated cavity and a 4" masonry
veneer. Steel columns and beams will be introduced where appropriate to address openings in
the existing facility as well as the new additions.
Proposed Phasing
This option includes the addition of six (6) classrooms on the north side of the existing building,
a new addition to the east side of the building for the cafetorium and stage, the relocation of the
administrative areas to the current location of the kitchen area and the renovation and
reconfiguration of the remaining areas. This work can be completed in four phases of
construction over seventeen months. Construction would start on the new additions in early
spring and would create minimal interference with ongoing school activities due to the location
in the rear of the building. During the summer break the remainder of the additions would be
completed and ready for occupancy in late August.
During the school year the interior modifications would be accomplished through two phases of
work that relocate classrooms to the temporary classrooms. The last summer will be utilized to
complete the balance of the project and the areas not available during the school year such as
the media center, administrative areas, music and ensemble areas and the health suites. The
last summer will be challenging and will most likely require a double shift. This option includes a
six (6) room classroom addition that will be used as swing space during the second phase
however additional swing space will be required because of the reconfiguration of the second
and third grade classrooms into the new media center.
The site is very tight and space is limited onsite for temporary classrooms. The geothermal
option will create a larger demand for open space and finding an appropriate location for the
temporary classrooms more challenging. This issue could be addressed by an early start of the
geothermal well drilling operation. Upon completion of the wells in early summer the temporary
classroom complex could be place on top of the geothermal field.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 32 of 104
Option 1: Site Plan
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 33 of 104
Option 1: Demolition Plan
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 34 of 104
Option 1: Proposed Floor Plan
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 35 of 104
Option 2 Description
Proposed Site
Option 2 is proposing a stage addition along with a gym and art addition. The stage addition will
require new curb and gutter in the parking lot area along with relocating the dumpster area.
There should not be a loss of parking spaces due to this addition. There is also a courtyard infill
at the south end of the building, which will require the existing walkway to be relocated at the
toe of the existing slope.
As discussed in Option 1, storm water management, water quality, and forest conservation will
need to be addressed.
Proposed Building
Option 2 proposes major renovations and additions to the building. With the exception of the
smallest kindergarten room, the 2007 kindergarten addition and adjacently renovated early
education classrooms would not be reconfigured. The 1993 additions will be more noticeably
altered, with the upper classroom pod being reorganized. The main entrance to the building will
remain as it currently exists, however the high volume gym will be divided up to form the
administrative area and health suite. The relocation of the administrative area will provide the
opportunity to build a secure vestibule. The volume space above the administrative area will be
reviewed for possible uses.
The lowest level of the existing 1969 building will undergo renovations on the performing and
visual arts side. The existing kitchen will not be altered and the cafetorium will gain square
footage by shifting its right wall. The stage will be demolished, and a larger, accessible stage
will be built on top of its current location. The lower level can be accessed in two ways. One
stair directly connects the lobby and west circulation corridor to the cafetorium. Another stair
with a paired ramp leads down to a wide corridor of the lower level on the east side. Both of
these stairs are in the direction of the primary circulation flow and do not require sharp turns.
They also do not create bottleneck landings as in the existing building. The corridor on the
lower level acts as a lobby linking the cafetorium, performing arts, visual arts, and newly
constructed gymnasium. The gym and visual arts room will be located in an addition built
towards the existing play fields.
Adjacent to the main entrance lobby and the cafetorium, the media center is relocated to act as
a hub for the school. The entry level also houses the administrative area, health suite,
computer labs, and special programs. The instructional spaces are located on the upper level,
accessed by wide ADA compliant ramps. The circulation on this upper level is characterized by
long corridors with perpendicular intersections to facilitate staff supervision. The teacher lounge
is located at the center of this instructional level, off the main courtyard.
Proposed Structural
Option 2 does not seem to affect the existing structure in any significant manner, other than the
proposed addition. Any addition to the existing structure will have to be independently studied to
determine the effect on the existing roof framing and foundation system.
The new addition would consist of wall bearings and open web joists. The floor structure would
be a standard slab on-grade. Any additional roof load in terms of new roof top units will have to
be studied on a case-to-case basis to determine the effect on the roof framing and the joist
bearing conditions. Modifying existing exterior wall heights have not been studied; however,
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 36 of 104
from our structural analysis, we can conclude that the heights of most of the existing exterior
bearing walls cannot be modified without significant changes in the structure. New masonry
openings in existing walls are feasible but will also have to be engineered on a case-to-case
basis based on the existing wall loading condition and height and width of the proposed
masonry openings.
Proposed Phasing
Option 2 includes the addition of a new gym, new stage, relocation of the administrative area to
the existing gymnasium, and the renovation and reconfiguration of the remaining areas. This
work can be completed in five phases over seventeen months. Construction would start on the
new additions in the early spring and would create minimal impact to ongoing activities. During
the summer break, the remainder of the additions would be completed and ready for occupancy
in late August. The new gymnasium addition can be used for its intended purpose at the end of
the first summer or it could be used as additional swing space if necessary. This would reduce
the need for temporary classrooms, however, it would also increase the amount of work to be
accomplished during the last summer. Further evaluations will be required to determine the
most cost effective method of utilizing this new space.
During the school year the interior modifications would be accomplished through three phases
of work that relocate classrooms to the temporary classrooms. The last summer will be utilized
to complete the balance of the project and the areas not available during the school year such
as the media center and the music and ensemble areas.
The site is very tight and space is limited onsite for temporary classrooms. The geothermal
option will create a larger demand for open space and finding an appropriate location for the
temporary classrooms more challenging. This issue could be addressed by an early start of the
geothermal well drilling operation. Upon completion of the wells in early summer the temporary
classroom complex could be place on top of the geothermal field.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 37 of 104
Option 2: Site Plan
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 38 of 104
Option 2: Demolition Plan
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 39 of 104
Option 2: Proposed Floor Plan
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 40 of 104
Option 3 Description
Proposed Site
Option 3 is proposing an administrative addition, stage addition, and classroom addition. The
stage addition will require new curb and gutter in the parking lot area along with relocating the
dumpster area. There should not be a loss of parking spaces due to this addition. The
proposed exterior wall of the administrative addition will be exposed below the finished slab
elevation in order to lessen the grade at the existing walkway.
With the relocation of the administrative area to the front of the building, the main entrance
sequence will need to be modified. This will require the bus loop and entrance to the side
parking lot to be altered. With the potential reconfiguration of the parking lot, the existing storm
water management pond will need to be reviewed due to its proximity to the paved area.
As discussed in Option 1, storm water management, water quality, and forest conservation will
need to be addressed
Proposed Building
Option 3 proposes major renovations and additions to the existing facility. Minimal systemic
upgrades will be performed to the 2007 kindergarten addition. The smallest of the kindergarten
classrooms will be repurposed for another grade level, and a new room meeting the square
footage goals set in the renovation guideline will take its place as a third kindergarten
classroom. In this option, the 1993 addition classroom pod is reconfigured to include a
circulation corridor. The 1993 gymnasium addition would remain intact, however, the entrance
lobby will be reworked. A new administrative area addition will be constructed in this location,
enabling a secure vestibule for the school. The limited space between the bus loop and the
existing gymnasium will dictate the amount of administrative addition that will be capable of
being built. Related programs, such as the health suite, guidance and psychologist office, and
parent volunteer rooms will not fit into the addition. These spaces have to be separated from
the administrative area and will be located along the first cross corridor across from the
cafetorium. The addition will also be located very tight to the curb limiting visibility of the
entrance to the bus loop in its current configuration. The site work needed entails the
reconfiguration of the parking lots off the bus loop to address this concern. The entrance to
these lots will be relocated further away from the entrance, clearing up pedestrian space in front
of the new entrance. This reconfiguration allows for the ADA ramp concern to be addressed.
The lower level of the existing 1969 building remains primarily in its current form. The existing
kitchen will not be altered and the cafetorium will gain square footage by shifting the wall
between the cafetorium and the music room. The stage will be demolished, and a larger,
accessible stage will be built on top of its current location. As it will be altered to accommodate
the new entrance, the parking lot will not be further affected by the stage addition. The lower
level is accessed in two manners. A wide stair, built within the cafetorium, will serve as the
primary means of access to the cafetorium. The existing switch-back ramp will be reworked to
occupy less space, and allow circulation across this hallway on the entry level without engaging
the ramps. The program of the lower level remains the same. The music, ESOL, and storage
rooms will be reconfigured, while no changes will be made to the kitchen, cafetorium, or art
room.
In the remainder of the 1969 building, the floor levels minimally addressed. Raising the slab
levels is minimized to focus primarily on recapturing the square footage lost in the existing
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 41 of 104
building’s vertical circulation. The media center and its related programs remain in the center of
the building, but circulation is pulled out into a cross corridor. Two vertical circulation points, at
either end of the central cross corridor, connect up to the upper level. The upper level houses
the majority of the instructional spaces, arranged in a similar orientation to the existing building.
In this renovation, however, the classrooms are organized around double loaded corridors
which connect in the upper classroom pod instead of a commons for each grade. A classroom
addition will be placed at the end of the corridor to the right of the plan. This addition also
includes an ensemble room on the entry level. Additionally, this ensemble room blocks the
direct access from the gymnasium and cafetorium to the playing fields, one of two primary paths
for the entire school.
Proposed Structural
Option 3 does not seem to affect the existing structure in any significant manner, other than the
proposed addition. Any addition to the existing structure will have to be independently studied to
determine the effect on the existing roof framing and foundation system.
The new additions would consist of wall-bearing and open-web joists. The floor structure would
be a standard slab on-grade. As noted above, the exterior walls of the administrative addition
will need to be designed as partial retaining walls, due to the elevation change of the existing
grade.
Any additional roof load in terms of new roof top units will have to be studied on a case-to-case
basis to determine the effect on the roof framing and the joist bearing conditions. Modifying
existing exterior wall heights have not been studied; however, from our structural analysis, we
can conclude that the heights of most of the existing exterior bearing walls cannot be modified
without significant changes in the structure. New masonry openings in existing walls are feasible
but will also have to be engineered on a case-to-case basis based on the existing wall loading
condition and height and width of the proposed masonry openings.
Proposed Phasing
The work proposed in Option 3 can be completed in five phases over seventeen months.
Construction would start on the new additions in the early spring with the exception of the new
administrative addition. The administrative addition could not start until school is out the middle
of June because of the proximity to the main entrance. Completing the administrative addition
over the summer will be very challenging and will most likely require double shifts. During the
summer break the remainder of the additions would be completed and occupied in late August.
During the school year the interior modifications would be accomplished through three phases
of work that relocate classrooms to the temporary facilities. The last summer of construction will
be utilized to complete the balance of the project and the areas not available during the school
year such as the media center, music area and the health suites.
The site is very tight and space is limited onsite for temporary classrooms. The geothermal
option will create a larger demand for open space and finding an appropriate location for the
temporary classrooms more challenging. This issue could be addressed by an early start of the
geothermal well drilling operation. Upon completion of the wells in early summer the temporary
classroom complex could be place on top of the geothermal field.
.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 42 of 104
Option 3: Site Plan
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 43 of 104
Option 3: Demolition Plan
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 44 of 104
Option 3: Proposed Floor Plan
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 45 of 104
Proposed Mechanical Recommendations
A.
Base Recommendation:
The existing HVAC equipment and systems are beyond their useful life expectancies
and are recommended to be replaced in their entirety with the possible exception of the
2007 kindergarten addition. Recommendations include utilizing higher efficiency
equipment and control strategies to meet current design standards, building functions,
and code requirements. Based on the age, condition, and air distribution system which
still exists, it is recommended that all supply and return duct systems be replaced (with
the exception of the 2007 kindergarten addition) to match the optional room layouts. This
design will provide good indoor air quality, indoor environmental conditions, and noise
criteria based on current state guidelines. Outside air flow rates would be increased to
meet current code and ASHRAE requirements. This will also increase the required
cooling capacity and associated power requirements.
The least costly option is to utilize packaged rooftop units (i.e. electric cooling) with gasfired furnaces for heat, similar to the existing units, in conjunction with variable air
volume terminal control units, equipped with electric heat coils. Based on the limited
infrastructure space, an all-air type system such as this is not recommended unless only
considering first cost. This type of system will have the highest operating cost and lowest
life expectancy and will probably require lower ceiling and/or bulkheads.
To minimize the size of ductwork and infrastructure space needs, a fan coil type system
used in concert with a dedicated outdoor air system is recommended. Fan coil units
(FCU) can utilize water or refrigerant as the energy transport medium. In a water based
system, a 4-pipe (heating and cooling piping) system is recommended. A central heating
and cooling plant (and associated mechanical equipment space) is required. A
conventional heating plant consists of multiple gas-fired cast iron boilers with primary
(boiler) and secondary (building) circulation pumps. An air-cooled chiller and circulating
pump(s), typically is the cooling source. To reduce energy consumption a geothermal
system can be used in conjunction water-to-water heat pumps which will generate both
heating and chilled water.
A refrigerant based fan coil unit system can also be considered. This system is more
efficient and requires less space as variable speed refrigerant compressors pump the
energy through small refrigerant piping, thus eliminating water pumps and reducing the
size of the piping system. The system is commonly known as Variable Refrigerant
Volume (VRV) or Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF). Multiple indoor fan coil type units
(ducted, non-ducted, ceiling mounted, wall mounted, concealed or exposed) are
manifolded together via refrigerant piping to a bank of outdoor heat pump units. Similar
to the water type heat pump system, the VRV or VRF alternative can also utilize an earth
heat exchanger (geothermal system) in lieu of using the atmospheric heat sink for
heating and cooling. Geothermal VRV/VRF systems are limited to two (2) unit
manufacturers, Mitsubishi and Daiken, where many manufacturers can provide the aircooled system.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 46 of 104
B.
Geothermal Alternative:
Geothermal Heat Pump System with Heat Recovery Ventilation: Geothermal heat
pumps used in conjunction with 100 percent outside air heat recovery units.
Geothermal heat pumps take advantage of using the earth as the loop’s heat sink.
Approximately 5'-0" below the earth surface, a relatively constant 55-58°F temperature is
maintained. Due to the extended temperature operating range, the piping system must
be insulated and the loop must be provided with an antifreeze solution to prevent
freezing.
The proposed system utilizes the vertical well concept with plastic tubing installed in a
'U-bend' configuration within a +/- 400 to 450 feet deep well which is filled with a grout
type material. Each vertical well will be capable of +/- 1½ to 2 tons of heat exchange
depending on soil and grout thermal conductivities.
It is anticipated 120-140 bore holes at 450 ft. deep each using 1” “U” tube piping will
provide approximately 225 tons of heat rejection. This would be required for a 67,000 ft²
facility. The bore holes shall be located 15 ft. on center. It is anticipated seven circuits
consisting of 20 bore holes each (185 ft x 265 ft.) would be maximum condition. If a
hybrid system or direct expansion (DX) cooling is utilized for the gym, cafeteria, etc., the
size and capacity of the geothermal system could be reduced.
C.
Automatic Temperature Control:
It is recommended that the building be provided with an upgraded web-based
automation system and be tied into the county Energy Management System. It is
recommended that the system have full direct digital controls. All controls shall be
electric/electronic actuation. All control and monitoring points shall be consistent with
the county’s current standards.
Automatic Temperature Controls (ATC) shall be capable of operating per the sequence
of operation, including when the energy management system is manually overridden.
The basic design criteria is as follows:
1. Cooling Mode:
Outdoor Temperature:
Indoor Temperature:
95° F DB, 78° F WB
75° F DB, 65% RH or less
2. Heating Mode:
Outdoor Temperature:
Indoor Temperature:
10° F DB
70° F DB
3. Ventilation Rates (ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2007):
15 CFM per person minimum - Classrooms
20 CFM per person minimum - All other areas
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 47 of 104
D.
Plumbing/Fire Protection Recommendations:
The existing 3" water service, which extends into the building, shall be replaced with a 4"
distribution system. Backflow preventers and vacuum breakers will be provided to
prevent back siphonage and contamination of the potable water system. The water
piping shall be sized per the requirements of the American Society of Plumbing
Engineers and the International Plumbing Code.
All new plumbing fixtures will be included and shall be good commercial grade of
institutional quality. Water closets and urinals shall be flush valve, water-conserving
type. Faucets for lavatories will be the self-metering types. Handicapped fixtures will
comply with ADA requirements. Mounting heights for all fixtures will be coordinated with
the owner.
Hot and cold water will be extended to and serve the fixtures and equipment as required.
All domestic water piping shall be copper type L with wrought copper fittings and lead
free 95-5 solder. All water piping shall be insulated with the exception of nonhandicapped final branch run-outs for connection to fixtures/equipment. Freeze-proof
wall hydrants will be located every 150 feet along the building’s perimeter. The existing
under-slab sanitary mains shall be reused to the fullest extent possible. The new
renovations/addition will tie into the existing sanitary system. The sanitary drainage
system will be sized per the requirements of the American Society of Plumbing
Engineers and the International Plumbing Code. New piping systems (cold water, hot
water and hot water circulating) will be provided. New plumbing systems will be installed
in strict accordance with all applicable codes and regulations, including ADA.
The existing storm water collection system at the renovation/addition Area will be
modified as required and will serve the addition(s). A new storm water drain line will be
brought to a point 5'-0" from the building exterior wall (under another division). At this
point, and under this division, connection will be made to the drainage line and same will
be extended into the building for distribution. The storm water collection system and
overflow system will be designed and sized per the requirements of the American
Society of Plumbing Engineers and the international plumbing code.
Proposed Electrical Recommendations
Electrical Distribution System:
Up to date load information on the building was not available at the time of report to
determine if the ampacity of the equipment has been reached. The service is
anticipated to be adequate for any of the proposed upgrades, based on a volt-amperes
per square foot estimate at a maximum 65,518 gsf. However, it is recommended that
the Main Distribution Panel (MDP) and all original Federal Pacific equipment be replaced
as they have reached the end of their expected useful life. Also, the replacement parts
for this equipment can be expensive and/or difficult to obtain. The Square D equipment
appears to be in good condition for its age, although thermal imaging is recommended to
adequately determine this.
The existing MDP is at maximum physical capacity, with no additional spares or spaces
on the 1600A distribution section. The size of the electrical room is also a concern with
regards to maintaining code required clearances. The replacement switchboard is
recommended to be reconfigured to serve new distribution panelboards located
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 48 of 104
strategically in the building. These will serve lighting and appliance panelboards, rather
than the MDP.
Surge protection is recommended for the incoming service entrance, as well as
cascaded surge protection devices on panelboards serving non-linear computer loads.
Dedicated panelboards with 200 percent rated neutrals are recommended for this
application. A separate neutral conductor is recommended to be installed for each
computer circuit in order to reduce the effects of harmonics caused by non-linear loads.
Emergency Distribution System:
The existing generator and automatic transfer switch have not reached their anticipated
useful life of 25-30 years old. These can be reused to serve life safety loads in the
building. A larger generator and additional automatic transfer switch would be required
to serve additional optional standby loads that are commonly on standby power in
schools. These loads include the kitchen refrigerator/freezer, telecommunications
equipment and/or select HVAC equipment.
Lighting:
The existing lighting systems in the building are recommended to be replaced, largely
due to physical condition. Lighting systems that meet adopted energy codes for lighting
power density as well as controllability are recommended. Lighting controls will be
required to incorporate full automatic shutoff of building lighting systems. This can be
accomplished via local motion detectors or via contactors controlled via the building
Energy Management Control System with timed, local override.
Compact fluorescent lighting is recommended at egress doors, connected to an
emergency standby source per code and controlled via photocell. Exterior lighting
served by a normal power source is proposed to be photocell enabled, controlled via the
building management system or time clock.
Fire Alarm System:
The fire alarm system is 18 years old and in reportedly good condition. It is
recommended to remain, with relocated or additional devices as required to suit minor
renovations.
If the building is largely renovated, a new fire alarm system is
recommended.
Telecommunications System:
If the facility is renovated, the telecommunications system is recommended to be
updated and replaced as required. The systems shall meet current state of Maryland
and Howard County Public School System standards. The system shall be star-wired
and consist of Category 6 cabling for both telephone and public address.
The data network will be star-wired 1000 Base-T and consist of Category 6 cabling. The
system will provide all components for a complete operable LAN. It will provide access
to the system WAN and internet access through T-1 access to a county server site. A
multi-strand composite fiber optic backbone will be used to link the main MDF with IDF
rooms. IDF rooms will be added and strategically located telecommunication hubs (IDF
Rooms) are recommended to limit cabling lengths to 250 linear feet.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 49 of 104
The public address system, which appears to be in good working order, may be reused if
feasible, with modifications and expansions required to suit new device layouts.
Otherwise, a new public address system is recommended, including new local systems
for the cafetorium and gymnasium, tied into the building PA system.
Security System:
The intrusion detection system, access control and video surveillance systems may be
reused if the building is renovated, with new wiring and devices as required to suit
revised space configurations.
Design Criteria:
All systems and components will be designed in accordance with the following:

HCPSS Guidelines Manual for Renovations and Modernizations of Existing Schools

All applicable national, state, and local requirements

Maryland State Interagency Committee for Public School Construction Standards

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers (IEEE)

National Electrical Code (NEC)

National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association (NEMA)

National Electrical Safety Code (NESC)

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

Underwriters Laboratories (UL)

International Building Code (IBC)

Illuminating Engineering Society (IES)

American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)

Maryland Public School Standards for Telecommunications Distribution Systems

Maryland State Department of Education Technology Education Facility Guidelines
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 50 of 104
Appendix A: Estimate Clarification
Section 1 – Executive Summary
As directed by Howard County Public Schools, Lend Lease has prepared a Feasibility Study addressing Options 1, 2, and 3 as
prepared by SEI Architects and generally dated June 23, 2011. Please refer to the enclosed items in the other sections for
further information.
While we have visited the site and had discussions with the consultants, we have made numerous assumptions and
interpretations of the drawings in the assembly of our pricing and scope information. We urge you to review our response
carefully and thoroughly to determine that we are within your requirements for the project.
Please note that we have included a LEED Certified design contingency, a design/construction contingency, and an escalation
contingency. We believe that you will agree with us that it is prudent to include these contingencies at this very early stage of the
design and decision making process.
The information utilized in the preparation of our response is as follows:
Existing drawing
Option 1 Demolition dated 06-23-11
Option 1 Proposed dated 06-23-11
Option 1 Site Plan dated 06-23-11
Option 2 Demolition Plan dated 06-23-11
Option 2 Proposed Plan dated 06-23-11
Option 2 Site Plan dated 06-23-11
Option 3 Demolition Plan dated 06-23-11
Option 3 Proposed Plan dated 06-23-11
Option 3 Site Plan dated 06-23-11
Narrative of the Options dated 06-24-11 (e-mail)
Confirmation of gross square footage per Option dated 06-29-11 (e-mail)
Meyer Consulting Engineers Structural Assessment Report dated 07-08-11
Fisher, Collins & Carter, Inc. Site Study Report dated 07-08-11
Gipe Associates, Inc. Mechanical Narrative dated July 2011
Gipe Associates, Inc. Electrical Narrative dated July 2011
Section 2 – Clarifications
Qualifications & Exclusions
General
Qualifications
1. Maryland State sales taxes
2. LEED Certified design contingency
3. Design/Construction contingency
4. Escalation contingency
5. MBE/WBE/LSDBE
Exclusions
6. Building Permits, Health Department Permits, impact and development fees, or any fees assed by
City/County/State/Federal agencies (excepting trade permits)
7. Builders Risk and Owner’s Protective insurance
8. Testing and inspection services for any installation including geotechnical investigations
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 51 of 104
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Utility Company access and service charges for replacement or upgraded services
Move and relocation services
Furnishings and fixtures
Consumption costs for temporary utilities (water, gas, electrical)
Identification, handling, removal, and disposal of hazardous or toxic materials/ equipment
CM Performance & Labor/Material Payment Bonds
Off-site improvements unless specifically noted within our Feasibility Study
Cost loaded schedules or third party scheduling consultants
Seismic restraints for any installation and foundation/structure seismic upgrades
Defined wage rates
Foundations
Qualifications
19. Shallow spread footings for the new addition foundations
20. Combination of thickened slabs and CMU foundations depending on location and depth at the perimeter of the new
addition
Exclusions
21. Modifications to the existing foundations for exterior wall revisions
22. Rock excavation/removal of underground obstructions
23. Provisions for contaminated soil/water, methane, or radon
24. Undercutting, removal, replacement of unsuitable soils
25. Foundation or under floor drainage systems
26. New foundations for new columns in the existing areas of the facility
Superstructure
Qualifications
27. Assumes K series steel roof joists bearing on CMU walls for the new addition, long span joists for the gym relocation
for Option 2
28. Metal roof deck for the new addition
29. Anticipates support for modifications to the existing areas for new penetrations or features
30. Miscellaneous metals for bearing plates, roof openings, equipment supports, lintels, overhead equipment supports,
ramp and stair railings, and related items
31. New mechanical room (1,000sf) required by Options
Exclusions
32. New columns supporting beams for the existing areas
33. AISC certified fabricator for any new materials
34. Spray fireproofing of any new or existing steel system
Façade
Qualifications
35. CMU foundation at the new addition perimeter
36. CMU back-up for the perimeter walls of the new addition, load bearing and otherwise
37. Face brick (running bond) for the new addition including 2” rigid insulation, scaffolding, and cleaning
38. Punched windows (no integral blinds) for the new addition
39. Replacement of selected exterior windows/doors
40. Caulking and sealants, single line, manufacturers standard colors a exterior openings/control joints
Exclusions
41. Cast stone or precast units
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 52 of 104
42. CMU integral or inserted insulation
43. Façade restorations as confirmed by MCE Structural Wall Assessment
Roofing/Waterproofing
Qualifications
44. Waterproofing perimeter CMU foundation walls only
45. Roofing system(4 ply modified bitumen) and tie into the existing for the new addition
46. Shop formed aluminum flashing, coping, gravel stop
47. Scuppers
48. Remove and re-roof the existing facility except for areas noted as “Existing to Remain”
49. Polycarbonate pyramidal skylights in the common and extended learning room areas
Exclusions
50. Roof top equipment screens
51. Vaulted skylights
Architectural Interiors
Qualifications
52. Laminate millwork items for the new and renovated areas including work areas, classrooms, extended learning room,
media center, and related areas
53. Doors, frames, and hardware for all new openings within the facility. Includes both door and sidelight/borrowed lite
conditions. Replace certain exterior hollow metal doors.
54. Assumes a manual folding partition either in the cafetorium, media center, or elsewhere in the facility
55. Interior borrowed lites and glass doors (all manual doors)
56. Drywall partitions at selected interior areas, minor drywall ceilings and bulkheads, low walls
Exclusions
57. Appliances
58. Removal, storage, and re-installation of existing furnishings, equipment, and/or school materials
Finishes
Qualifications
59. Acoustical panels in the music/ensemble and new/existing gym
60. Ceramic tile in the toilet room floors and wet walls
61. New gym wood floor and line striping under Option 2
62. Vinyl flooring, vinyl base and carpeting within the new and existing facility (except for areas noted as “Existing to
Remain)
63. Painting of new installations, doors/frames/borrowed lites, CMU/drywall partitions, and related areas including those
noted as “Existing to Remain”
64. Variety of specialty items that could include louvers, interior signage, marker/tack boards, display cases, chalk boards,
metal shelving, tack strips, cubicle curtain track/curtain, lockers, and related items
65. Toilet partitions and related toilet accessories
Exclusions
66. Refinishing the gym floor
67. Wall coverings
68. Painting exposed ceilings/floors
69. Wall protection systems
70. Flagpoles and flags
71. Directory
72. Gym pads/scoreboard/backboards/related items (relocate under Option 2 plus a value for replacement items)
73. Window treatments for interior/exterior
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 53 of 104
74. Draperies/track/hardware
75. Art work and graphics
76. Classroom or other furniture/furnishings
Kitchen Equipment
Qualifications
77. Assumes most equipment will be stored and relocated to the new room. We have included $25,000 to either
replace/upgrade selected existing items under Option 1
Exclusions
78. Full replacement of all kitchen equipment
79. Rehabilitation of existing equipment
Plumbing
Qualifications
80. In accordance with the narrative
81. We assume the existing service will accommodate the new requirements
Exclusions
82. Grease interceptor
83. Services in the existing to remain areas
Fire Protection
Qualifications
84. Assumptions based on NFPA 13
85. Heads are assumed to be pendants
Exclusions
86. Fire pump and controller (assume water pressure is adequate)
87. Concealed heads
88. Services in the existing to remain areas
HVAC
Qualifications
89. In accordance with the narrative
Exclusions
90. Services to the existing to remain areas
Electrical
Qualifications
91. In accordance with the narrative
92. New fire alarm system including the existing to remain areas
Exclusions
93. Services to the existing to remain areas
94. New telecom/data and electrical service
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 54 of 104
Site Works
Qualifications
95. Temporary facilities including erosion/sediment controls, stabilized entrance, fencing/gates, temporary road
96. Best estimate of earth grading/haul/borrow to accommodate the new additions and adjacent grading requirements, site
demolition to make ready
97. Rehabilitate the area where the temporary units assuming they leave the site
98. Site utilities includes the potential new and relocated certain utility services
99. Allowance of $100,000 for additional storm water provisions
100. Site lighting modifications for Option 3 and the replaced/new parking area
101. Site improvements includes new walks around the new addition and connecting to existing walks, repair/replacement
of existing walks, curbs, and bituminous paving damaged by construction activities, and a mow strip adjacent the new
addition only. Includes modifications to curb and parking areas to accommodate the needs of Option 3. Includes
concrete pads, chain link fenced enclosure for the options.
102. Landscaping including seed/sod at disturbed areas, rehabilitation of the existing courtyards, and an allowance of
$25,000 for reforestation requirements
103. Interior demolition from light to heavy, make safe, removal of selected Kitchen equipment, patching repair at removed
partitions, scaffolding, and dumpsters for debris removal
Exclusions
104. Removal of the existing temporary units
105. Rock excavation
106. Removal of underground obstructions
107. Provisions for contaminated soil/water, methane, or radon
108. Undercutting, removal, replacement, of unsuitable soils
109. Modifications or improvements to the adjacent fields/play areas
110. New or increased size of wet utilities to the building for the new addition or other improvements
111. Site lighting modifications other than Option 3
112. Permanent fencing/gates, amenities (benches, trash receptacles, bike racks)
113. Exterior signage
114. Termite protection (soil poisoning) for the new addition
115. Earth retention or underpinning structures or utilities
116. Deep foundations
117. Dewatering systems
Note:
Qualifications, exclusions, and cost estimates provided by Lend Lease
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 55 of 104
Appendix B: Option 1 Detailed Cost Estimate
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 56 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 57 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 58 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 59 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 60 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 61 of 104
Appendix C: Option 2 Detailed Cost Estimate
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 62 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 63 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 64 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 65 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 66 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 67 of 104
Appendix D: Option 3 Detailed Cost Estimate
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 68 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 69 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 70 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 71 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 72 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 73 of 104
Appendix E: Faulkner Ridge Center Temporary Holding School Feasibility Study
Project Introduction
General
Smolen Emr Ilkovitch Architects was tasked to investigate the existing Faulkner Ridge Center
and determine what modifications would be required to feasibly renovate the facility into a
temporary holding school. The initial project that is conceived to benefit from this potential
holding school would be the Longfellow Elementary School potential renovation. This report
documents some of the existing conditions found at the facility site and recommendations
toward the improvement of this facility for a holding school.
The information, proposed solutions, and conclusions contained in this report were prepared by
Smolen Emr Ilkovitch Architects and their consultants and conducted for the Howard County
Public School System (HCPSS) and the Board of Education of Howard County.
Design Team
The following firms collectively represent the Design Team, whose contributions were essential
to this report:
Smolen Emr Ilkovitch Architects
Fisher Collins and Carter
Meyer Consulting Engineers
Gipe Associates
Lend Lease
KaRon Masonry
Architect
Civil Engineer
Structural/Masonry Investigation Engineer
Mechanical/Plumbing/Electrical Engineer
Cost Estimator/Construction Specialist
Masonry Contractor for wall investigation
Methodology
The existing building has been evaluated by the design team to determine existing conditions to
be addressed in the updating of the Faulkner Ridge Center. The evaluation was conducted with
the intent of improving the facility to meet the standards set by the HCPSS for a temporary
holding school for other schools that would be undergoing renovations. It is not the intent of the
study to comply with the HCPSS "Guidelines Manual for Renovations and Modernizations of
Existing Schools" (renovation guidelines), or the new school Educational Specifications. Under
this direction, the intent was to find a feasible plan to incorporate a maximum amount of
functionally usable teaching spaces and support areas. The evaluation is based on the
following:




Analysis of the existing physical facility. The design team conducted non-destructive
visual evaluations where possible. To evaluate the existing exterior masonry walls, the
structural engineer performed visual inspections of the walls and structure with the
assistance of KaRon Masonry.
Review of existing construction documents provided by the HCPSS.
Analysis of existing site feature: Existing amenities, utilities, and site access were
reviewed to determine if they were capable of supporting the proposed options.
Development of a feasible plan with recommended renovations to update the facility to
be used as a holding school.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 74 of 104
Objectives and Goals
The objective of this study is to investigate the existing facility, the feasibility of a renovation to
the existing building, and present recommendations to improve the Faulkner Ridge Center. A
critical component to the improvement of the existing facility will be its requirement to meet all of
the applicable codes which govern the design. These codes include, but are not limited to, the
most current publications of the International Building Code (IBC), National Fire Protection
Association Life Safety Code (NFPA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The following are goals and directives established by the design team in conjunction with the
HCPSS staff:






Determine if it is feasible to renovate the facility to provide a functional plan within the
extent of the structure. Additions were not to be entertained at this point of the
evaluation.
Determine a layout for a holding school that utilizes the structure and area of the existing
facility without additions.
Provide evaluations on the HVAC systems and recommend how to maintain or upgrade
the system for the proposed layout.
Provide evaluations on the electrical and fire alarm systems to provide recommendations
on how to maintain or upgrade the systems for the proposed layout.
Provide a viable facility that would be utilized as a holding school for other schools that
are undergoing renovation projects.
Review the impacts of utilizing the facility as a holding school on the proposed Option 1
for the Longfellow Elementary School study.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 75 of 104
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Faulkner Ridge Center, located at 10598 Marble Faun Court, Columbia, MD 21045, is located
approximately two miles west of US 29, and south of Route 108. Located in a residential area,
Faulkner Ridge Center is surrounded by both detached single family homes, and townhouse
and apartment communities.
Faulkner Ridge Facility Vicinity Map
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 76 of 104
Existing Site
The Faulkner Ridge Center is located in a residential area in Columbia, Maryland. The center
shares a common entrance to the parking lot off of Twin Rivers Road and Faulkner Ridge
Circle. This entrance is shared with the Columbia Montessori School and the Faulkner Ridge
community pool.
The parking for the Faulkner
Ridge Center is separated
into two portions. The first
portion is directly in front of
the facility, adjacent to the
parking for the montessori
school. The second parking
area is toward the rear of
the facility through the bus
loop.
The site is a relatively flat
site with large open play
areas to the back and to the
side of the center. The site
is accessible to walkers via
the adjacent neighborhood
streets and two walking
paths that enter the site on
either side of the open play
areas.
Located at the front of the
building adjacent to the front
parking lot is an open
community playground with play equipment. The adjacent community pool is fenced off.
The center is surrounded by a 4’ wide concrete sidewalk. Due to the age and settlement
overtime, the path is cracked and damaged in multiple locations. It is recommended that the
walk surrounding the center be replaced with a 5’ wide sidewalk that meets ADA Standards and
provides positive drainage. In addition to this replacement, an additional handicapped ramp
should be added near the bus loop. The large concrete gathering areas at the five entrances
around the building are in good condition and it is recommended that they are to remain.
The macadam parking lots and bus loop appear to be in good condition with just a few cracks
that could be sealed. Currently the parking lots house 78 striped parking spaces including 2
handicapped spaces. Per the current ADA standards 4 handicapped spaces are required, so
two spaces are recommended to be added. The recommended location for these additional
spaces would be at the front parking area leading to the main entrance.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 77 of 104
Existing Building
The Faulkner Ridge Center was originally built in 1968 as an elementary school. For the past
twenty years, the facility has been used as a Howard County Public School System Professional
Development Center. Through the years as a development center, the interior of the building
has been divided into meeting spaces and offices for different departments housed at the
facility. The facility has been vacated, which would allow for an unoccupied renovation.
As noted, the interior of the facility has been divided into multiple spaces with metal panel walls
and stud walls. Operable partitions were also utilized to separate the larger spaces into smaller
meeting rooms. The larger rooms in the building, like the cafeteria, kitchen and multipurpose
room, were not renovated and remain as originally designed.
The existing toilet facilities do not meet the requirements set forth in the ADA guidelines. Issues
with this code include both fixture heights and required fixture and passage way clearance.
Surrounding the perimeter of the building are multiple doors directly to the exterior. These
doors could be utilized for egress purposes as most of them meet the required clearances per
the ADA guidelines. These doors may only be used for egress, as they do not provide the
required clearances for entry into the building. The building is a single story facility without
changes of elevation.
As noted in the following structural narrative, the exterior of the building appears to be in good
shape and does not warrant a replacement of the walls. The flat roof and mansard roofing
systems also appear in good standing order and are not anticipated to need replacement.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 78 of 104
Existing Structure
Meyer Consulting Engineering (MCE) visited the Faulkner Ridge Center on March 1, 2012, and
March 6, 2012, to visually inspect the existing structural framing as well as the exterior masonry
walls of the building.
The school is located to the north of Twin Rivers Road, in Howard County, Maryland. MCE was
provided access to the existing structural and architectural drawings. According to available
information, the existing building was constructed circa 1968. The structural drawings were
prepared by William L. Greene. The property is currently not being used as a school.
The structure is single-story structure with a small mezzanine in the kitchen area. The roof
framing consists of mostly long-span steel joists supported on wide-flange structural steel
beams in the interior parts of the building and exterior masonry bearing walls. The interior steel
beams are supported on steel columns. The roof framings consist of regular open web joists at
three locations: near the main entrance, the lobby at the opposite end of the main entrance, and
over the restrooms on the northeast side of the building,. The typical joist spacing is 5’-0” on
center. The roof framing was designed for 30 psf live load.
The multipurpose rooms are located along the southwest side of the building. The exterior
masonry walls in this portion of the building are 12” composite walls comprised of 4” brick
façade and 6” concrete masonry units. In all other sections of the building, the bearing masonry
walls are 10” composite construction. According to available drawings, the walls and the steel
columns have regular spread footings.
The visual condition survey started with observation of the exterior walls of the building. Specific
attention was given to signs of physical deterioration such as cracks on exterior façade or along
the mortar joints, horizontal or vertical movement and signs of settlement of the wall, bowing
and visible signs of misalignment or tilt in the wall and settlement and separation of the exterior
concrete slab on grade from the adjacent building wall. Extensive visual observations did not
reveal any signs of obvious deficiency in the exterior masonry wall from outside. Minor damages
like a broken edge around a corner, or blemish like concrete-plugged hole in the exterior façade
were observed. None of those conditions appear to affect the structural integrity of the masonry
bearing wall. Discoloring of the brick along the line of the projected canopy over doors and
entrances were noted. The brick can be cleaned with commercially available chemicals, without
affecting its integrity.
Inside the building selective locations were chosen to observe the joist and beam bearing
conditions. In addition, the masonry walls were also observed, wherever the walls were
exposed, for any signs of deterioration. At the entrance of the multipurpose room area, to the
north of Gridline 3, we observed a vertical crack in the west-end masonry bearing of the 12”
deep wide flange beam supporting the masonry wall above.
Minor cracks were observed on the northwest and northeast masonry walls. However, none of
these cracks appear to have penetrated through, as no corresponding problem was found at
either location along the outside face.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 79 of 104
Photograph 1: Typical
condition at exterior wall
joist
bearing
Photograph 2: Joist bearing at wall between
Middle Division Room & Team Project Room
No cracks or signs of settlement in the slab on grade were observed inside the building. Outside
the building, cracks were observed at the flagpole base.
Based on our observation, it appears that the structure is in good shape and is capable of
handling the design loads. We found no signs of deflection of the roof framing beyond
permissible limits. The bearing conditions were generally without any deficiencies, except as
noted earlier in the multipurpose room.
The cracks that were observed along the inside face of the masonry wall do not appear to be of
structural concern, but will need to be either sealed or in case of mortar joint cracks, have to be
re-pointed. The masonry bearing at the multipurpose room that has developed a vertical crack
will have to be cleaned and epoxy grouted with commercially available material suitable for
interior vertical application.
Photograph 3: Cracked concrete at flagpole
Photograph 4: No settlement observed at
exterior slab on grade along the building wall
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 80 of 104
Photograph 5: Exterior brick façade shows
no apparent sign of deterioration
Photograph 6: Masonry opening along
northeast exterior wall plugged with concrete
Photograph 7: Canopy framing bearing
condition at exterior wall
Photograph 8: Crack at the base of brick
façade to be sealed to prevent further
deterioration
Photograph 9: Broken edge of brick at
corner of wall
Photograph 10: Broken corners at exterior
brick façade
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 81 of 104
Photograph 11: Exterior brick facade
Photograph 12: Cracked masonry
bearing wall in the Multipurpose Room
at
Photograph 13: Crack along inside face of
exterior non-bearing masonry wall (northwest
side) of Multipurpose Room
Photograph 14: Crack on inside surface of
masonry wall at Middle Division Room
No attempts were made to verify the condition of the roof deck which is covered with roof
membrane. Visual observation from underside was limited to only few selected locations. No
deterioration of the underside of the metal deck was observed at those locations.
This report and our observations are limited by the constraints inherent to visual observation of
the readily accessible portions of the masonry walls, which alone may not accurately predict
future building performance and accurately detect hidden or latent building defects. No
destructive testing was performed. As such, it is not the intent of this report or our work to
guarantee or warranty the future performance of the structure.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 82 of 104
Existing Mechanical Narrative
General
The building was constructed in 1969, is a single story with an approximate area of 35,000 sq.ft.
The entire building is served by packaged rooftop air handling units that utilize direct expansion
coils for cooling and natural gas furnaces for heating. In addition, electric heating units are
scattered throughout the building to provide heat to restrooms, janitor closets, and other areas
not provided with conditioned supply air. The classrooms and offices are served by multi-zone
type air handling units, where as the multi-purpose rooms on the southwest side are served by
single-zone constant volume units.
Air Distribution Systems
A. Classrooms and Offices:
The classrooms and offices are served by multi-zone type, packaged rooftop air handling
units (AHUs) that utilize direct expansion coils for cooling and natural gas furnaces for
heating. Each group of four classrooms, the learning resource center and the office area are
each served by an independent AHU for a total of six AHUs.
The existing multi-zone type air handler provides independent temperature control to
multiple zones from a single AHU without the use of terminal units located in each zone. A
constant volume of varying temperature air is delivered to each zone to maintain the
required temperature in that zone as determined by the associated thermostat. These units
most notable disadvantages include high energy usage and limited dehumidification
capability. They consist of two “decks” or sections through which a mix of return and outdoor
air can flow. These sections are known as the Hot Deck and the Cold Deck. The unit mixes
varying amounts of hot air (heated by the furnace in the hot deck) and cold air (cooled by
the cooling coil in the cold deck). In order to maintain temperature, these units are typically
heating and cooling at the same time, which wastes a significant amount of energy. In
regards to humidity, the two deck systems allow raw unconditioned air to bypass the cooling
coil, which elevates the relative humidity of the supply air stream. Additionally, they do not
have the capability to reheat the air after it leaves the cold deck, which severely limits the
dehumidification capability. The system flaws of the existing multi-zone units are further
amplified by the use of a single large refrigerant compressor in each unit that is either on or
off. The lack of staging or modulation in cooling capacity allows condensed moisture from
the cooling coil to be reintroduced into the supply air stream, which increases the humidity
introduced into each space. Although the existing AHUs have numerous flaws, advances in
construction, technology and controls have allowed for new multi-zone systems to be
relatively efficient and provide acceptable humidity control and resulting indoor air quality.
Supply air is distributed to each zone through insulated galvanized steel ductwork that is
routed from the individual zone connections at the associated AHU through the deep joists
to the supply air devices located in the associated zone. Air is returned to the associated
AHU through a variety of low and high return air grilles that are open to the plenum ceiling,
and return air ductwork extends from the AHU into the plenum ceiling.
The AHUs and associated controls are in poor condition and past their useful life
expectancy. However the air devices and ductwork are in fair condition.
B. Multipurpose Rooms:
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 83 of 104
The multipurpose rooms are served by constant volume single zone, packaged rooftop air
handling units (AHUs) that utilize direct expansion coils for cooling and natural gas furnaces
for heating. The AHUs are located on steel dunnage above the Kitchen roof. Each of the two
(2) multipurpose rooms is served by an independent AHU. A single thermostat in each room
controls the associated unit to maintain temperature.
Supply air is distributed to each space through insulated galvanized steel ductwork that is
routed from the connections at the bottom of the associated AHU and through the deep
joists to the supply air devices located in the associated space. Air is returned to the
associated AHU through a low return air grille in each space that is hard ducted back to the
AHU. A portion of the supply and return air ductwork associated with each AHU is exposed
on the roof and covered with an EPDM roofing membrane.
The AHUs and associated ductwork, air devices and controls are in good condition.
C. Kitchen:
The kitchen is heated and ventilated only. Various electric heating devices (cabinet unit
heaters, unit heaters and baseboard) provide the required heat. The existing kitchen
exhaust hood is still in place, however the associated exhaust air fan and make-up air unit
have been removed from the roof and the duct penetrations have been capped off. As such,
the available ventilation air and exhaust air is minimal.
Existing Plumbing
A. Domestic Water Service:
The building is currently served by a three (3) inch public water main. The water meter is
located in an exterior pit immediately adjacent to the building. The water main enters the
building in the gas meter room, where a strainer, pressure reducing valve, pressure gauge
and shut-off valve are located.
B. Domestic Hot Water:
A recently installed gas-fired domestic hot water heater is used in conjunction with a 780
gallon storage tank to provide the building with hot water. The domestic hot water heater,
storage tank, and circulating pump are all located in the mechanical mezzanine above the
kitchen. All of the domestic hot water generation components appear to be in good
condition.
C. Gas Service:
The building is currently served with natural gas. The natural gas line enters the building in
the gas meter room, where the BG&E meter and regulator assembly is located. From the
regulator, a 5” natural gas main extends into the building.
D. Fire Protection System:
The building currently is not sprinklered.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 84 of 104
System Assesment
A. Air Distribution Systems
The entire building is served by eight packaged rooftop air handling units that utilize direct
expansion coils for cooling and natural gas furnaces for heating. Six of which are multi-zone
type and two are single zone type. Direct expansion equipment typically has a median life
expectancy of 15-18 years. All of the multi-zone type units and the associated controls are
old and past their useful life. The single zone units and associated controls have been
replaced within the past 10 years, and as such should still have at least 5 to 8 years of
service remaining prior to needing replacement.
The various electric resistance heaters located throughout the building are old and past their
useful life.
The numerous exhaust air fans located on the roof are old and past their useful life.
The ductwork associated with all eight air handling units appears to be in good to fair
condition. The condition of the air devices varies per space. However, in general those
associated with the multi-zone systems are in fair condition, and those associated with the
single-zone systems are in good condition and appear to have been recently replaced.
A. Plumbing
Except for the hot water generation equipment, the plumbing systems appear to be original
to the building. As such, all of the fixtures and associated faucets, valves, tail pieces, etc.
are old and past their useful life. The water distribution piping is also original to the building.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 85 of 104
Existing Electrical Narrative
Electrical Distribution System:
The building main switchboard is 3000A, 208/120V, 3 phase, 4 wire, located in a small electrical
room with exterior access only. A BG&E pad-mounted transformer located near this room
serves the building. The utility C/T cabinet and meter is also located in the electrical room. The
switchboard is original to the building and is manufactured by Federal Pacific. The switchboard
is configured with two service disconnects: a 1200A fused switch that serves a group mounted
circuit breaker distribution section within the main switchboard, and a fused switch serving a
2000A switchboard in the mezzanine above the kitchen area.
The building electrical distribution system is the original. Panelboards are typically located flush
mounted in corridor walls, serving local lighting and receptacle loads. Most of these panelboards
are filled to maximum physical capacity. These panelboards are fed from the main switchboard.
Rooftop HVAC equipment is fed from fused switches in the mezzanine switchboard.
Emergency Distribution System:
Emergency service was originally derived from a tap ahead of the building main, which was
code recognized when the building was constructed. This feeds night lights, exit signs, exterior
building mounted lighting, and the fire alarm system. Wall mounted battery lighting units have
also been installed in the corridors and sporadically throughout to provide emergency egress
lighting.
Lighting:
Lighting generally consists of surface mounted wraparound fixtures. Many of the fixtures
appear to be original to the building and are in fair condition. These fixtures utilize T12 34 watt
lamps and magnetic ballasts. A few surface mounted 4’x4’ troffers are also in place, original to
the building.
Incandescent fixtures are still in use in bathrooms and utility spaces.
Incandescent track lighting is in place in the corridor. Newer recessed 2’x4’ troffers have been
installed in portions of the building, including the large spaces adjacent to the kitchen.
Lighting controls are manual throughout the building. Control of corridor lighting is through the
use of keyed switches. Office lighting controls are on/off via a single toggle switch. Areas
originally designated as instructional spaces are switched by row.
A few HID wall packs have been installed on the building exterior to supplement the original
incandescent downlights located at each entry/exit door. These are controlled via time clock.
Fixtures with round white globe diffusers, mounted on 12’ high poles, are utilized in the parking
area. These are controlled with a manual override.
Fire Alarm System:
The original fire alarm system has been replaced and appears to be compliant with current
codes and ADA guidelines. The Edwards system consists of manual pull stations at the main
corridor doors and exits, area smoke detectors, door holders, duct detectors, and horns/strobes.
The annunciator panel is located in the main lobby.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 86 of 104
Telecommunications System:
The telephone main point-of presence (MPOP) is located in the same room as the incoming
water service, near the main electrical room. Cabling extends from this location underground to
a telephone cabinet in what was originally the main office. The public address system headend
cabinet, as well as the program clock system controller and MATV system cabinet, were
originally located in this area, but have been removed. System devices, such as ceiling and
wall mounted speakers, program clocks and bells, are still in place throughout the building. A
Farallon PhoneNET Star Controller/12 with 66 blocks has been installed in this area.
Data outlets have been installed in the building for computer use, originating in equipment near
the front of the building. A telecomm pedestal is located outside in the vicinity of two ISOETEC
EZ1 and two 3COM 4400 SE switches located on shelving at the perimeter wall of the building.
Cat 5 cabling appears to be distributed to individual outlets from this location.
Security System:
The security system consists of an intrusion detection system, video surveillance and access
control system. The intrusion detection system consists of motion sensors located near
windows and doors. Proximity Card readers with magnetic locks and request to exit devices are
located on main egress doors. Cameras are located in corridors and on the building exterior.
Radionic keypads for arming/disarming the intrusion detection system are located in the main
lobby and at the kitchen entry. The control panel and autodialer is located in the mezzanine,
and the security alarm annunciator with flashing red light are located in the main lobby.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 87 of 104
Proposed Recommendations
Proposed Site Recommendations
The existing site is proposed to remain as it is currently laid out. To meet the current code, two
handicapped parking spaces would be proposed to be added to the front parking lot, directly in
front of the main entrance. A handicapped curb cut ramp is proposed to be added to the
sidewalk at the bus loop located on the side of the building. The sidewalk from the bus loop to
the main entrance is in good condition, however the remaining sidewalks surrounding the
building are proposed to be replaced due to weathering and cracks from time.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 88 of 104
Proposed Building Recommendations
With the vacancy of the Faulkner Ridge Center, it has been proposed to renovate the building to
provide a temporary holding school for active schools that are scheduled to undergo
renovations in the near future. This facility would be proposed to house multiple projects with
the initial proposed project to be Longfellow Elementary School.
The proposed renovation of the facility would comply with the 2010 ADA code for accessibility
as well as the governing building codes, which are the IBC 2012 and the NFPA 2012. The
electrical work would adhere to the NEC 2011.
The proposed plan shown on the following page, for the proposed holding school, has been laid
out within the confines of the existing facility. As directed, there are currently no additions
proposed for this renovation. The interior renovation of the facility has been designed to provide
a total of 20 functional classrooms at an average of 650 gross square feet per room, and
support spaces typical to a school. The multipurpose room to the northwest of the plan, and
cafeteria to the southwest of the plan are shown to remain in their current locations in the
volume spaces with minor renovations to match the rest of the renovated area. The kitchen is
to remain between these two spaces and is proposed to be renovated to meet the standards
required of a warming kitchen in Howard County.
Located directly in front of the main entrance, the administration area is proposed to be
renovated to house the temporary school's administration suite, health suite, and guidance
room. This area is located internally to the building along with toilet facilities and the media
center and support spaces. These spaces would include an office, computer room, storage,
and production room. The toilet rooms would be renovated to meet the current codes and ADA
accesses.
Located around the perimeter of the building, the teaching spaces are laid out in clusters to help
promote the clustering of grade levels and take advantage of natural light from the exterior
walls. Located along with the teaching spaces are support spaces that may be needed by the
renovated schools.
The circulation for the proposed layout has been maintained in a loop pattern to surround the
administration suites and media center. Branch corridors extend from the main loop circulation
into the cluster areas along the perimeter.
As noted in the structural analysis, the building's structural components have been reviewed
and are recommended to remain. This would include the exterior walls. With the new
configuration of spaces on the interior, new glazed openings in the exterior walls are
recommended to be added to the facility.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 89 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 90 of 104
Proposed Mechanical Recommendations General
There are multiple approaches to mechanical systems options under the building renovation
approach. The preferred approach for this particular project is to reuse as much of the existing
systems and equipment as possible. All systems shall adhere to the mechanical systems
description provided hereinafter.
Mechanical
Due to the limitations (e.g., noise, lack of humidity control, system/equipment inefficiency, etc.),
and life expectancy of the multi-zone systems, it is recommended that they be replaced with
more efficient variable volume units that utilize a three-deck system to meet code requirements
and provide better indoor air quality. It is recommended that the associated ductwork and air
devices be reused to the fullest extent possible with the understanding that some modifications
will be required to accommodate new room layouts. Transfer air duct work and grilles will be
required to maintain a plenum ceiling and still meet all the code requirements. Maintaining a
plenum ceiling will significantly reduce the quantity of return air ductwork and air devices
required to convert to a hard ducted system. Additionally, there is very limited ceiling space to
route new large return ductwork, therefore requiring bulkheads and lower ceilings.
It is recommended that the single zone systems serving the multipurpose rooms remain in their
entirety. The AHUs and associated ductwork, air devices and controls are in good condition.
It is understood that the kitchen will be used as a warming kitchen instead of a cooking kitchen.
As such, it is recommended that the existing inactive exhaust hood and the vertical unit heater
be removed, and the area be conditioned with an independent mini-split system and exhausted
with a new exhaust fan.
It is recommended that the roof mounted exhaust air fans be replaced in their entirety.
It is recommended that all electric heaters be replaced in their entirety.
It is recommended that the existing automatic temperature controls be replaced in their entirety
with an electric/electronic direct digital control system that meets the county’s requirements
based on the intended building usage. The digital controls exception associated with two
recently replaced single zone AHUs shall remain and be tied into the new Energy Management
System.
Mechanical System Description
The mechanical systems will include all work associated within the building of HVAC, and
plumbing systems. These systems will extend to 5 feet beyond the building wall.
The mechanical systems, in concert with the architectural considerations, are intended to create
spaces that are flexible, functional, energy efficient, and respond to the needs of this facility.
Within the envelope of the facility, the proper heating, cooling, ventilation, air exchanges, and
Automatic Temperature Control/Energy Management Systems will be provided for all spaces to
create the appropriate thermal environment. All areas will be provided with heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning. The HVAC and related mechanical systems will not only be functional and
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 91 of 104
responsive to the need, but will be simple, reliable, durable, maintainable, and easily accessible.
The HVAC System utilizes energy conservation techniques to the greatest extent possible,
while maintaining comfortable control. All HVAC components will be capable of a complete
override from the Energy Management System.
Heating and cooling systems and their associated controls are designed and zoned to enable
the building to operate at less than full occupancy without conditioning the entire building.
The mechanical systems, including fire protection, will be designed in accordance with ASHRAE
Standards, International Building Codes, NFPA, the International Plumbing Code, Howard
County Code Requirements, and IAC Standards.
Plumbing
A. General:
It is recommended that new plumbing fixtures and the associated faucets, valves, tail
pieces, etc be provided throughout the building to comply with all county requirements and
installed in strict accord with all applicable codes and regulations, including ADA.
All plumbing fixtures be shall be good commercial grade of institutional quality. Water
closets and urinals shall be flush valve, water-conserving type. Water closets shall be
floor-mounted type. Faucets for lavatories will be the self-metering types. Handicapped
fixtures will comply with ADA Requirements. Mounting heights for all fixtures will be
coordinated with the owner.
B. Water Service:
The building will be served by the existing onsite public water service.
It is recommended that the existing domestic cold water, hot water, and hot water
recirculation piping remain existing to the fullest extent possible. All new domestic water
piping will be copper Type L with wrought copper fittings and lead-free 95-5 solder. All
water piping shall be insulated with the exception of non-handicapped final branch run-outs
for connection to fixtures/equipment.
Backflow preventers and vacuum breakers will be provided as required to prevent back
siphonage and contamination of the potable water system.
The existing hot water generator and recirculation pumps appear to be in good condition. As
such, it is recommended that this equipment be reused to the fullest extent possible. New
hot water tempering devices will be provided to comply with code.
C. Sanitary Drainage:
It is recommended that the existing sanitary drainage system shall be reused to the fullest
extent possible. Only minor modifications may be necessary to accommodate new or
relocated fixtures.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 92 of 104
D. Storm Water Drainage:
It is recommended that the existing storm water system will be reused to the fullest extent
possible.
E. Fire Protection:
A fire protection system is recommended to provide total protection by means of a wet pipe
sprinkler system. Sprinkler systems will be in strict accordance with all local and state codes
as well as the International Codes and NFPA. A backflow preventer will be provided to
prevent backflow of this make-up water into the potable water system. All zone valves will
be located in a dedicated valve room. Mains for each zone will originate in the valve room
and will be routed to their associated fire protection zone. A separate connection to the
public water supply or an increase in the existing domestic water piping size will be required
to serve a new fire protection system.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 93 of 104
Proposed Electrical Recommendations
Electrical Distribution System:
The electric service capacity is anticipated to be adequate for the use of the building as a
temporary school, although all the original Federal Pacific equipment has reached the end of its
expected useful life. There is also some physical capacity in the main switchboard to
accommodate additional feeder breakers. Supplemental panelboards are anticipated in order
to accommodate receptacle loads for classroom technology, as the existing panelboards are
at/near physical capacity.
Dedicated panelboards with 200 percent rated neutrals are recommended for this application. A
separate neutral conductor is recommended to be installed for each computer circuit in order to
reduce the effects of harmonics caused by non-linear loads.
Emergency Distribution System:
Battery backup for the fire alarm system and emergency egress lighting is required as there is
not an emergency generator serving life safety loads in the building. Emergency lighting is
recommended to be installed at exterior egress doors and throughout the egress paths
compliant with current codes. In addition, emergency lighting is recommended in each
instructional space per HCPSS standards. Supplemental wall packs or replacement fixtures
with emergency battery ballasts are recommended. Exit signs are recommended to be
replaced with LED units with integral battery backup.
A natural gas generator with multiple automatic transfer switches is typically provided for new
HCPSS primary and secondary school buildings. In addition to code required life safety loads,
these serve optional standby loads such as the kitchen refrigerator/freezer,
telecommunications equipment and/or select HVAC equipment.
However, this is not
necessarily feasible with limited space for additional distribution equipment within the building.
Lighting:
The interior lighting systems will be reconfigured as required to suit new space configurations.
The newer fixtures can be reused, although the original T12 fluorescent and incandescent
fixtures are recommended to be replaced, due to poor energy efficiency as well as physical
condition. Fluorescent T8 lighting systems that meet adopted energy codes for lighting power
density as well as controllability are recommended. Replacement fixtures may qualify for the
BG&E rebate program. Lighting controls will be required to incorporate full automatic shutoff of
building lighting systems. This can be accomplished via contactors controlled via integration
with the building security system.
Compact fluorescent lighting with battery ballast is recommended at egress doors, controlled
via photocell. Exterior lighting served by a normal power source is proposed to be photocell
enabled, controlled via the building management system or time clock with manual override.
A. Fire Alarm System:
The fire alarm system is recommended to be reused, with relocated and/or additional
devices as required to suit any reconfigured architectural layout, sprinkler system devices,
etc.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 94 of 104
B. Telecommunications System:
The telecommunications system is recommended to be updated and replaced as required.
The systems shall meet current state of Maryland and Howard County Public School System
standards. The system shall be star-wired and consist of Category 6 cabling for both
telephone and public address.
The data network will be star-wired 1000 Base-T and consist of Category 6 cabling. The
system will provide all components for a complete operable LAN. It will provide access to
the system WAN and internet access through T-1 access to a county server site. A single
main distribution frame (MDF), centrally located, is recommended serve the entire facility
with cabling lengths limited to 250 linear feet.
A new complete public address system is recommended, including new local system for the
multipurpose room, tied into the building public address (PA) system. The PA system
cabinet will be located in the MDF.
C. Security System:
The intrusion detection system, access control and video surveillance systems is
recommended to be reused, with new wiring and devices as required to suit revised space
configurations.
D. Design Criteria:
All systems and components will be designed in accordance with the following:
















All applicable national, state, and local requirements
Maryland State Interagency Committee for Public School Construction Standards
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
National Electrical Code (NEC)
National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association (NEMA)
National Electrical Safety Code (NESC)
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
International Building Code (IBC)
Illuminating Engineering Society (IES)
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Maryland Public School Standards for Telecommunications Distribution Systems
Maryland State Department of Education Technology Education Facility Guidelines
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 95 of 104
Estimate Clarification
Section 1 – Scope of work for renovation.
As directed by the HCPSS, Lend Lease as part of the design team has prepared the following scope of work and associated
feasibility study cost estimate. The cost estimate is based on a reviewed scope for a preliminary plan and schematic plan layout.
Section 2 – Clarifications
Div. 2 – SITE IMPROVEMENTS
 Minor sidewalk/curb and gutter repair and replacement (per civil drawing)
 ADA site compliance
 Storm sewer remains
 Sanitary sewer remains
 Gas service remains
 Domestic water service remains
 New water service required for fire protection system
 Electrical service remains
 Minor re-seeding and grading associated with sidewalk and curb and gutter repair
 Assume parking is sufficient (convert 2 spaces to HC)
 Demo of interior walls, ceilings, demountable partitions, mechanical equipment, select ductwork, existing
bathrooms, etc.
Div. 3 – CONCRETE
 Saw cut and remove concrete for underground plumbing
 Replace removed slab
 Miscellaneous patch and repair
Div. 4 – MASONRY
 Minor point up and repair of miscellaneous cracks
 Existing exterior walls to remain
Div. 5 – METALS
 Miscellaneous steel for RTU mechanical support
 CMU clip angles for support
 Miscellaneous bollards
 No structural steel
Div. 6 – ROUGH CARPENTRY
 Backboards
 In wall blocking
Div. 7 – THERMAL AND MOISTER PROTECTION
 Existing roof to remain
 Existing coping, metal panel screens and mansard roof metal to remain
 Remove and replace caulk at windows
 Miscellaneous caulk throughout
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 96 of 104
Div. 8 – OPENINGS
 Existing windows and storefront entrances to remain
 Replace blinds
 Miscellaneous existing window repair
 Interior borrowed lites for new doors
 New door frames and hardware
 Assume all exterior doors to remain
 Update hardware on exterior doors
 Minimum repair work on exterior doors
Div. 9 – FINISHES
 New drywall partitions for new layout (3 5/8” stud with 5/8” drywall, slab to deck, insulated) (classrooms,
administration, health, media center, toilet facilities) Increase wall thickness and insulation for toilet room
walls.
 New ACT ceilings throughout school
 Moisture resistant lay in vinyl faced gyp board ceiling tiles with plastic grid.
 VCT in all classrooms
 VCT in cafeteria and multipurpose room
 Carpet in administration area, guidance, media
 Ceramic tile in new toilet rooms (floor and cove base, full height on wet wall)
 Existing quarry tile in kitchen to remain
 Paint all existing walls, frames and exposed surfaces
 Paint all new walls, frames, and exposed surfaces
Div. 10 – SPECIALTIES
 New toilet partitions and accessories
 Visual display boards (marker boards & tack boards)
 Display case at main entrance
 Room signs
 Fire extinguisher cabinets
 Lockers in staff areas only
 Cubical curtains for health suite
Div. 11 – EQUIPMENT
 Kitchen renovations
o Remove hood
o New equipment based on “warming” kitchen needs
o Replace walk-in cooler / freezer
 Library furnishings/equipment
 Projection screens
 Athletic equipment for multipurpose room (basketball goals & wall pads)
Div.12 – FURNISHINGS
 Plastic laminate casework
 Cubbies (no lockers for students)
 Window shades
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 97 of 104
Div. 15 – MECHANICAL, PLUMBING & FIRE PROTECTION
 Sprinkler system throughout, including BFP and fire pump
 Replace all multi-zone roof top equipment with similar – 6 units
 Re-use existing ductwork and provide ductwork and diffusers only where necessary
 Clean all existing ductwork and pressure test
 Plenum ceiling for return
 AHU’s for single zone systems to remain (cafeteria and multipurpose room)
 Replace all roof top fans
 Mini-split system for kitchen
 Remove and replace all plumbing fixtures
 Retain existing domestic water system and add new distribution as necessary for new layout
 Back flow preventers for domestic water system
 Existing domestic hot water system to remain
Div. 16 – ELECTRICAL & LOW VOLTAGE
 Battery backup system for fire alarm
 Battery backup emergency lighting systems for egress
 Battery backup exit signs
 Replace 90 percent of existing interior and exterior lighting
 Reuse and add to existing fire alarm system.
 New telecommunications system
 Reuse and add to existing security system
 Temporary AV system
Note:
Qualifications, exclusions, and cost estimates provided by Lend Lease
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 98 of 104
Breakdown and Feasibility Cost Estimate for Proposed Layout
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 99 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 100 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 101 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 102 of 104
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 103 of 104
Cost and Construction duration impact to Longfellow Elementary School
The following is a quick breakdown of cost savings for the Longfellow Elementary School
recommended Option 1. The cost savings are based on renovating Longfellow as an
unoccupied building as the school would temporarily be relocated to the newly renovated
Faulkner Ridge Center.
Providing the option for an unoccupied renovation eliminates the need for temporary classrooms
on site and extended construction durations. The timing of the construction is estimated to be
shortened from 17 months of occupied construction to 12 months of unoccupied construction.
The total cost of Option 1 for Longfellow Elementary School would be reduced from
$13,826,730.00 to $12,492,695.00.
Longfellow Elementary School Renovation Feasibility Study
SEI Architects Page 104 of 104