Greenhouse Horticultural Therapy Program at School for the Disabled - Safety and Signage Considerations

Safety and Signage for the Greenhouse
Project for P.79M the Dr. Horan School:
Semester Report
December, 11, 2006
Team members:
Grygorii Yefremov (Team Leader)
Albert Lee
Brett Benowitz
Michelle Madejski
Zu-wang Wu
Advisor:
Timothy P. Cross, Ph.D.
Director of Undergraduate Programs and Grants
Columbia College/The Fu Foundation School of Engineering & Applied Science
Project partner:
Alex Ramadanis
Assistant Principal
P.79M the Dr. Horan School

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 3
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................... 4
2.1 GATEWAY: A COURSE IN SERVICE-LEARNING.................................................................................... 4
2.2 TEAM ORGANIZATION.......................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 CLIENT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 PREVIOUSWORK................................................................................................................................ 5
2.5 PROBLEMSTATEMENT AND EVOLUTION IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEM......................... 6
2.6 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................ 7
2.7 EVOLUTION OF THE DESIGN OVER THE SEMESTER............................................................................. 8
3. TRANSITION PLAN AND PROJECT DOCUMENTATION.............................. 10
3.1 TRANSITION HISTORY AND PLAN FOR FUTURE ................................................................................. 10
3.2 PROJECT DOCUMENTATION .............................................................................................................. 13
3.3 PHOTOS OF COMPONENTS USED IN THE SCHOOL ................................................................................ 16
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................... 23
5. APPENDICES............................................................................................................. 24
APPENDIX A: PRODUCT DESIGN SPECIFICATION DOCUMENT ............................................................. 24
APPENDIX B: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND WORK BREAK DOWN SCHEDULE....................................... 29
APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL DETAILS FOR DESIGN COMPONENTS ............................................................... 33
APPENDIX D: ESTIMATED COSTS OF VARIOUS PROPOSED DESIGN SOLUTIONS ........................................ 36
APPENDIX E: PHOTO-REPORTAGE FROM THE CONSERVATION GREENHOUSE IN BROOKLYN BOTANIC
GARDEN .................................................................................................................................................... 40
APPENDIX F: ADA REQUIREMENTS BOOKLET ....................................................................................... 45
APPENDIX G: LIST OF SOURCES.............................................................................................................. 64
APPENDIX H: COPT OF POWERPOINT SLIDES USED DURING THE PRESENTATION .................................... 67
-2-

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
P.79M the Dr. Horan School was established to help the unfortunate students who suffer
from various impairments. The goal of the school is to provide the students with the
necessary vocational skill to first, be self-sufficient and ultimately, active contributors to
society. However, the school does not have enough resources to achieve this admirable
goal. Furthermore, this will be a difficult progress because some of these students are
affected physically, mentally, and emotionally. Fortunately, research shows that physical
therapy will help them progress in all three spheres of need. The greenhouse project, a
thoughtful solution, will increase the amount of physical therapy for the students.
The greenhouse will provide both an interactive learning environment in biology as well
as horticulture therapy simply by smelling and feeling the materials needed for caring for
the plants. In the process the students will learn many vocational skills that they will need
in the outside world. By making a largely student-maintained greenhouse, the students
will be able to attain a sense of accomplishment in doing something for the school and
more importantly, themselves. The Safety and Signage team’s goal is to ensure safety
within the greenhouse while the students are in the greenhouse learning and slowly
improving their lives.
There were many problem areas that needed to be addressed to provide a safe and
learning conducive environment. For the signage problem areas, we partitioned it into
safety signs, instructional systems, and educational utensils. The other area of problems
dealt with safety issues in regard to following ADA requirements. In addition, as a
measurement to promote safety, a communication system between the greenhouse and
the school needed to be established.
Since the signs would be utilized within a greenhouse, we found waterproof alternatives
for all the signs. Waterproofing may not be necessary in all areas of the greenhouse, but
we made sure that the option was available. The main deliverables of safety signs are:
exit, handicap accessible, and first aid signs; emergency lights; and protective wire
frames for the lights. Since many types of exit signs also include other deliverables such
as emergency lights, we took advantage of this and compiled a more cost effective
solution. The instructional signs needed to be customizable so that they could be used at
the workspaces. The client indicated that the customizable signs would be constant
reminders for ground rules or instructions at workstations. In addition, we continued with
the summer team’s solution with message-recording “BigMack” switches that sound with
the push of a button. For the communication system, we chose to extend the school’s
current intercom system into the greenhouse. The fire alarm system includes waterproof
pull-stations and alerting components. Furthermore, we plan to have two fire
extinguishers to match the need of the interior design scheme. With all these deliverables,
a final solution can only be assessed with the final solution of other teams. The successor
of the Safety and Signage team will be an integral part in collaborating with other groups
in compiling the final solution for the greenhouse for the Dr. Horan School, the Schwartz
family, and more importantly the students who would benefit the most from the project.
-3-

-4-
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 GATEWAY: A Course in Service-learning
Gateway is the engineering design lab required for all students enrolled in the Fu
Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Columbia University in the
City of New York. As the introductory engineering course for mainly freshmen, it serves
as the survey course to introduce students to the engineering curriculum and profession.
Students learn useful software skills (such as Matlab, Maya, and various Microsoft Office
applications), as well as necessary skills to work on a team, especially an engineering
design oriented team. This is all taught through the frame of service-learning. Service-learning
is a “learn by doing” approach to teaching engineering design. The basis of it
entails working on an actual project with an actual client. Service learning takes
advantage of the critical need for engineering skills in community projects. By
participating in these projects, students learn the design process, team skills, and
professional skills required for a career in engineering and gain valuable real-world
experience. Some of these skills that service-learning teaches include: “Awareness of the
‘customer’ in an engineering project, communication skills, awareness of contextual
factors surrounding the problem, organizational skills, and ability to work on a team.”
(Professor Jack McGourty, Ph.D., Associate Dean at the Fu Foundation School of
Engineering and Applied Science, Columbia University)
2.2 TEAM Organization
Each member of our five person team was assigned a specific role on the first day of our
team’s formation. These roles, their assignments, and their responsibilities are as follows:
Primary Facilitator: Grygorii Yefremov
The Primary Facilitator served as the Team Leader for the most part. His responsibilities
included general administration such as keeping the team organized and roles clearly
defined, as well as the team’s “spokesperson” to all outside parties (these including the
community partner, the team advisor, and other groups).
Secondary Facilitator: Albert Lee
The Secondary Facilitator essentially had the same responsibilities as the Primary
Facilitator. He simply assisted the Primary in everything he did, and took care of any spill
over duties.
Conflict Manager: Brett Benowitz
The Conflict Manager was supposed to remain a neutral third party that could assist in
calming down any might have arose. He was responsible for recognizing potential
conflicts, and speaking to team members when conflicts got out of hand.

Process Observer: Michelle Madejski
The Process Observer is similar to the Facilitators save the administrative duties. Her
responsibility was to oversee all team meetings and functionality and assure that things
were moving along efficiently. For example, if a meeting started to go off topic it was her
responsibility to bring it back on track.
Timekeeper: Zu-wang Wu
The Timekeeper had the task of keeping all of the other team members on time. This
included, among other things; team meetings, tasks, and assignments. He was responsible
for making sure that all team members showed up on time for team meetings as well as
stayed for the duration. Moreover, he shared responsibility for keeping team on track
during meetings. Due dates (both class and team assigned), were also his jurisdiction.
2.3 CLIENT Description
There were essentially two clients in the greenhouse project. One client group was the
family of Lauren Schwartz, who wished to memorialize their daughter’s life as a student
in P.79M, and the sponsor, who helped oversee and fund the project with the family. The
other client group was made up of the school P.79M. This included teachers, faculty,
assistants, and, most importantly, the students. Each client brought their own interests and
requirements to the table. The family and sponsor of the project initiated the greenhouse
project as a way to give children from the P.79M school the opportunity to have
therapeutic greenhouse activities. The family realized the benefits of Lauren’s physical
therapy in the greenhouse at the Rusk Institute, and wanted to memorialize her by
providing such treatment to the students at P.79M who might not be fortunate enough to
receive such therapy outside of school due to its expense. The school as well wanted to
create a safe, educational, and therapeutic environment for the students in the form of the
greenhouse.
2.4 PREVIOUS Work
Before we started work on this project at the beginning of the fall 2006 semester, there
was a good amount of previous work done on the project. However, this work was
mainly administrative in nature. The sponsor, family, and school worked together in
planning and deciding on the project far in advance of the start of the design process.
There was also one other previous team who worked on the design of the project before
we took over. The summer team, however, mainly laid a very basic foundation for us to
build our design over. The summer team’s report is available for reference on the SEAS
website at (http://community.seas.columbia.edu/cslp/project.cgi?id=227).
-5-

2.5 PROBLEM Statement and Evolution in the Understanding of the Problem
The purpose of the greenhouse is twofold; it should be both educational and therapeutic.
The majority of the families at P.79M cannot afford outside physical therapy for their
children – which is essential for their healthy development. The greenhouse is to provide
this extra physical therapy within the existing scope of the public education classroom. It
should also serve as an educational tool, with an emphasis on science (i.e. plant biology),
rather than agriculture or horticulture. Our team’s specific goals were to oversee the
safety issues and develop the signage used in the greenhouse.
Safety is more of a concern than usual due to the wide variety of disabilities that the
greenhouse will accommodate. We had to make sure that the greenhouse meets all the
requirements addressed by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Fire Code, and
any other safety issues that might not be included in formal legal regulations.
The Signage goals can easily be divided into two divisions, safety and educational signs.
The safety signage must conform to all codes and regulations, as well as sufficiently warn
and delineate any other safety issues that might not be covered in such regulations. The
educational signs must be adaptive to the needs of the students so that the signs can
effectively communicate information and lessons.
Our understanding of the problem space evolved significantly over the course of the
semester. At the start we saw our problem divided down the middle into two categories,
safety and signage, and granted at first we were not sure what either entailed. After our
first client meeting we started to see more clearly what our specific objectives were. For
safety we for the most part just had to ensure that the greenhouse met all relevant codes
and regulations, namely ADA. For signage, we needed the signs that corresponded with
these codes, but also we needed to have the necessary educational/informational signs so
that the greenhouse would serve its purpose as a tool for the school. After meeting with
the client in response to the midterm presentation, these goals were cemented in fairly
firmly. The therapists made it clear that the main safety issues laid within the ADA codes
and very little would be outside of these codes. Specifically, we were to focus on making
sure there would be adequate space (doorways, turning radii etc.) for wheelchair
movement, that ramps were properly inclined, and that everything was adjustable and
accessible for the disabled students. In this meeting, a lot of issues that we had not yet
thought about were brought up as well. One issue was that we should pay close attention
to the flooring as it was a critical safety point. Color choice was essential as many of the
students have sensitive eyes as well. Also, a large portion of the students are not able to
read so alternatives for the educational signs were a must. As we neared the end of the
semester we realized the relative importance of the safety signs versus the educational
signs. Focus shifted slightly in that direction but not all focus was lost on the educational
signs. We also noticed that in addition to the safety issues that fell under our jurisdiction,
we were responsible for either collaborating or overseeing what other teams were doing
to ensure that safety was appropriately taken into account in their designs.
-6-

2.6 FUNCTIONAL Requirements and Constraints
In our work we focused on several deliverables: safety (emergency) signs indicating
emergency exits; safety codes and requirements compiled in a booklet for the other
groups to be used as a future reference in their planning and design of the interior space;
fire alarms; an intercom to be integrated with the existing school intercom; and
educational signs and systems. Our team’s deliverables are quite diverse and concern
different aspects of the safety and signage inside the greenhouse. Thus, the functional
requirements and constraints vary greatly from item to item.
There was little room for creative and elaborate design in terms of the safety (or
emergency) signs. All of the safety signs are clearly predefined and delineated by the
NYC Local Law 26. Most manufacturers of safety signs completely comply with these
laws and codes. Rather than design signs from scratch, the role of our group was to
identify which signs were needed, which models of the existing commercial signs were
most preferable based on price and availability, and approximate the number of signs
needed. Moreover, based on the preliminary research, we decided early in the design
process that all the signs should be both in English and Spanish due to a high population
of Spanish speaking families at P.79M. This means, for example, that the emergency exit
signs should be both in English and Spanish. One more constraint that we took into
consideration was that there should not be too many signs. If the greenhouse was too
cluttered with superfluous safety signage, it would not only distract students of the school
from their educational activities in the greenhouse but also dilute any important messages
and potentially confuse the students in an emergency.
A fire alarm system is another one of the deliverables from our group. Here the
requirements are pretty straightforward. First of all, the alarms should be in both audio
and visual forms, in consideration of students who may have either visual or hearing
impairments. This requires installation of speakers (or horns) and flashing emergency
lights. It is also important that the fire alarm system be integrated with the existing
school’s fire alarm system. One critical requirement for the fire alarm system (as well as
almost anything in the greenhouse) is that it be waterproof since the greenhouse
atmosphere will be quite humid and the watering system will have considerable spray.
One of the must-haves in the greenhouse, according to the clients, is an intercom system.
This, like the fire alarm system, should be integrated with the existing school intercom,
and should be able to sustain highly humid and wet environments.
Through our research on the problem we identified one more area of possible
concentration that was not stated at the very beginning. After one of the first meetings
with our client, we found out that one of their main interests was for the greenhouse to be
not only a therapeutic but also an educational facility. This fact led us in the direction of
two possible deliverables: educational signs and posters and educational (instructional)
interactive systems. Educational signs/posters is quite a broad area and will need further
research and development by the next team. However, we were able to formulate some of
the basic properties. First and foremost, the signs obviously should be informative.
-7-

Secondly, the signs should be easily accessible by children with disabilities. As well, they
should be interchangeable as the educational scope and age groups might vary from
lesson to lesson. Our interactive educational system is a system based on the “BigMack”
switch technology. These switches, manufactured by “Ablenet”, are large plastic buttons
that, when pressed, replay a prerecorded message. It is already successfully utilized in the
school, meaning the children are already used to it, and thus it will take less time for them
to adapt to the new environment. However, there are several constraints. First, the
system, as with all electric equipment in the greenhouse, must be waterproof. Second, the
“BigMack” switches are quite expensive (please see Appendix D for estimated costs),
thus their use might be limited by the budget allocated for the project. However,
analogous devices can be designed based on its working principle according to wishes
and wants of the client.
Last but not least, our final deliverable is a booklet in which we have compiled all of the
most important and relevant ADA requirements. This booklet will be a very good
reference for the teams next semester, who will work on integration of all the designs
done by now, and thus, will not have the opportunity to research all these issues in detail.
2.7 EVOLUTION of the Design over the Semester
In the very beginning of the design process it was not easy to identify what our
deliverables would look like. Basically this was because we did not know where to start
from since the scope of our team was not explicitly clear. For example, ADA
requirements, which fall under the domain of safety, apply directly to the possible interior
layouts of the green house. However, there is an entirely separate team that designs the
interior layout of the green house. Therefore, our role was not to design the interior
layout but merely communicate the ADA requirements to the interior design team. Small
differences such as these initially challenged our team in coming up with our deliverables
but, as we progressed through the course, the definition of the problem became more and
more exact and were able to design the deliverables listed in the Product Design
Specifications (Appendix A).
Taking into consideration the project scope of our group, the biggest part of the work was
to extensively research our client as well as the various safety codes and regulations.
After that, when we knew what the requirements and interests of our client were, we
started to formulate solutions which would satisfy all the legal requirements as well as
needs and wants of our clients. However, due to the specific nature of our team being
safety and signage, most of the solutions proposed by the group did not sound innovative.
Safety is such a field where innovations should be implemented cautiously, as all the
existing rules and requirements have been designed based on substantial experience and
statistical data on accidents and emergencies. The most creative part concerned arranging
the safety signs and other components of the final design (such as fire alarms system,
intercom etc.). Nevertheless, even at this stage of the development of the project, we do
not disregard the fact that some of the solutions proposed may not be used by future
designers, or might be used in a different fashion from that originally presented. This is
-8-

again due to the specific nature of the safety and signage issue, which in most positions
restricts interior design but at the same time is highly dependent on the final design of the
interior space. Thus the design proposed at this type should be considered final in terms
of the solutions but not their arrangement within the greenhouse which might vary. For
example, the idea about emergency exit signs both in Spanish and English (see sketch of
the greenhouse in section 3) is not disputable, however the arrangement and the number
of signs needed might vary as number of emergency exits might vary.
Also over the course of the design process we developed some ideas that were not really
relevant to the scope of our group’s specific goals. Though being important for the entire
design process of the greenhouse (such as net above the greenhouse). Furthermore, some
of the alternative solutions were criticized by the clients due either to complexity or cost
inefficiency. Though these solutions (such as LCD displays and touchpads) might have
been a brilliant engineering and designing solution, we had to eliminate them from the
design proposal as they did not satisfy our clients.
Some of the important changes in the final design were done after the meetings with the
representatives of other groups and after a visit to Brooklyn Botanic Garden and final
visit to the P.79M the Dr. Horan School. Most especially noticeable was the change in
our perception of the school’s interior design and its solutions for safety and signage
issues that were observed during this final visit. Probably this was due to the increased
professional competence which was gained between the visits. Also, some of the details,
to which previously no attention was paid, were noticed. For example, some of the safety
and educational signs are combined together (see photos from the final visit to the school
in section 3.3). They are constructed not like ordinary signs, but more like cartoons in
vivid colors and pictorial images associated with the objects they were identifying. Not
only do such signs seem to be very effective in the environment of the school, but also
they are way more cost efficient. An added incentive is that they are also interchangeable;
as they can be easily removed or placed on the other object when needed. Our team
therefore advises the use of these signs together with the required ones (which by legal
terms cannot be substituted by these analogous ones). In that case the environment of the
greenhouse will not only be instructive and safe, but also very user-friendly, besides
students of the school already got used to the signs used in school, thus the transition to
the new environment of the greenhouse will be smoother if something already familiar is
present there. Though we do not include these signs as deliverables of our group, we
highly recommend using them when the greenhouse will start operating.
-9-

3. TRANSITION PLAN AND PROJECT DOCUMENTATION
3.1 TRANSITION History and Plan for Future
The greenhouse project was previously investigated by a summer group in 2006 who
designed several solutions in terms of safety, signage, and security. In our work we
consulted the materials and solutions proposed by the previous team working under the
project. However, their design also included a security aspect, which was carried by the
other group this semester. Moreover, it seemed that they emphasized more on the security
part rather than on signage. That is why our work under the project was almost unaffected
by the previous experience, the only thing we used from the previous design proposal
was the idea to use “BigMack” switches inside the greenhouse.
The concept of horticultural therapy is not unique to the P.79M greenhouse project and
we, therefore, had many external resources available to our team. Lauren Schwartz’s own
experience with horticultural therapy came from the Rusk Institute. Representatives from
the Rusk Institute were available to answer questions and provide information based on
their previous extensive experience in horticultural therapy. In addition, the Brooklyn
Botanic Garden also provided an opportunity for an on-site visit to a large-scale public
greenhouse and to see how the issue of safety and signage is solved there.
A future team will expand our team’s work on safety and signage. The future 2006 spring
group will need to expand the education signs by generating educational content
pertaining to the greenhouse. The team will be able to generate this content based on the
decisions made by the group in charge of the botany of the greenhouse since these design
decisions will be available in their final report. In addition, the future signage team will
need to format the educational content to accommodate the wide range of disabilities and
present the information in multilingual signs to represent the diverse cultural
demographic at P.79M. Specifically, the content should be presented in English and
Spanish. In addition, the “BigMack” switches will need to be waterproofed, or the 2006
spring group may have to design a plastic cover for the switches if it turns out that the
switches have a lot of harmful water contact, or even design conceptually analogous
constructions, but in the form appropriate for the greenhouse environment.
In addition to future teams expanding on our own team’s designs, the existing design
processes must be re-evaluated based off our research on the ADA requirements. Our
results are presented in the Americans with Disabilities Act Requirements Booklet
(“ADA Requirements Booklet” can be found in Appendix F) and are categorized based
off the various scopes of the teams. For example, all wheelchair pathway dimensions are
listed under Interior Design while water grating dimensions are listed under Irrigation. If
a team’s existing solution does not fit the ADA requirements, then their alternate
solutions will have to be investigated. If none of the teams’ alternate solutions are
optimal, then the future teams may have to potentially design a new solution that does
satisfy the requirements.
-10-

One important feature of the greenhouse design is that the clients wanted a design that is
easily replicable for future schools. Therefore, our designs were focused around the
criteria that the design be cost effective and should provide a foundation that can be
modified to fit various environments. Our deliverables provide instructions on ADA
requirements, placement of signs, and information on educational tools. These can all be
used as tools for future clients since all the information is not specific to the P.79M
greenhouse project. If a school or other institution wishes to build their own green house
for horticultural therapy, they can skip a large part of the design and research process by
using our deliverables and making appropriate adjustments where needed.
Our deliverables require only minor re-evaluation if they are used by another client as a
prototype for another green house. For the safety signs, the cultural demographic and
nature of the disabilities guided the design process. For example, there is a large Spanish
speaking population at P.79M and it was therefore appropriate to add the emergency
signs in both English and Spanish. With future clients, the demographic simply needs to
be re-evaluated to determine linguistic requirements for the safety signs, which is a
relatively simple process if the information is readily available. Aside from linguistic
requirements, the standards for safety signs are fairly universal and would otherwise not
have to be modified by future clients.
In addition to the cultural demographic, the nature of disabilities also needs to be re-evaluated
with future clients. P.79M hosts students who have a very wide range of
disabilities and any sort of information (safety or education) needed to be conveyed in
several ways. Since our team did not focus on any specific disability, the information is
conveyed both through visuals and audio. If a future client wished to focus on a specific
disability, the client would simply need to put more emphasis on certain deliverables
helping to deal with the target disabilities.
In terms of ADA requirements, our booklet provides a clear summary of relevant ADA
requirements to the green house. Since interior layouts and dimensions can vary for each
future client, future teams will need to use our booklet to make appropriate adjustments.
The booklet saves significant time for future clients who will not need to read through
over 90 pages of the original ADA regulation document. In the case of an international
client, the ADA requirements do not need to be legally followed but are strongly
recommended due to their effectiveness in ensuring a safe environment for people with
disabilities.
Other regulations such as the fire codes (which affect the fire alarm deliverable) do not
need to be customized since these regulations are universal. However, future teams will
need to check for updates in fire regulations since the information included in the report
is based on information from the 2006 fire codes. In addition, if the greenhouse is being
built within an existing institution (such as the school), the fire alarm system needs to be
integrated with the existing fire alarm system. Specific technical details or issues would
need to be resolved by future design teams on a case by case basis.
-11-

While our designs focused on not being customized specifically for P.79M, certain
features unavoidably have technical specifications that are unique to the environment. For
example, the intercom was selected to be consistent with the existing intercom system at
the school. Alternatives were not thoroughly investigated because compatibility and
consistency (when used by the staff) with the existing system were the main criteria in
selecting the intercom system. In this specific case, the manufacturer our team selected
was “Dukane” (now GE Security Sound and Communication). In future cases, teams
should select the intercom system that is consistent with the rest of the school or
institution where the green house is being built. If the intercom manufacturer did not exist
anymore, then the next cost effective compatible solution should be selected.
-12-

FE COM FAC FE FP
-13-
3.2 PROJECT Documentation
SCHEME of the greenhouse (top view) – Basic Solution
Legend:
DB&EP
M
– arrows indicating path of evacuation with the emergency lighting above it;
– fire plan of the construction;
– fire extinguisher with the indicating sign above it;
– fire alarm horn and strobe;
– intercom;
– fire alarm control/pull station with the indicating sign above it;
– first aid emergency kit with the indicating sign above it;
– emergency exit sign (in English);
– emergency exit sign (in Spanish);
– dry erase board and educational posters;
– emergency lighting;
– “BigMack” switches standing on a leg;
– handicap accessibility sign.
EXIT SALIDA
DB&EP
Working Area (WA)
WA WA
SALIDA EXIT
M M
FP
Ë
Ë
FAHS
Ramp
FA
FP
FE
FAHS
COM
FAC
FA
EXIT
SALIDA
DB&EP
M
Ë

FE COM FAC FE FP
-14-
SCHEME of the greenhouse (top view) – Recommended Solution
Legend:
MB&EP
– arrows indicating path of evacuation with the emergency lighting above it;
– fire plan of the construction;
– fire extinguisher with the indicating sign above it;
– fire alarm horn and strobe;
– intercom;
– fire alarm control/pull station with the indicating sign above it;
– first aid emergency kit with the indicating sign above it;
– illuminated emergency exit sign (in English);
– illuminated emergency exit sign (in Spanish);
– magnetic dry erase board and educational posters;
– emergency lighting (* – marks extra comparing to the basic design solution);
– “BigMack” switches standing on a leg;
– handicap accessibility sign.
EXIT SALIDA
MB&EP
Working Area (WA)
WA WA
SALIDA EXIT
M M
FP
Ë
Ë
FAHS
Ramp
FA *
FP
FE
FAHS
COM
FAC
COM
EXIT
SALIDA
MB&EP
M
Ë
*
M

RENDERS of the views on the placement of safety and signage items within the greenhouse
Figure 1: View from the left emergency exit Figure 2: View on the inner side (adjacent to the school wall)
Figure 3: View on the right emergency exit Figure 4: View on the outer side (next to the street)
-15-

3.3 PHOTOS of components used in the school
Emergency exits and signage of these exits
-16-
Emergency lighting in the corridor

Handicap accessibility sign and an arrow sign
-17-
School fire alarm system

-18-
Fire alarm remote annunciator
Protective cage on the emergency lighting

Protective cage above the component of the fire alarm system
-19-
Fire alarm bell

Fire extinguisher placed in the compartment of the wall
Intercom and information systems of the entire school
-20-

-21-
Intercom Receiver
A “BigMack” switch with the pictorial sign on it

-22-
Pictorial signage of one of the exits

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the nature of our team’s responsibilities, majority of the work that we have done
thus far is in compiling guidelines for future teams to abide by while implementing and
integrating all of the other aspects of the design for the greenhouse. The most essential in
this respect is that the future teams and people who work on this project utilize the ADA
Guidelines booklet that we have compiled (located in Appendix F). In integrating all of
the other designs into one final design, this guideline should be constantly cross checked
and referenced to insure that all designs abide by ADA regulations. All of the signs that
are standard by code, fire alarm, and fire extinguisher options are delineated in Appendix
C and then priced in Appendix D.
The area that still requires the most work in the future is the educational signs and
systems. Content of the signs must be derived from collaboration with the school and
from data in the final design report done by the team responsible for the botanic aspect of
the greenhouse. Moreover, the issue of waterproofing the “BigMack” switches needs to
be looked into.
For the most part our team has compiled all of the necessary information that, given
reports by all of the other teams’, a safe and educational greenhouse can be constructed.
-23-

5. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
PRODUCT Design Specification Checklist
Product/Process Title
P.79M Greenhouse: Safety and Signage
-24-
Purpose
Safety: to ensure safety and minimize all risks of students while utilizing the
greenhouse.
Signage:
a) Conform to all safety and fire codes: show exits, warnings, etc
b) Display educational information of contents of the greenhouse
New or special features:
The Greenhouse is to be used primarily by 14 to 21 year old students with severe
mental and physical disabilities. The entire environment should be safe and all the
activities inside the greenhouse should be equally enjoyed by students with all
kinds of disabilities. The information should be accessible in all three possible
ways: visual, audio, and tactile.
Why is there a need for the product?
Many of the students at P.79M do not have the luxury of daily therapeutic
treatments. As a result, the school is trying to implement the greenhouse to
provide an additional source of therapy for the students to further their healthy
development.
Intended Users
The greenhouse will be used by students of P.79M, who are of various levels of
disabilities. Multiple disabilities can generally be partitioned into two groups. One
includes physical disabilities such as motor skills. The second group encompasses
learning disabilities.
377 students with an average of 10-12 students per class
Functional Requirements
Use of the greenhouse will be limited to be max of 20 people per sessions.
Sessions are of 50 minute blocks, and cannot be longer than 2 blocks. (i.e. either
50 or 100 minutes of use at once). They will be using the facility year-long.
Functionality of deliverables
Safety Signs

Indicate dangerous situations and provides easy exits during emergencies.
Includes but not limited to:
• illuminated emergency exit signs (both in English and Spanish);
• signs indicating fire extinguishers;
• direction arrows showing the path of evacuation (both in English and
-25-
Spanish);
• fire plan of the construction (indicating where fire extinguishers are placed)
and showing the path of evacuation.
Fire Alarms
A fire alarm detects and subsequently alarms greenhouse occupants in case of fire
emergencies through use of loud sounds and bright lights. The fire alarm consists
of:
• an audio speaker connected to the school information/emergency
notification system;
• emergency lights.
Intercom
A communication system that would be integrated with the school’s current
intercom system to provide easy communication from the greenhouse to the
school building. A sign indicating the position of the intercom.
Safety Guidelines Brochure
A compilation of the relevant ADA requirements and Fire codes which must be
met by every other group participating in the design process. Special emphasize
on:
• ramps (provide wheelchair access to the ground level).
• floor padding (make sure that this is taken into consideration by interior
design team).
Educational Signs
Educate students of basic scientific information of plants and horticulture within
the Greenhouse.
• posters with educational information;
• signs indicating plants;
• signs indicating placement of sinks, tools, soils, flowerpots and other
materials and objects being used in the greenhouse;
Educational and Instructive Interactive System
The aim of this system is to make all the activities inside the greenhouse more
interactive. Also for children with visual disabilities this will be the source of
gaining knowledge, thus they will not be excluded from the greenhouse activities.
Based on the “BigMack”-button/switches technology this system will allow
getting the information by means of sound (when pressing the button it plays
prerecorded message). The buttons should be different in color (for easy

distinguishing) and also they must have short messages in Braille describing what
the button does.
-26-
Constraints
ADA
Corridors, Doors, and Walkways; Reach limits; Wheelchair movements; Ramps;
Signs; Communications etc.
Fire Codes
Fire exits, fire extinguishers.
Sustainability to high humidity
One of the most important constraints dealing with all the electrical devices
installed in the greenhouse is that they should be waterproof.
Budget
All the solutions should not be expensive and almost zero cost maintenance.
Reproducibility
More of a client’s want to make the greenhouse exemplary and a prototype for the
other schools. Thus it should not be over customized and easily reproducible.
User friendly environment
The environment should not be irritating and overloaded with signs and other
information.

-27-
DESIGN Specification Checklist
Requirements Contributing Factors Points to Consider
Overall geometry
Standard geometry for the
emergency signs (compliant
to NYC Local Law 26), 2
emergency exit signs above
the emergency exit: one in
English, the other in
Spanish; two arrow-signs
(also English and Spanish
versions) indicating path of
evacuation next to each
entry to the greenhouse; fire
plan of the greenhouse; fire
extinguisher sign above the
place designated for the fire
extinguisher; intercom sign,
first aid station sign.
Functional
Energy needed
Intercom, fire alarm system,
emergency exit signs and
“BigMack” buttons require
electricity.
Safety Operational
• Components of the fire
alarm system should be
covered with the protective
cages/shells;
• All the electronic
equipment should be either
waterproof or capable to
sustain high humidity
environments.
Quality Assurance
Subject to NYC Local Law
26, all the commercial
products in compliance with
this fully meet all the
Quality quality expectations.
Reliability
“BigMack” buttons should
have a long life-cycle, as
they will be used daily.
Purchase of the components
Most of the components can
be purchased from the
Manufacturing commercial suppliers.
Production of components
If decided by the client that
the commercial “BigMack”
switches are too expensive,

-28-
than, than the analogous
devices can be
manufactured using existing
commercial components
(i.e. button, recorder with
microphone, and speaker).
Economic Design costs
The final solutions chosen
should be not expensive
with almost zero
maintenance costs (a
suitable combination of
these two factors should be
achieved).
Ergonomic Ergonomic Design
All the signs should be
accessible both for a
standing person and a
person in a wheelchair. The
entire environment should
be user-friendly.
Aesthetic Customer appeal Signs should be noticeable
but not irritating.
Life cycle Maintenance
Safety signs will need only
minor maintenance.
“BigMack” switches, fire
alarm system and intercom
might have some
maintenance costs during
the life cycle of the
greenhouse.

APPENDIX B: Project Management and Work Break Down Schedule
GANTT Chart
-29-

-30-
FLOW Chart of Deliverables

-31-
TASK list
Research Client and Team Organization
• We designated roles and did more research to familiarize ourselves with the
Summer Group’s conclusion
Initial Client Meeting
• We prepared by formulating questions about rough areas in the Summer Group’s
proposal and extended to try to understand if the Assistant Principal, Alex was
content with their work.
Debrief of Client Meeting
• We learned more about what Alex wanted, needed, and planned to do with the
greenhouse.
Compiling of Problem and Functionality Requirements in Preliminary Deliverables
• We did additional research to see what the client’s problem is and what functions
were required to have a complete solution.
Preliminary PDS and Final Deliverable Description
• We compiled basic ideas for the solution. For example, we knew we needed an
intercom, but we have not found which brand was required.
Preliminary Sketches
• Basic ideas were translated into more specific solutions with the help of the ADA
guidelines
Midterm Presentation to Clients
• We projected our solutions and alternative solutions so that we could get feed
back to try to eliminate the alternatives. We also made sure that we understood
their goals, wants, and needs.
Self- Evaluation on Presentation and Changes in PDS
• We evaluated ourselves trying to improve all specific areas of our design.
Feedback from Clients and Physical Therapists
• We discussed with them what they thought we should focus on, and highlighted
things we over prioritized.
Dinner and Discussion with Rusk Institute Specialists
• One of the most helpful resources. Both specialists were straightforward in
replying to our ideas. They told us if it would or would not work. They also listed
the dire needs for a working solution.
Revision of PDS and Elimination of Some Alternative Solutions
• We had to make some changes based on all the feedback we received and our
self-evaluation.
Meeting with Advisor
• Dr. Cross helped us identify parts of the report that needed more explanation or
specific details. He also told us what typical proposals similar to this one would
include.
Meeting with Interior Design Team
• Some of our questions needed to be answered to complete a functional solution.
For example, we needed to know if the ramps would be inside, outside, or even if
they would exist at all.
Meeting with Lighting Team

• We had some issues with lighting because we had to make sure that it was
waterproof and we also had to make sure that we could synchronize our electronic
equipment with their’s.
-32-
Visit to Botanic Gardens
• To do research on underlying structural safety procedure and placement of safety
equipment.
Team Review over New Information Acquired
• We discussed our research and how it would contribute to the final deliverable.
Final Visit to the School
• We took pictures of the placement of the signs and researched on what intercoms
were compatible.
Final Report
• It will be our final chance to present our ideas, solutions, budget costs, and where
we believe project will head.

APPENDIX C: Technical Details for Design Components
Exit Signs
-33-
• Basic (Figure 1)
o 120 or 277 VAC
o 1 or 2 sided
o Does not have back-up power
• Illuminated Sign (Figure 1)
o Same as Basic but has a 4 hour
back-up battery
• Wet Listed Illuminated Sign
o For very wet locations
• Sign with Lighting and Backup Battery (Figure 2)
o Includes maintenance free back-up battery
o More expensive ones can have the lights redirected
• Wet Listed Sign with Emergency Light and Battery Combo
o Same as the normal ones but work in very wet locations
• Self Luminous (Figure 3)
o No energy required
o Very Easy to Install
o More expensive ones have a durable frame
for the sign
o Single Faced
• Bilingual Emergency Exit
o Easy installation
o Durable plastic
Handicap Accessible Signs
Figure 1
Figure 3
Figure 2

• Steel not suggested out doors
• Aluminum is more promising and longer lasting
-34-
First Aid Signs
• All are plastic sizes are roughly 9’x12’
Emergency Lights (Figure 4)
• Basic
o Easy to install
o Flame Retardant
o Has a back-up battery
o More expensive ones are
self-testing
• Wet Listed Emergency Lights
o For very wet locations
Wire guard for Signs and Lights
• Protective cages for signs and emergency lights
• Also available polycarbonate models, more
expensive but more aesthetically pleasant (Image 5)
Fire Alarms
• Fire Alarm Pull Station (Figure 5)
o ADA compliant
o Dependent on price, but some have weather
proof boxes
• Fire Alarm Horn and Strobe
o At least 2 auditory settings
o More expensive ones have multiple settings
Normal/Magnetic Dry Erase Board
• Normal ones are much cheaper
• However, some teachers may prefer to use magnets to post things on the board
• Main decision is whether the teacher wants a magnetic board
“BigMack” Switches
• Prices vary by the length of the message that can be left
• 20 seconds/ 75 seconds
• Water Proof Equipment would be unreasonably expensive. A cheaper solution is
to put the “BigMack” switches away when children are not in the greenhouse
Floor Signs
• Directional
Figure 4
Figure 5

o May help organize traffic in the greenhouse and decrease the chance of
people bumping into each other
o Help point to an emergency exit or a stop station
-35-
• Stop Signs
o Labels a stop station or an non-permitted room
Others:
• Custom Magnetic Signs
o Teachers could label procedures on several magnetic signs and use them
on the magnetic board for a step by step instructional progression
• Custom Vinyl Banners
o Messages that need to be posted such as general guidelines while in the
greenhouse to remind students what not to do.
ADA TECHNICAL requirements
Please see “ADA Requirements Booklet” in Appendix F on the ADA requirements for
safe and accessible interior design.

APPENDIX D: Estimated Costs of Various Proposed Design Solutions
Safety
Exit Signs
Basic $16
Illuminated Sign $18-26
Wet Listed Illuminated Sign $105
Sign with Emergency Light and Backup Battery $36-50
Wet Listed Sign with Emergency Light and Battery $160
Self Luminous $70-160
Self Luminous Double Face $230-280
Bilingual Emergency Exit $23
12x18 Non-reflective Steel $17
12x18 Aluminum $22
First Aid Station Sign
Basic, only English $7
Bilingual First Aid Sign $13
Emergency Lights
Basic $19-50
Wet Listed Emergency Lights $94-140
Wire Guard for Signs & Lights $26
Educational
Dry Erase Board
24"x18" $58
3'x2' $72
Magnetic Dry Erase Board
2'x3' $140
3'x4' $197
20sec $99
75sec $195
Instructional
Floor Signs
Directional (Arrow) $38
Stop Sign $28
-36-

Others
Magnetic Signs 12x24 $36
Vinyl Banner 12x24 $55
Fire Alarm
Fire Alarm Pull Station
P-32 Series $39
Sentry with Cover $69
Weather Stopper STI-3150 $100
Fire Extinguisher $45
Fire Alarm Horn and Strobe $50-83
Intercom
Intercom Receiver $200-500
• The original “Dukane” company turned into GE Security
Quantity for the
Basic Design (Needs)
-37-
Quantity for the
Recommended Design
(Wants)
Bilingual Emergency Exit Signs 2 x $23 2 x $23
Wet Listed Illuminated Signs 0 2 x $105
Bilingual First Aid Sign 1 x $13 1 x $13
Handicap Accessible Signs 2 x $22 2 x $22
Wet Emergency Light 1 x $94 3 x $94
Wet Listed Sign with Emergency
Light and Battery 2 x $160 2 x $160
Wire Guards 5 x $26 9 x $26
“BigMack” Switches 3 x $99 3 x $195
Normal Dry Erase Boards 2 x $58 0
Magnetic Dry Erase 0 2 x $140
Fire Alarm Pull Station 1x $69 1 x $100
Fire Alarm and Strobe Unit 1 x $50 1 x $83
Intercom 1 x $200 1 x $300
Fire Extinguisher 2 x $45 2 x $45
$1,469 $2,584
Final costs depend not only on the options chosen but also on the number of items used in
the greenhouse. Final costs can only be accurately estimated when the final interior
design solution is submitted. Also many of the equipment may not be in very wet
locations and therefore we can afford to purchase much cheaper alternatives. As a result,
the estimated costs also depend on the irrigation design. We took the safe side in
estimating that everything must be waterproof.

BUDGET Sources (Organized by appearance in budget sheet)
Exit Signs, Exit Signs with Light Combo, Wire Guards, and Emergency Lights Without
Exit Signs
• The Exit Store: http://www.theexitstore.com/
• The Exit Light Co: http://www.exitlightco.com/
• Cost Less Lighting, Inc:
http://www.costlesslighting.com/acatalog/Catalog_Emergency_Lighting_5.html
-38-
• USA Traffic Signs: http://signs.safeshopper.com/7/cat7.htm
Bilingual First Aid Signs
• CPR Savers and First Aid Supply: http://www.cpr-savers.
com/Industrials/first%20aid%20signs/signs.html?source=GOOG&wcw=go
ogle&kw=first+aid+sign
Dry Erase Boards
• Flex A Chart Manufacturing: http://www.flex-a-chart.
com/dry_erase_boards.htm
• Keysan: http://www.keysan.com/ksu0555.htm
Floor Signs and Bilingual Emergency Exit Signs
• Seton Identification and Safety Experts: http://www.seton.com/
Custom Magnetic and Vinyl Signs
• BuildASign: http://www.buildasign.com/
• Augmentative Communication Consultants, Inc:
http://www.acciinc.com/Html/bigmack.htm
• Electronics for Disabled People: Http://www.tecsol.com.au/AbleNetCAs.htm
Fire Alarm Pullstations
• MidSouth Wire and Cable Company:
http://www.midsouthcable.com/PotterPulls.htm
Fire Alarm Horn and Strobe
• Fox Electric Supply Company:
http://www.foxelectricsupply.com/content/products/ProductCatalog.asp?qscatego
ryId=25170
Fire Extinguisher
• Fire Extinguisher Cabinets and Bags: http://www.smokesign.com/fiexca.html

-39-
Intercom Receiver
• GE Security: http://www.gesecurity.com/

APPENDIX E: Photo-reportage from the Conservation Greenhouse in Brooklyn
Botanic Garden
Doors between different parts of the greenhouse are also wide enough for the movement
of wheelchair, however, they re not automotive.
Walkways are wide enough for the movement of the wheelchair.
-40-

-41-
Illumination of exit signs
Component of the fire alarm (flashing lights)

-42-
Component of the fire alarm (bell)
Component of the fire alarm (fire alarm pull)

-43-
Signage of fire extinguisher
Fire extinguisher

-45-
APPENDIX F
ADA Requirements Booklet
Grygorii Yefremov
Albert Lee
Brett Benowitz
Michelle Madejski
Zu-Wang Wu

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................... 46
INTERIOR DESIGN.................................................................................................................................. 48
CORRIDORS AND WALKWAYS .................................................................................................................... 48
Minimum Clear Width for Single Wheelchair..................................................................................... 48
Minimum Clear Width for Two Wheelchairs ...................................................................................... 48
Wheelchair Turning Space.................................................................................................................. 49
DOORS....................................................................................................................................................... 49
Clear Doorway Width and Depth: Detail ........................................................................................... 49
Clear Doorway Width and Depth: Hinged Door ................................................................................ 50
Clear Doorway Width and Depth: Sliding Door ................................................................................ 50
Clear Doorway Width and Depth: Folding Door ............................................................................... 50
Clear Doorway Width and Depth: Maximum Door Depth ................................................................. 50
Front Approaches – Swinging Doors.................................................................................................. 51
Hinge Side Approaches – Swinging Doors ......................................................................................... 51
Latch Side Approaches – Swinging Doors.......................................................................................... 51
Two Hinged Door in Series................................................................................................................. 52
Front Approach – Sliding Doors and Folding Doors ......................................................................... 52
Slide Side Approach – Sliding Doors and Folding Doors .................................................................. 52
Latch Slide Approach – Sliding Doors and Folding Doors ................................................................ 52
GARDENING AND TABLE ACCESSIBILITY..................................................................................... 53
MINIMUM CLEAR FLOORSPACE ................................................................................................................. 53
Clear Floor Space............................................................................................................................... 53
Forward Approach.............................................................................................................................. 53
Parallel Approach............................................................................................................................... 53
Clear Floor Space in Alcoves ............................................................................................................. 54
Additional Maneuvering in Alcoves .................................................................................................... 54
FORWARD REACH...................................................................................................................................... 55
High Forward Reach Limit ................................................................................................................. 55
Maximum Forward Reach Over an Obstruction................................................................................. 55
SIDE REACH............................................................................................................................................... 56
Clear Floor Space Parallel Approach ................................................................................................ 56
High and Low Side Reach Limits........................................................................................................ 56
Maximum Side Reach Over Obstruction............................................................................................. 56
RAMPS, RAILINGS, AND TURNS......................................................................................................... 57
RAMPS....................................................................................................................................................... 57
Components of a Single Ramp Run..................................................................................................... 57
Accessible Routes: Changes in Level.................................................................................................. 57
RAILINGS................................................................................................................................................... 58
Edge Protection and Handrail Extension ........................................................................................... 58
TURNS ....................................................................................................................................................... 59
90 degree Turn.................................................................................................................................... 59
Turn Around an Obstruction............................................................................................................... 59
SAFETY AND SIGNAGE......................................................................................................................... 60
SIGNAGE.................................................................................................................................................... 60
International Symbol of Accessibility.................................................................................................. 60
INTERCOM ................................................................................................................................................. 60
-46-

Side Reach Possible ............................................................................................................................ 60
Forward Reach Requirement .............................................................................................................. 61
IRRIGATION............................................................................................................................................. 62
SAFE WATER GRATINGS ............................................................................................................................. 62
Gratings .............................................................................................................................................. 62
Grating Orientation ............................................................................................................................ 62
SAFETY AND SIGNAGE TEAM ............................................................................................................ 63
GRYGORII YEFREMOV ............................................................................................................................... 63
ALBERT LEE .............................................................................................................................................. 63
BRETT BENOWITZ...................................................................................................................................... 63
MICHELLE MADEJSKI ................................................................................................................................ 63
ZU-WANG WU ........................................................................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX G: LIST OF SOURCES.............................................................................................................. 64
APPENDIX H: COPY OF POWERPOINT SLIDES USED DURING THE PRESENTATION.................................... 67
-47-

-48-
Interior Design
Corridors and walkways
Minimum Clear Width for Single Wheelchair
ADA Requirements
Page 506
Dimensions:
Minimum Width
36 inches
Maximum Depth
24 inches
Minimum Clear Width for Two Wheelchairs
ADA Requirements
Page 506
Dimensions:
Minimum Width
60 inches

Wheelchair Turning Space
-49-
Doors
ADA Requirements
Page 507
Dimensions:
Clear Doorway Width and Depth: Detail
Minimum Diameter
60 inches
ADA Requirements
Page 528
Dimensions:
Minimum Width
32 inches

Clear Doorway Width and Depth: Hinged Door
ADA Requirements
Page 528
Dimensions:
Clear Doorway Width and Depth: Sliding Door
Clear Doorway Width and Depth: Folding Door
Clear Doorway Width and Depth: Maximum Door Depth
-50-

Minimum Width
32 inches
ADA Requirements
Page 528
Dimensions:
Minimum Width
32 inches
ADA Requirements
Page 528
Dimensions:
Minimum Width
32 inches
ADA Requirements
Page 528
Dimensions:
Minimum Width
32 inches
Maximum Depth
24 inches

Front Approaches – Swinging Doors
Hinge Side Approaches – Swinging Doors
Latch Side Approaches – Swinging Doors
-51-

Two Hinged Door in Series
Front Approach – Sliding Doors and Folding Doors
Slide Side Approach – Sliding Doors and Folding Doors
Latch Slide Approach – Sliding Doors and Folding
Doors
-52-
ADA Requirements
Page 530
Dimensions:
Minimum Length
48 inches
ADA Requirements
Page 530
Dimensions:
Minimum Length
42 inches
Minimum Width
54 inches
ADA Requirements
Page 530
Dimensions:
Minimum Length
42 inches
Minimum Width
24 inches

Gardening and table accessibility
Minimum Clear Floorspace
-53-
Clear Floor Space
Forward Approach
Parallel Approach
ADA Requirements
Page 508
Dimensions:
Minimum Width:
30 inches
Minimum Length:
48 inches
ADA Requirements
Page 508
Dimensions:
Minimum Width:
30 inches
Minimum Length:
48 inches
ADA Requirements
Page 508
Dimensions:
Minimum Width:
30 inches
Minimum Length:
48 inches

Clear Floor Space in Alcoves
Additional Maneuvering in Alcoves
-54-

-55-
Forward Reach
High Forward Reach Limit
Maximum Forward Reach Over an Obstruction

-56-
Side Reach
Clear Floor Space Parallel Approach
ADA Requirements
Page 510
Dimensions:
High and Low Side Reach Limits
Minimum Width
30 inches
Maximum Length
48 inches
Maximum Floor Space
10 inches
ADA Requirements
Page 510
Dimensions:
Minimum Width
30 inches
Maximum Height
54 inches
Maximum Floor Space
10 inches (high)
9 inches (low)
Maximum Side Reach Over Obstruction
ADA Requirements
Page 510
Dimensions:
Minimum Width
30 inches
Minimum Floor Space
24 inches
Maximum Heigh
46 inches (high)
34 inches (low)

Ramps, Railings, and Turns
-57-
Ramps
Components of a Single Ramp Run
Accessible Routes: Changes in Level
ADA
Requirements
Pg. 520
ADA Requirements
Page 511
Dimensions:
Maximum Height
¼ inch
ADA Requirements
Page 511
Dimensions:
Maximum Height
¼ to ½ inch

-58-
Railings
Edge Protection and Handrail Extension
ADA Requirements pg. 522

-59-
Turns
90 degree Turn
Turn Around an Obstruction
ADA Requirements
Page 511
Dimensions:
Minimum Width
36 inches
Minimum Wall Width
36 inches
ADA Requirements
Page 511
Dimensions:
Minimum Width
42 inches
Minimum Turn Width
48 inches

-60-
Safety and Signage
Signage
International Symbol of Accessibility
Intercom
Side Reach Possible

Forward Reach Requirement
-61-
ADA Requirements
Page 510
Dimensions:
Maximum Height
48 inches
ADA Requirements
Page 510
Dimensions:
Maximum Width
30 inches
Maximum Length
48 inches
Maximum Reach
20 inches
ADA Requirements
Page 510
Dimensions:
Maximum Width
30 inches
Maximum Length
48 inches
Maximum Reach
20 inches

-62-
Irrigation
Safe water gratings
Gratings
Grating Orientation
ADA Requirements
Page 516
Dimensions:
Maximum
½ inch

Safety and Signage Team
-63-
Grygorii Yefremov
gy2141@columbia.edu
Primary Facilitator
Albert Lee
agl2116@columbia.edu
Secondary Facilitator
Brett Benowitz
bab2140@columbia.edu
Conflict Manager
Michelle Madejski
mgm2129@columbia.edu
Process Overseer
Zu-wang Wu
zw2130@columbia.edu
Time Keeper

APPENDIX G: List of Sources
"BigMack" Augmentative Communication Consultants, INC. 20 Oct. 2004. 22 Nov.
2006 <http://www.acciinc.com/Html/bigmack.htm>.
Columbia Service-Learning Program. 2003. Columbia University. 22 Sept. 2006
<http://community.seas.columbia.edu/cslp/>.
Dictionary: for Parents of Children with Disabilities. Nov.-Dec. 2006
<http://www.usd.edu/cd/publications/dictionary.pdf>.
"Dry Erase Boards." Flex-a-Chart. 30 Nov. 2006 <http://www.flex-a-chart.
-64-
com/dry_erase_boards.htm>.
"Dry Erase Boards." Keysan. 01 Dec. 2006. Nov.-Dec. 2006
<http://www.keysan.com/ksu0555.htm>.
"Emergency Lights & Commercial Lighting Supplies." Cost Less Lighting. 2004. 1 Dec.
2006 <http://www.costlesslighting.com/>.
"Emory Healthcare." Wesley Woods Center. 2006. Emory Healthcare 2006. Nov.-Dec.
2006
<http://www.emoryhealthcare.org/departments/ww/sub_menu/adjunctive_therapy.html>.
"Environment Control." Technical Solutions. 2005. 19 Nov. 2006
<http://www.tecsol.com.au/AbleNetCAs.htm>.
"Exit Store: Exit and Emergency Specialists." TheExitStore.Com. 2006. 14 Nov. 2006
<http://www.theexitstore.com/>.
"Fire Extinguisher Cabinets & Bags." SmokeSign.Com. 2006. 1 Dec. 2006
<http://www.smokesign.com/fiexca.html>.
"First Aid Signs." CPR Savers & First Aid Supply. 22 Nov. 2006 <http://www.cpr-savers.
com/Industrials/first%20aid%20signs/signs.html?source=GOOG&wcw=google&k
w=first+aid+sign>.
"GE Security." General Electric Company. 28 Oct. 2006 <http://www.gesecurity.com/>.
Hershenson, Roberta. "Gardening as a Form of Children's Therapy." The New York
Times 25 July 1993. 13 Oct. 2006
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F0CE0DE1E38F936A157
54C0A965958260>.

"Horn & Strobe - Wholesale Electrical Supply Company." FOX Electrical Supply
Company. 14 Nov. 2006
<http://www.foxelectricsupply.com/content/products/ProductCatalog.asp?qscategoryId=2
5170>.
"Horticultural Therapy Intro." Chicago Botanic Garden. 2005. Chicago Botanic Garden.
15 Oct. 2006 <http://www.chicagobotanic.org/therapy/>.
"Human Issues in Horticulture." VT Horticulture. Oct.-Nov. 2006
<http://www.hort.vt.edu/human/human.html>.
Kennedy, Karren L. "The Holden Arboretum Horticultural Therapy Program." The
Holden Arboretum. 13 Nov. 2006 <http://www.holdenarb.org/hortth.htm>.
MidSouth Wire and Cable and Potter Fire Alarm Pull Stations. Nov. 2006
<http://www.midsouthcable.com/PotterPulls.htm>.
P. 79M the Dr. Horan School. Sept. 2006
<http://schools.nycenet.edu/d75/P.79M/default.htm>.
Pacific Child Center for Children and Families. Sept.-Oct. 2006
<http://pacificchildcenter.org/>.
"Restorative Gardens for Healthcare Environments." Meristem. 2006. Oct. 2006
<http://www.meristem.org/>.
"San Diego Electrical Contractor." The EXit Light Co. 2005. Nov.-Dec. 2006
<http://www.exitlightco.com/>.
Seattle Children's Playground. Sept. 2006 <http://www.seattlechildrensplaygarden.com/>.
"Services." Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2005. NYU Medical Center. Sept.-
Oct. 2006 <http://www.med.nyu.edu/rusk/services/pediatrics/therapeutic/services.html>.
"Seton Identification and Safety Experts." Seton. 2006. Seton Identification Products.
Nov.-Dec. 2006 <http://www.seton.com/>.
"Therapeutic "Greenhouse" for Rehab Patients."
http://eng.sheba.co.il/main/siteNew/index.php?langId=1&page=36&stId=551&subAction
=dispTickStory. The Chain Sheba Medical Center. 24 Nov. 2006
<http://eng.sheba.co.il/main/siteNew/index.php?langId=1&page=36&stId=551&subActi
on=dispTickStory>.
USA. Department of Justice. ADA Standards of Accessible Design. 1 July 1994. 23 Oct.
2006 <http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adastd94.pdf>.
USA Traffic Signs. Nov.-Dec. 2006 <http://signs.safeshopper.com/7/cat7.htm>.
-65-

Weil, Nita. "The TIRR Greenhouse - a Secret Garden." Texas Medical Center News. 15
Oct. 2000. Texas Medical Center. Nov.-Dec. 2006
<http://www.tmc.edu/tmcnews/10_15_00/page_13.html>.
"Yard Signs, Signs." BuildASign.Com. 3 Dec. 2006 <http://www.buildasign.com/>.
-66-

APPENDIX H: Copy of PowerPoint Slides Used During The Presentation
Slide 1
Safety
and
Signage Grygorii Yefremov
-67-
Albert Lee
Brett Benowitz
Michelle Madejski
Zu-wang Wu
Slide 2
Formal Problem Statement
„ Safety
„ The greenhouse must meet all the requirements
addressed by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
Fire Code, and any other safety issues that might not be
included in formal legal regulations.
„ Signage
„ The safety signage must conform to all codes and
regulations, as well as sufficiently warn and delineate any
other safety issues that might not be covered in such
regulations.
„ The educational signs must be adaptive to the needs of
the students so that they can effectively communicate
information and lessons.

-68-
Slide 3
Design Constraints
„ ADA
„ Corridors, Doors, and Walkways; Reach limits; Wheelchair
movements; Ramps; Signs; Communications etc.
„ Fire Codes
„ Fire exits, fire extinguishers.
„ Sustainability to high humidity
„ Budget
„ All the solutions should not be expensive and almost zero cost
maintenance.
„ Reproducibility
„ More of a client’s want to make the greenhouse exemplary and a
prototype for the other schools. Thus it should not be over customized
and easily reproducible.
„ User friendly environment
„ The environment should not be irritating and overloaded with signs and
other information.
Slide 4
Deliverables/Functional
Requirements
„ Signage
„ Safety
„ Educational
„ Instructional Interactive System
„ Communication and Fire Emergencies
„ ADA Requirements Booklet

-69-
Slide 5
Safety Signs
„ Exit, Handicap Accessible, and First Aid
Signs
„ Universal
„ Bilingual Sign
„ Illuminated Signs
„ Battery Powered
„ Self-Luminous
„ Sign with Emergency Light
„ “Wet Listed” (Water Proof)
Slide 6
Educational Instructional
Interactive System
„ “BigMack” switches
„ Changeable Signs
„ Dry Erase Boards
„ Floor Signs
„ Directional/Stop
„ Custom Signs
„ For constant reminders, i.e. safety ground rules
while in the greenhouse.

-70-
Slide 7
Fire Alarm Components
„ Fire Alarm Pull Station
„ Fire Alarm Horn and Strobe
„ Audio and visual stimuli
„ Fire Extinguisher
„ Fire Codes require only 1 for the greenhouse
with the given dimensions
Slide 8
Communication System
„ Intercom
„ “Dukane” is now GE Security Sound and
Communications
„ Product Line: STARCall

Quantity
(Wants/Recommended)
Quantity
(Needs)
Bilingual Emergency Exit Signs 2 x $23 2 x $23
Wet Listed Illuminated Signs 0 2 x $105
Bilingual First Aid Sign 1 x $13 1 x $13
Handicap Accessible Signs 2 x $22 2 x $22
Wet Emergency Light 1 x $94 3 x $94
Wet Listed Sign w/ Emergency Light and Battery 2 x $160 2 x $160
Wire Guards 5 x $26 9 x $26
BigMack 3 x $99 3 x $195
Normal Dry Erase Boards 2 x $58 0
Magnetic Dry Erase 0 2 x $140
Fire Alarm Pull Station 1x $69 1 x $100
Fire Alarm and Strobe Unit 1 x $50 1 x $83
Intercom 1 x $200 1 x $300
Fire Extinguisher 2 x $45 2 x $45
-71-
Slide 9
Deliverables (Budget of Proposals)
$1,469 $2,584
Slide 10
Transition Plan
„ Future Safety and Signage Team
„ Educational Content
„ Waterproof BigMack Switches
„ Future Design Teams
„ Evaluate designs based on ADA Requirements
„ Potential Re-Design of Existing Solutions
„ Future Clients
„ Population
„ Cultural Demographic
„ Range of Disabilities
„ Environment
„ Interior Layout (ADA Requirements)
„ Compatibility (Fire Alarm and Intercom)

Greenhouse Horticultural Therapy Program at School for the Disabled - Safety and Signage Considerations

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Greenhouse Horticultural Therapy Program at School for the Disabled - Safety and Signage Considerations

Similar to Greenhouse Horticultural Therapy Program at School for the Disabled - Safety and Signage Considerations (20)

More from School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens

More from School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Greenhouse Horticultural Therapy Program at School for the Disabled - Safety and Signage Considerations