153-1998 LTC
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
http:\\cl.miami-beach,f1.us
L.T.C. No. 153-1998
LETTER TO COMMISSION
October 30 , 1998
FROM:
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City Commission
Sergio Rodriguez A Sit-.
City Manager (J:J
TO:
SUBJECT:
Status of the Royal Palm Hotel and Implications to the Royal Palm Crowne
Plaza Hotel Project.
BACKGROUND
The Clark Construction Group, Inc., the contractor on the Royal Palm, has been on site since
ground-breaking on August 4, 1998, performing work which includes building demolition, site
work, shoringlbracing, test piles and production piles.
Interior demolition of the Royal Palm Hotel has revealed severe concrete deterioration throughout
the structure including all primary structural elements. Testing of the existing structural concrete
by ATC, an independent testing company, indicates compressive strengths and chloride content
levels do not comply with code requirements. Based on structural analyses performed by Riva,
Timmons, the engineer of record and an independent peer review performed by Hershell Gill
Consulting Engineers, Inc., of A TC's report, the developer's design team is recommending
demolition of the remaining portions of the existing Royal Palm structure which were to be retained
and incorporated into the overall master design of the site.
On October 20, 1998, the developer officially notified the City of the Royal Palm's structural
condition and informed staff of its engineer's recommendation to demolish the structure and in
its place, to replicate that portion of the hotel which was to have been restored. The developer also
indicated its willingness to remove and preserve certain architecturally significant interior and
exterior elements to place in the new structure, The developer was advised not to take any action
until the Historic Preservation and Design Review Boards had an opportunity to review the matter
as required by the Zoning Ordinance and the Development Agreement.
On October 26, following an on-site inspection and a detailed evaluation of the structural system
of the existing Royal Palm Hotel, the Building Department concurred with the engineering reports
and determined the structure to be unsafe, On October 28, the Building Department posted an
"unsafe structure" notice on the Royal Palm, stating that on October 21, 1998 and October 26,
1998, inspections were performed at the Royal Palm which revealed deterioration of the structure
and structural parts which are in violation of the South Florida Building Code, and that all
measures deemed appropriate or necessary to bring the building into compliance with the South
Florida Building Code must be effectuated. All such actions must receive all required permits for
each aspect of the contemplated corrective work pursuant to the South Florida Building Code and
the City's Land Development Regulations Code, Furthermore, the building must be maintained
secure at all times in accordance with Section 202,6 of the South Florida Building Code, and in a
manner acceptable to the Building Official.
Since the City was officially notified, daily meetings have been held with City staff and the
developer to determine the implications of demolition relative to historic preservation and zoning-
related matters. On October 26 the developer was asked to obtain additional samples from the facade
in order to determine the feasibility of saving it. Preliminary test results indicating elevated cWoride
levels in the facade were provided on October 29, 1998. Copies of both reports are included with
this L.T,C, Dates were set for a joint meeting of the Historic Preservation and Design Review
Boards on November 16, the City Commission on November 18 and the Zoning Board of
Adjustment on December 7, 1998, In addition, the Administration will engage an independent
structural engineer to render an opinion on the issue.
ANALYSIS
The unexpected demolition of all or a significant portion of the remaining Royal Palm Hotel
carries certain ramifications which are expected to impact the Crowne Plaza project. The
Administration was asked to prepare the following analysis to determine the extent of the issues at
stake:
Historic Preservation Board Approval
Design and Preservation staff, as well as the Building Official and the project's engineer of record,
have all concluded that the remaining portions of the existing Royal Palm Hotel are in an advanced
state of structural decline. To this end, staff has determined that the developer must first obtain
a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition, Under certain circumstances, if a structure
constitutes an immediate threat to public health or safety, as determined by the Building Official,
the Dade County Unsafe Structures Board, Fire Marshall, or Public Works Director, an exemption
to this requirement could be granted. As of the date of this report, the Building Official has not yet
concluded that the advanced state of structural deterioration of the remaining portions of the Royal
Palm Hotel constitute a threat to "immediate public health or safety".
Pursuant to Section 118-535 of the Miami Beach Code, Certificates of Appropriateness for the
Loews and Royal Palm Crowne Plaza Hotel sites are granted or denied in accordance with
procedures set forth in the former Zoning Ordinance Section 19 (as amended prior to May 5, 1994),
as provided for in the Development Agreement. Pursuant to Subsection 19-6 of the former Zoning
Ordinance, the procedures for granting or denying a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
Demolition to demolish a historic structure require the applicant to obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness for Demolition from the City Commission subsequent to a formal recommendation
being issued by the Historic Preservation Board after a separate public hearing.
To this end, staff has scheduled a special meeting of the Historic Preservation Board on November
16 to consider the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition for the complete
demolition of the remainder of the existing Royal Palm Hotel. At the same meeting, the Joint
Design ReviewIHistoric Preservation Board will consider a request for a modification to the existing
Design Review approval for the subject site, in order to fully re-create those portions of the Royal
Palm Hotel slated for demolition.
Since the City Commission must ultimately approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for
Demolition, a public hearing will be fully noticed with a time certain of 5:00 pm for the November
18 City Commission meeting,
Zoning Issues
Setbacks
The Royal Palm / Shorecrest site received variances on December 13, 1996, in order to retain and
renovate portions of the two existing hotel buildings and construct two new hotel tower additions,
The nature of the variances were relative to the setbacks of the new construction, as well as loading
space requirements and the setback for decks. The existing buildings did not require any setback
variances since historic structures may retain their respective existing setbacks regardless of the total
value of the rehabilitation and additions, combined,
Should the existing Royal Palm building be demolished, any new construction that follows the
original building's footprint would require a modification to the variance previously granted along
the north side property line and a modification to the conditions included in the Board of
Adjustment's final order relative to the rehabilitation of the original building,
Parking
At the time the building permit was issued for the Royal Palm Crowne Plaza project, the parking
requirements were calculated as follows:
Royal Palm Shorecrest Total
Total Units 257 165 422
Units in existing building 50 0 50
Net units requiring parking 207 165 372
Parking requirement @ ,75/unit 156 124 280
There are no parking requirement for uses within the existing historic structures, The parking
requirements for the accessory uses were satisfied using the unit bonus provision in the Ordinance.
The 280 required parking spaces were satisfied with 106 spaces on site and 174 provided in the 16
Street Parking Garage in accordance with the development agreement between the RDA and RDP
Royal Palm Hotel, Ltd.
Should the existing Royal Palm building be demolished, and the uses contained therein replaced on
site, either a modified agreement to provide additional spaces in the 16 Street Garage or the payment
of a parking impact fee shall be required, Assuming fifty units are within the new construction and
any accessory uses parking requirement is satisfied through the unit bonus provision, thirty-eight
(38) additional parking spaces will have to be dedicated in the 16 Street Garage as meeting the
requirement or an impact fee of $190,000 will be required for the issuance of the modified building
permit.
Building Department
As of the date of this L.T.C., the Building Department was checking on the availability and pricing
of structural engineering firms to review the test results and provide and independent third party
OpInIOn,
Legal/Contractual Issues
Liability /Exposure
There are two primary documents that govern the relationship between the Miami Beach
Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency"), and RDP Royal Palm Hotel Limited Partnership (the
"Developer"), the developer of the Hotel. These are the Ground Lease and the Hotel Development
Agreement. The Agency owns the land underlying the Hotel. Title to the buildings on the land was
transferred to RDP by Special Warranty Deed on May 28, 1998,
Section 5.1 of the Hotel Development Agreement provides, in part, that:
"The Owner has not made and does not make any representations as to the physical
or structural condition. value. adequacy or fitness for use of any equipment or
systems in the Existin~ Hotels, or the presence on or about the Existing Hotels of any
substance or material which is or may hereafter be subject to any Environmental
Laws, including, without limitation, Hazardous Materials, or any other matter or
thing affecting or related to the Existing Hotels, and Developer hereby expressly
acknowled~es that no such representations have been made. and Developer further
acknowled~es that it has in~ected the Existin~ Hotels and a~rees to take the same
"as is". in such condition as the same may be in on the date of delivery of the deed
thereto." [emphasis added]
The Section 18.2 of the Ground Lease provides, in part, that:
"Tenant accepts the Premises in existin~ condition and state of rta>air and Tenant
confirms that: except for the representation contained in Section 18.1 (and any
other representation expressly set forth in this Lease), (i) .1lQ representations.
statements. or warranties. exPress or implied. have been made by. or on behalf of.
Owner with re~t to the Premises or the transactions contemplated by this Lease,
the status of title thereto (except as set forth in Exhibit 2.1 attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein), the physical condition thereof (including but not
limited to subsurface conditions)",.," [emphasis added]
Section 18.1 and Exhibit 2.1 are not relevant to the condition of the property. The City Attorney has
advised that these sections of the documents, and other factual and legal matters, indicate that the
RDA does not have any legal liability to the Developer for the condition of the Royal Palm Hotel.
Modifications and/or Amendments to the Development Agreement
With regard to the modifications and/or amendments to the Ground Lease, Hotel Development
Agreement and other documents in connection with the development of the Royal Palm Crowne
Plaza Hotel, it is apparent that the Plans and Specifications and the Development Cost Budget will
have to be modified, however, it is too early to determine whether other amendments to documents
will be necessary. As of the date hereof, the City Attorney's staff does not believe that any extensive
amendments will be necessary. Any an all amendments will be brought before the City
Commission! Redevelopment Agency as necessary in a timely fashion.
Royal Palm Crowne Plaza Project - Impact to Timing
Pursuant to the outcome of the Historic Preservation and Design Review Board meetings, the
developer will prepare a new timeline for the project. In the interim, the architect is preparing
plans for the re-design of the hotel and piling work continues on site.
SR/C~:KOB
Attachments
T -
_ flC::r
BILZIN SUM8ERG DUNN PRICE & AxELROD LLP
A PARTNERSHIP OF F'ROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
2500 FIRST UNION FINANCIAL CENTER
200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOUI.EVARD' MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131-2336
TELEPHONE (3051374-7580 'INFO~'Lf~'C~~ C < .,
FA)(13051374-759:3'BROWARDI9541~62.6a08- I '. ~"_'~
CARTER N, McDOWELL, P.A.
DIRECT DIAL 13051350-2355
E.MAIL cmcdowell@Bilzin.com
October 22, 1998
Dean J, Grandin, Jr.
Planning and Zoning Director
City of Miami Beach
Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Re: Royal Palm Hotel
Dear Mr. Grandin:
On behalf of RDP Royal Palm Hotel LP ("RDP"), the long term lessee of the
Royal Palm/Shorecrest site, please accept this letter as a formal request for a expedited
special meeting of the Historic Preservation Board and/or if necessary the Joint Historic
Preservation/Design Review Board to consider a request to, modify the existing
Certificate of Appropriateness (file numbler 8085J) to allow the immediate demolition of
the existing Royal PallJl Hotel and to beg:in consideration of theappropriate
re lacement of this historic structure. RDP would prefer not to have to make this
request, however, as explaine below and in the attached correspondence based on
extensive concrete core samples and structural analysis of the existing structure it has
been determined by: (1) Aquitectonica, the project architect; (2) Riva, Timmons and
Partners, the project structural engineer I::>f record; (3) Hershell Gill Consulting
Engineers, Inc., the project peer review structural engineer; and (4) AGT Architects and
Thorn Grafton, the Historic Preservation Architects for the project, that the existing
Royal Palm Hotel structure cannot be repaired in such a way as to meet the structural
requirements of the South Florida Building Code. (See copies of letters the consultants
attached to this letter.)
As you are aware, all parties including both the City and RDP believed that
based on the preliminary analysis that th,e Royal Palm Hotel structure could be repaired
and preserved. Indeed, all of the plans, approvals and permits issued to date have
incorporated the Royal Palm structure based on the assumption that it could be
repaired to meet the South Florida Building Code requirements. Once RDP was
allowed to begin interior demolition within the Royal Palm structure, it became apparent
G:\DMS\73190\ 10200\0211665.01
10/22198
B,LZIN SUMBERG DUNN PRICE & AXELROD LLP
Dean J. Grandin, Jr,
Page 2
to all parties that the deterioration of the existing structure was much more extensive
than originally realized. As the interior demolition revealed more of the underlying
structure it was determined by both the City Building Department and the project design
team that additional structural testing would be required to determine the extent of the
damage,
On October 14. 1998, A TC Associates Inc, reported the results of tests on
twenty-five concrete core samples taken throughout the seven story Royal Palm
structure. (See copy of the Report attached to this letter,) The results of these tests
show that twenty-two of the twenty-five tests taken were below the minimum Building
Code standard of 3,000 PSI. Moreover, the average PSI for the tests taken on the first
level of the structure was only 1,843 PSI. This is of particular concern as the first level
obviously carries the heaviest loads. The weak condition of the concrete is further
complicated by the fact that the chloride content substantially exceeds the maximum
permitted level under the applicable codes, As a result, the existing concrete itself is
causing the corrosion and ultimate failure of the reinforcing steel. This condition has
been described as a "cancer", causing the internal destruction of the Royal Palm Hotel
structure which can only be remedied through complete removal of the existing
concrete, In short, this structure cannot be saved because it will continue to self-
destruct even with repair and reinforcement.
In light of the above findings, the design team including Thorn Grafton have
begun further documenting the existing conditions at the Royal Palm in particular the
exact configuration and materials of the lobby and the western facade of the building,
This effort is greatly enhanced by the fact that there is a substantially complete set of
the original building drawings, RDP is committed to immediately providing complete
and thorough documentation of the historic condition of the lobby and western facade,
Further, RDP is hereby committing to the City of Miami Beach and the Historic
Preservation Board that if it is approved by the City and its various boards that RDP will
faithfully reconstruct a western facade and lobby of the Royal Palm based on the
documentation of the existing condition and the historical building plans, This will
include documentation based on preservation of actual samples of the materials in the
lobby area and all of the important architectural details. We are therefore seeking
immediate permission from the City of Miami Beach to begin taking appropriate
samples of these materials under the close supervision of William Cary, the City's
Historic Preservation Officer,
We are aware that there may be a divergence of opinion within the historic
preservation community and particularly the Historic Preservation Board about the most
appropriate way to replace the western facade and lobby area of the Royal Palm Hotel.
G:\DMS\73190\10200\0211665,01
10/22/98
BILZIN SUMBERG DUNN PRICE & AXELROD LLP
Dean J, Grandin, Jr,
Page 3
We are committed to working with the City, as the landlord, and the Historic
Preservation/Design Review Board staff and the Joint Boards to quickly develop an
appropriate set of plans for the replacement of the Royal Palm Hotel.
As we have explained in our various meetings with you and other City officials,
the fact that this condition was not fully revealed until the interior demolition of the Royal
Palm had substantially progressed has created significant timing problems for RDP,
The contractor is progressing with site work and the already approved partial demolition
of the eastern most addition to the Royal Palm at the current time, Under the expected
construction schedule, the contractor is due to begin staging site excavation followed by
for installation of pilings and foundation on the site beginning in the first week of
November, Unfortunately, the structural engineers have advised that if additional work
in undertaken on the site which causes significant vibration either within the Royal Palm
Hotel structure and/or in the areas immediately surrounding it that the existing hotel
structure could fail. Moreover, assuming that the existing Royal Palm structure must be
demolished we would need to undertake that demolition work before we stage the
installation of piling and foundation work on the site so that there is not a conflict
between those two operations.
If we are to avoid truly significant delay in the construction of this project. we
would need authorization for the demolition of the Royal Palm Hotel structure by
October 30, 1998 which is next Friday. We are therefore requesting that the City call
an emergency special meeting of the Historic Preservation Board as early as possible
next week in order for that Board to consider authorization of the demolition of the
Royal Palm Hotel. As always, we appreciate your continuing cooperation and
assistance, We would also like to extend an invitation to the Historic Preservation
Board members to individually view the condition of the building prior to the meeting. If
any Board member would like to view the building, we would ask that they contact your
office and that your office contact Michelle Kohler at 305-995-5330 so that we can
arrange for them to safely view the building, We are prepared to provide any
information you may reasonably need and or help in any way we can in order to assist
in setting up this special meeting as soon as possible.
CNM:zoe
G:\DMS\73190\10200\0211665.01
10/22198
81LZIN SUMBERG DUNN PRICE & AXELROD LLP
Dean J. Grandin, Jr.
Page 4
cc: R. Donahue Peebles
Chris Bruch
Sergio Rodriguez
Janet Gavarette
Christina Cuervo
William Cary
G:\DMS\73190\10200\0211665.01
10/22/98
- ___. ,,,,.0.;,_. ..~:_ .. OV/
ARauJ/~CI ONICA
T,IephoneJ05/J72 1812 refalo J05/J72 1175
October 18, 1998
Mr, Chris A. Bruch, Development Director
DONOHOE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
2101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20007
FAX: 202 333 5394 and 305 604 8266
RE: Existing Royal Palm Hotel Structural Issues
Dear Chris,
Attached you will find Doug Timmons letter summarizing his final determination on how
to proceed with the existing Royal Palm Hotel building. Our Historic Preservation
architect, is in the process of evaluating the structural situation and preparing to outline
the process of historic re-construction. Substantial documentation has already taken
place to date and the additional documentation is being performed at this time in
anticipation of a mass-demolition of the existing building that its 'Historically consistent'
re-construction by our team. Shortly the Historic Architect will be submitting his own
written statement concerning the process.
We have also asked Hershell Gill our peer review engineer to review all the testing data
provided by ATC and to form an independent opinion. As a result of his personal walk-
thru at the building he has already grasped the extend of the structural problems with the
historic structure, as a result of his walk.thru he had offered an early opinion letter back
on September 10, 1998. However he is now providing a more scientifically calibrated
opinion based on the results to the A TC testing data, Attached you will find his letter.
It is evident by the results of the tests performed by A TC and the severely deteriorated
structural frame of the building that the best coarse of action would be to re-construct
rather than re-store the existing Royal Palm Hotel structure. This is the opinion of our
structural engineers and in general the opinion of all the experts that have witnessed the
condition~ of this structure, now that it is all striped intemally and that we have the
concrete test results.
Please call me if you need additional information on this matter.
~
'ein~1 0 ~rges. RA
Project Manager
Attached RTP letter dated October 19. 1998, Hershell Gill Letter dated October 19, 1998
cc: Bernardo Fort-Brescia, Don Peebles, Richard Matlof, Daniel Grim, File
Ardll'reCfUre PI,Jnning Inrerior Design
RsgisTmian #AA C000465
i "',,-,1" r-<.lV,", 11Hf'.1Ut~:::; PARTNER 305 667 2168
P.2
RIVA, TIMMONS & PARTNERS
CONSULTINGSTRUcrURAL ENGINEERS
4914 S,W. 72 Avenue
Miami, Florida 33155
Douglas B, Timmons., P,E,
October 19, 1998
(305) 661-Q31O Phone
(305) 667-2168 Fax
, Arquitectonica lntemational
550 BrickeIl Avenue
Miami, Florida 33131
A TTN: Mr, Reinaldo Borg~s
RE: The Existing Royal Palm Hotel
REINALDQ: After reviewing the concrete tests and final report prepared by A TC, Tam
recommending that the existing structure be condemned and entireJy demolished. This
opinion is based on a visual walk"thiu in addition to the test results, which indicate that
22 of the 25 tests taken are below 3000 psi which is industry standard on the low end.
The average of the three tests taken at the first level is ] 843 psi. Further 20 of 25
chloride ion tests exceed the .2% value allowed by the current ACI ~e.
The low .concrete tests in the ftrst level 8:l"e a serious . co~cern because these columns are
the 1l1ost highly stressed. In addition, due to historical preservation, a large percentage of
the first floor is not demolished, In general the columns expoSed to date have a high
level of deterioration at this level, There is a possibility that further interior demolition
could cause alpCalized collapse
In my professional opinion, 100% of the concrete and masonry should be replaced above
the foundations; Further inspection of the foundation is required before' a final decision
is made, The high chloride ion concentrations make a' partial repair of this structure
impossible. The existing feinforcingand any new reinforcing which is added will
continue to deteriorate if the contaminated concrete is not removed and replaced Finally
the condition of the fIrSt level columns indicate that further interior demolition in this
area may be extremely dangerous.
Sincerely,
RIV A, TIMM:ONS & PARTNERS
OCT,20,1998 10:35AM
OCT-19-98 MON 5:02 PM 1 GlLL CONSLT ENGRS
!'lO.80S P.2
P. 1
HERSI-fELL GJLL CONSULTING ENGiNEERS, iNC.
4e01 Po"'ce de LeQl'" BMl, I 8\o1lte ::leO I 001"111 13.~I.. I J:lon:lB :!3~ ~el r (30151 ..?~e3" I FilII: {~, IISe.HaS
October 19, 1998
Mr. Reinaldo Borges
ARQUIT!CTONICA
550 Brick." Avenue, Suite 200
Miami. Florida 33131
Referenee: ROYAL PALM HOTEL
HGCE File: 9821 RP
Dear Rainaldo:
We have reviewed the results of the concrete testing, for the exiating ROYAL PALM
HOTEL. The resu'ts indicate that:
1 , A high level of Oh/orides ill present in the concrete.
2. The average concrete compressive strength isle" than 2,500 psI, with
a low value of 1,520 p&i.
Our Inspection of the structure on September 5. 1998 revealed very substantial
structural deterioration of tne r;alabs, columns, and lateral resisting membel't. The
high 'evel of chlorides in the concrete will cause further deterioration of the concrete
and reinforcing steel.
Therefore, the opinion Of this office remaiMs (as prevlou.ly stated in our September
10, HlgS letter) that this structure should be demolished,
~,I/f/
MIChael O. Fried, P,5.
(95211. TR4)
U~l-lb-~~ FRI ~~;~~ ~M RTEC RSSOCIATES
131058821210'"
P.02
9955 NI/V 116 Way, Su:tel
Miami, Flonda 33178
305.882,8200
Fax 305882,1200
ASSOCIATfS INC,
October 14, J 998
RP Royal Palm Hotel
Clo Donohoe Development
210 1 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20CX17
Attn.: Mr. Christopher A. Bruch
RE: Report on Core and Chloride Testing
Royal Palm Crowne Plaza
1535 Collins A venue
Miami Beach, Florida
ATe Proiect # 03657.<XX>2
Dear Mr. Bruch,
A TC Associates Inc. (ATe) has completed the requested and authorized concrete coring and
chloride-ion content testing for the above subject project. This report contains the results of the test
results and data obtained.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The proposed scope of services for this project included obtaining four c:oncrece cores from each of
the seven floors of the subject building for a toCal of 28 QOreS. At taeh proposed core location a
pachometer was used to scan for the presence of embedded reinforcing steeJ, prior to coring. The
data obtained was used to minimize the potential of ~tting through the concrete reinforcing steel
during concrete coring operations.
Due to the lower than expected compressive strength feSt results from the first seven core tests, the
structural engineer of record suspended the coring operation. Twenty-five of the planned 28 cores
were completed. Each of the extracted concrete cores were air-dried, trimmed, capped, measured,
and tested for compressive strength. The concrete core test daJa and compressive strength test
results are included in this report.
Concrete dust was extracted from the concrete cores and an acid soluble chloride-ion content test on
hardened concrete was performed. The conducted test measures the acid soluble chloride-ion
content as a percentage of the concrete sample weight. An adjustment was made to report the
chloride-ion content as a percentage of cement weight The chloride-ion content test results are
included in this report.
._ "'_ '~f'. Il..o',.-.-J"'"T '" ........__ ""'...;J..J'-''-'.'''''I~~
RDP Royal Palm Hotel
C/o Dooohoe Development
..;>c;)~oo.......:.c;)c;)
r-.~..:>
ATC Project No,; O~6j7.0001
p&go2
CHLORIDE-ION CONTENT
The chloride-ion content tests were conducted in general accordance with ASTM C-114, Section
19. The acid soluble chloride-ion content listed below (concrete %CL<->> is the measured test value
reported as a percentage of the concrete dust sample weight, approximately 1.5 grams. This
measured value was then adjusted by a factor of eight to arrive at a chloride-ion content as a
percentage of the estimated cement weight.
:::;::C~:N6~":!::: ....
:: l ~nf~~:':~';~:; ;.~ ~th ~ H)t :t\~ ~; H;: i ~
.., ~"::' :';',:.::: :'~= l:,~::~: :':: ~::::::;: ',~,
,- '. :' ~~:,:=.~. :x:' :-:::: =::::'::
< < .. ~:, ," ,;;: =:: :::::::
:,:' >,
".."
.
#4
#8
# 10
112
# 15
# 1
13
IS
#7
#9
#11
, 13
# 14
# 16
117
'18
'19
#20
127
128
#29
#30
#34
2- Floor, Column RPS/RPE
4. Floor, Column RP8/RPE
sea Floor. Column RPS/RPE
6" Floor, Column RP8/RPE
r Floor, CoIuLM RP8/RPE
1" Floor, Column RPS/RPE
1" Floor 1 Column RPS/RPE
2- Floor, Column RP8/RPE
3'" Floor, Column RPS/RPE
4" Floor, Column RP8/RPE
S- Floor, Column RP8/RPE
6. Floor, Column RP8IRPE
r Floor, Column RP8IRPE
..,. Floor, Column RP8IRPE
6" Floor. Column RP8IRPE
S- Floor, Column RP8/RPE
4. Floor, Column RP8IRPE
3'" Floor, Column RP8/RPE
3" Floor, Column RP8IRPE
4. Floor, Column RP8IRPE
4. Floor, Column RPS/RPE
S* Floor, Column RPS/RPE
.,. Floor, Column RPS/RPE
i imr~I~~1:I!'i~!'~~!i~i'iJ!;I~),l~!,!
0,0720 0,576
0,1200 0,960
0.0125 0,100
0.00S4 0,043
0,0920 0,736
0,0540 0.432
0.2600 2.08
0.1050 O,S40
0.0630 0.504
0.0710 0,568
0.0460 0,368
0.0080 0,064
0.0180 0.144
0.0052 0.042
0.0300 0,240
0.0270 0,216
0.0720 0,576
0.0700 0.560
0,2050 1.640
0,5100 4,080
0.2500 2.000
0,5200 4.160
0.2250 1.800
OCT-16-96 FRI 04:35 PM ATEC ASSOCIATES
13056621200
P.04
RDP Royal Palm Hotel
C/o Doooboc Development
ATC Project No,; 03657.0002
page 3
CONCRETE CORE TEST DATA
':.: .. :,~::::~::~: :):~:
::~:: .: ~;: :::::::-:.: ":::'(0::
:: ::~~~~n: :;: ~:j E{ UI r
'",. . ". " .,,,, ., """ . ,.:'
;~~,; ';~iI~i, ,[)(~.l: :~iii;~"" ..
';':~@h:'~:
'.:'HAfter!:/
':':~pp!rlg
:;':;>J"TPrichesg:
.:..:::..:.::::::..: ::':. ::..:::,.-.:-.,..
'DWneter
dt.;'9~sf':
2 4,104 2.995 1.37 0.94 11,963 7,04 1600 1
4 3.489 1.986 1.76 0,98 8,394 5.09 2670 2
6 2,363 1.969 1,20 0.93 7,062 3.04 2160 3
g 3.8G8 1,990 19.5 N/A 5,705 3.11 1830 ..
10 3.116 1.983 1.57 0.97 4,850 3.09 1520 .5
12 3.987 1,983 2,01 N/A 6,082 3,09 1970 6
15 3.138 1.981 1.53 0.97 &,056 3.08 1910 7
5 4.149 1.991 2,03 N/A 7.740 3,11 2,490 2
7 3,327 1.947 1.71 0,93 6,132 3,00 2010 3
9 3,864 1.992 1.94 N/A 6,861 3.12 2,200 4
11 4.068 1.989 2.05 N/A 7,81& 3,11 2,.'H 0 .5
13 3,990 1,978 2.02 N/A 7,539 3,07 2,460 6
14 3.503 1.984 1.77 0,93 6,88& 3,09 2,180 7
16 3,916 1,989 1.97 N/A 9,424 3.11 3,030 7
17 3.688 1.986 1.86 0.99 3,947 3,10 2,860 6
18 3.676 1,984 1.&~ 0.99 12,968 S,09 4,160 .5
19 3.965 1.964 2.02 N/A 6,534 S.03 2,160 4
20 2.312 1.995 1.16 0.91 10,078 3,13 2,930 3
27 3.912 1.966 1.99 N/A 8'" 44 3.03 2,750 3
28 3.31S 1.973 1.63 0,96 9,801 3.06 3,070 4
29 2.163 1.961 1.16 0,91 7,992 3.02 2,410 of
30 3.6'-4 1.966 1.86 0,99 5,152 3.o.c 1,670 .5
34 3.825 1.963 1.95 N/A 9,977 3.02 3,300 7
1 6.089 2,993 2.03 N/A 15,657 7,03 2,230 1
3 3.455 2.935 1.16 0,91 13,094 7.00 1,700 1
Note: Core$ marked (e) were the firsl seven IlJ be lest~d.
RDP Royal Palm Hotel
C/o Donohoe Developmeot
ATC ProjfX;t No.: 036.57,0002
pale 4
UNIT WEIGHT DATA
Seven concrete cores were measured for determining the concrete unit weight. An average
concrete unit weight was calculated using five of these values, the high and low value was not used
in this calculation. The unit weight data is as follows:
"':~~~N~~:"'. :~{:'j;)ry'~~:,[::l .,:![j'lY~:.:::; :':W~~i~p:'m< ,'::"S~Qijw.y::::. ,..Hyli.#'wiH;:;:;
# 3 171.2
# 1 583.0
# 17 156.2
# 34 204.7
# 28 190.0
# 16 86.7
# 6 197,7
Pr7 gsop 1.968 122.4
307 85Clp 1.899 118.1*
75 85<F 2.083 129.5
95 85<F 2.155 134,0*
91 8SClp 2.088 129.9
41 8SClp 2.115 131.5
96 850p 2,059 128.1
Note:
1. Unit weights marked (*) were not used in unit weight average calculation,
2. The average unit weight of the above concrete cores is 128.3 Jbs. per cu. ft.
Using the above average unit weight of 128.3, an estimated weight per cubic yard of concrete
of 3500 pounds was calculated. It is assumed that the concrete was designed as a standard
3,OOO-psi mix, with approximately 425 pounds of cement per cubic yard. Therefore, the
weight of cement is approximately 12 percent of the total concrete weight. A value of 8 was
used to adjust the measured concrete chloride-ion content to estimate the chloride-ion content
as a percentage of cement weight.
Respectfully submitted,
A TC Associates Inc.
Operations Manager
~~JLItI
13el:588212elel
OCT-16-98 FR I el4: 37 PM ATEC ASSOf_I.~T.ES __.
:II
o
-<
.
,...
'V
.
r-
J:
U~
Ui
u;
.
~
::a
tIl
en
o
:II
-(
tIl
)(
in
gf ~
i~ '8
~a ~
,;
>-
~
~
~
f' ~
If C"')
IS ~
J. ~
I! ~
1& ~ .....
~ , I.
J. . i"
.--- ---.-----
I
,
I
I
I
---11g
"---, 1-
r ---j-----, -jT-" '--T! r-----" rt-'--nrr'---
'i I' ! /< tt i //'1 I ~ 1/' jll' I
i Ii: , I: i ~ ~ : ,1; !,i ,
. I, ! ' i 1/ f ': · E I '.' I! I I :
L L ~ill,j ,:--' ~'.,'~~,'..L, n_-==i"j~:'-_-l.~~, ~_._-
, t--"!r=:(TIf' r :-~2rlr~- --tlF'!i~ I .
I ',-:',' ,"'-'- '.., -----~ :
~ ,~-=--: ;t,-'. -, ' ':, ~
/n ='-7- - -,' . , , - .' - - :. - t ~
!.ir4:-~~~' oo.+----.. ~
i !; ,L:.-~:-,:,!' ,i i i ~
-G"~ - -.=-' .---..--
I : ;"-"1--- . I ;.---"
; I I J
. ; i . i j _ _ _' U:~=I
t--- -----__- _.
;: il,!1 i
:~:::' ; - Ii. - -!-+ .<ao-' - - -.--.
, .;.1. ,. 10
I II I j I 1 I i
i 'Ii ~ Ii '
-:- . '1-:'-r~'4----'-'--'
! ! Ii! I! j
I 1, I I, I
-~- . ,.W--.l-----'----.-oo--.
! i i j! '! i
-,- Lit . - I, ,----..., --.-.
I -_.. .._.,_.._..___..
: I ~ I I I
" I'I!,,' t 'I' i~ Ii
- ~ , ;; I . ~ ~ " 11 :::::l
~== .. ~ -. ~--I!~ -fdk ~ WI
I I! I ' j I '
. .1, I, i, I ~'-_
_t_ i! -w /1 --k-- ------L- ~
j II I' ,- - -i I - I" = ==..:.:=--.! -~ - I -.;....
. i' : ~ t 1
, :-:r ,..:-=--=,1-1- - ~ . -- . =:~:::.:a::::::- -. _..'.. CD
-1- - _I . -- -+ _ __
,
'-r
,
.
-~
P.el6
l.
_ . '"~-:::..........~.::-=-_''' ,...,,__ ,..,___,-.,..,.c.:..J
"":>cJ~004.."QU
1'1'1
)(
81;
~j:
i~ ~
4; ~
,,,
~
,..
I:
:b
~
~
fi~
I. ~
Uro.:.
JI ii
I! ~
I!~
". I I'
N. .
:u
o
-<
~
,..
"
~
,
Ug
U~
n~
>
~
21
1'1'1
en
o
:D
...
cr
i ! / ! i : ! Iii
_oj _I i_II i I i Ii
-j~ ~ ~ ~-Je---_.
, '. I' " ' ,
, . I ! I .
, I.j__ '_ r' j
. ~'--I
I ,I, r
--"-- .-'1
I I .
,
I I I !'
---/-- --y -.I '_
j I I
-;1- :: : 1-
-'-r- --h---j
i i Ii,
---~-, ..-.-
ii' I i
. I . ______,
---,- -n--', q II
i I I' I ~ W:11
. . i !I
N -'-r-. -h.--~-.,
I' I'
I , I
---r- .4---!
I I I I
~rl
r- . lU .
1
fl
.~
,
I
.
r'"
- ....
...
:,.{i)
-A~
~-~
.~
.+00
,
.-kID
,
-r
-~
,
- -i-<ID
-~
,
,
-~
,
-~
-JW
_J
1.3<:1588212<:1<:1
P.0S
_-r.......... r.j ,...,jc:..~ H.-....;:".,.I'-~f""tIC..;:I>
:u
o
-<
~
,..
'"Cl
~
r-
~
fg~
Ui
U~
~
N
~
:u
m
en
o
;g
-4
m
)(
en
-4
Z
C)
:u
o
-<
~
"0
~
r-
I:
:b.
i!
~
fi ~
II ~
H ~
,. ~
I! ~ w
~ e :t:i;
. I I.
~ I ~.
l
-0-
$
....'-' -'-' .f'.... ........,....._ '" '-'lc-''- .......;:>~V'-J.......IC..;:>
~
:t..
~
~
Ii ~
., ~
. J ,...,
,. ;e
I! ~
IS ~
.. , I'
.. I
.....:.O.;:;.OO4.J...c:.~u
r'.1(;17
.-.-.....-..- --
-.-
--~
:0
o
-<
)-
,..
"0
.
,..
J:
fig
Ui
n;
.
t
Cf/
, . . i _.~
i ! i ! i : ! i i i :
i ! i !! ~ ! i i i I
_.~.~,-~.~,--_.- '-r' Il:
. '. I' i' . , N
, ,I. I
.. __I j_. . _.1 :. . j I-~
'I'!)'-'!' "I' .~
-'!', (.-., .~
--~
.
.~
.
-r
,
,
.~
,
. fa>
-r
,
.
-~
,
---'-' , -~
. --T-<i)
/
1 I
j
:II
"'
en
o
:0
-f
"'
)C
iii
00(
2
I:)
:II
o
-<
~
. ,
I I' I'
, I.
_._~- .y --)- "
I I i
-.-r-
tl I: j'
-'-r- -'N'-.'-' "---.-.
"! ! ii,
-"-~- .-J.
i j i i i
---("- -.;.-.....,..--..- - -- ::x:1____
I I I I q II
'. . ~ II
I I I I' rr=::J
, ,I II
~ -'-r- '!@-'!=f' '-
I' I'
I ,I,
_._~- .4.-,! '
, I' I
I , I l:
. If~ I r
'V
)0
,..
J:
_ I '1'1.... I
.
i
c
._ _, ,'... _'. ,_ . .. ....__ r"I_....._'-._.~~
!- ---
.....:>cJ..:Joo"...'""~~
~
o
-<
,.
r-
,.
,.
r-
a:
u~
u~
u:
,.
N
,.
:D
1'1
en
o
:D
~
:b
~
~
fi~
II -
., d
Jr ~
,I ~
18 ~
t ! I:
-j~
1'1
><
in
-1
Z
I:)
:D
o
-<
,.
r-
~
,.
r-
J:
~- '.-.--
. I
.; t#j ~~
I II
, ,
I I' j'
, .
_.-~- -4 -,) .
I I i
---,--
tl :: I'
-'-r- h --j .
i --i i i
. I I f
_._~- _._~
, ' I I
I I' I I
,I .
-'-f-' '!f'-'! . m--il---.
I i!
I I j I :;:::1
. ,S i!
U1 ---t- -h---!~" ,."
I' I'
I ,I.
---r- .4.-~
I' I
I , I
1t~1
,.... ! '"
-~--
erl
l
I
I
.~
,
I
,
-r""
. ...
..
.~
.~
.~-@
--~
,
.-tw
-~
,
,
.t<ID
I
-~
-~
,
,
'~
.
I
-~
,
.~
I -
:xl
o
-<
)t
,..
"0
:to
r-
E
II~
n~
U~
)t
N
)t
:D
'"
en
o
:D
...
~
i!
~
fi~
.f ~
. J ,...,
'II ~
I! ~
.~ ~
I!' I I'
... .
@
I
'"
)(
in
2
C)
:II
o
-<
~
'V
)t
~
i
--i-@
i i i ! i : i i ! j :
i ! i !! ~ ! i ! i !
--~-4--~-~-_._- --fID5
, , I' I' ,
, ,I, I
,'.1.1__ '_I: 'j _A
-/ -,/'--! . I _.~
-',' ,'--j - .~
" , - . -i-<ID!3
, ,
I' I'
r I. '
- . - ~ - !-f - -1 . . I l'
" . ~
I ,/ i--t-w
--; r- :: !' I 2
--r- -'r---: - '---'- ~- '~
, I
_._~- .._~, ._~
' i i
-'-1'-- - --,---. -~:!
:r
II
I 1I
~ -'-r- - -~
I
.
-.-t-- -- --'-'-- -, .~
I '
'1'1 -~
I '
21
o
-<
>
...
~
>
...
I:
fig
U~
it;
>
~
21
"'
'"
o
21
...
):.
~
S
f' iiI
II 0
.~ ~
,. ~
I! rs
.. ~
~ ! i:
..
.-- ..----. -- .------~---
. .--- -----
crl
"-}W
i ! i i j :: i j j i :
i !! ! i I ! i ! i I
-8~ -.I-.~.-~,~-- -r' '"
I ,', I' i' " --q -- ~
. ,I, I
.: ..'1-- ' 1:_ 'j .J@
I .1'-'1 ",. --~
-',',!'--1 -~
_.~
-~
-tv
,
-p
,
- i-<ID
--r
,
, '~
,
.~
,
.~
"'
x
o
...
z
CO)
::ID
o
-<
>
,.
"'Ill
>
,..
J:
I
_._~-
I
_._~-
tl
-'-r-
,
I
_._~-
,
I
-"-I--
I
I
--... -. -r -.
,
I
_._~-
.
I
If~1
, ,
I' I'
I ,
.4 -.1 .
I '
, I
! I
I' I'
,I .
-h--'! " '-'-'--
I' I
,I ,
..-J.
i i i i
'r'--j" m...~____
,I " it 1:
. tit ;
I I I . :;==.1
, ,i ,I
'h--'~' I -
I' I'
,I ,
.4--,1
, ,
I' I
, I c:
I
10...
_:~
\ I.
I I
I
I
I
OCT-28-98 WED 05:06 PM ATEC ASSOCIATES
130:58821200
P.02
9955 ~ 116 Way, Suite 1
Miami. Florida 33178
305882.8200
Fax 305.882,1200
ASSOCIATES INC.
October 28, 1998
RP Royal Palm Hotel
C/o Donohoe Development
2101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20Cffl
Attn.: Mr. Christopher A. Bruch
RE: Report on Chloride Testing
Royal Palm Crowne Plaza
1535 Collins Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida
ATC PrQject # 03657.0002
Dear Mr. Bruch,
ATC Associates Inc. (ATC) has completed the requested and authorized concrete coring and
chloride-ion content testing for the above subject project. This report contains the results of the test
results and data obtained.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The proposed scope of seIVices for this project included obtaining concrete dust samples from two
of the five facade support columns on each floor level from the second to the seventh floor,
Concrete dust samples were also taken from two locations within the first floor slab and from two
locations of a first floor grade beam. A total of 16 concrete dust samples were tested for acid
soluble chloride content.
CHLORIDE-ION CONTENT
The chloride-ion content tests were conducted in general accordance with ASTM C-114, Section
19. The acid soluble chloride-ion content listed below is reported as a percentage of the concrete
dust sample weight, approxirnatcly 1.5 grams. This measured value wasthen adjusted by a factor
of eight to arrive at a chloride-ion content as a percentage of the estimated cement weight.
OCT-28-98 WED 05:07 PM ATEC ASSOCIATES
13058821200
P.03
RDP Royal Palm Hotel
C/o Doooboe Development
ATe Project No.: 03657,0002
pA&e 2
~~--
FIG First Floor Grade Beam 0.0320 0.2560
FIGB First Floor Grade Beam 0.0088 0.0704
Fl First Floor DeskArea 0.0900 0.7200
Fl First Floor Northwest Corner 0.0360 0.2880
2 Facade 0.0700 0.5600
2 Facade 0.0490 0.3920
3 Facade 0.2050 1.6400
3 Facade 0,0270 0,2160
4 Facade 0.1500 1.2000
Facade 0.0340 0,2720
5 Facade 0.0058 0.0464
5 Facade 0.0500 O.
6 Facade 0.0046 0,0368
Facade 0.0090 0.0720
7 Facade BDL BDL
7 Facade 0.0066 0.0528
Please call us should you have any questions or desire additional information, Thank you for
this opportunity.
Respectfully submitted,
:P?it~
Laughn Drouillard
Operations Manag