HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190718 47 Caroline St Wall Biggs Corr 11-8-18 Biggs Consulting
Engineering LLC
26F Congress St,#305
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Telephone:(518)495-5739
E-mail:biggsconsulting r@att.net
www.biggsconsulting.net
November 8, 2018
Mr. Jeff Pintuff
Places of Saratoga, LLC
do Robert J. May, Esq.
Lemery Greisler, LLC
60 Railroad Place, Suite 502
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Re: 47 Caroline Street
Saratoga Springs, NY
Biggs Consulting Engineering 537-18
Dear Mr. Pintuff:
As requested by Mr. May, 1 made site observations of the north wall of the existing building at 47
Caroline Street on November 7, 2018. Your new building proposed for 73 Henry Street that will
cover the north wall_ This report is to provide recommendations for repairs to 47 Caroline
Street's north wall prior to the new construction.
I met with an owner of 47 Caroline St. who allowed me access to the crawl space in his building
as well as the second floor apartment adjacent to the north wall.
Figures 1 and 2 show the north wall of 47 Caroline Street. There are remnants of two old roofing
lines (see arrows).
n - __
,,, \
. ,,_. i 1
40 ,
', 1 -,..
, __ _.. ,1 i
, , - . i --;,.,,..,. tr--..„_77_,..71., . 1 4,4
, ,,, t. ,,.„,..,
, ,-..
, • , .
,., _ \. , __- , ,
. Pille7"----, .''-
7---•:....i ,,
. 1
01
- �. ! `I � i
s
1ej � ' C,htImis.. . s
+. rri r r
{ F�- Six
.64 t.-3 '''''.
,„0Z1:\ii. \ . ., .. ..1 , ,;41. Y
w
.
der 1 +. R[ s p.w+ f Y' -- ' 'f,-
t
.....-.—. - - Ear t r .. ii * ,y
�. ti- `iia"'m.:..-��'s.4R q.�.. - .__ ..a. .._, � ... w. - 1` • � _
Figure 1 -View from northeast Figure 2-View from north
Observations
1. The owner reports that the building dates to the late 1800s. It underwent a major
renovation several years ago where the interior framing for the first and second floors
adjacent to the north wall was replaced. There was an opening from 47 Caroline St. to
73 Henry St(see lower left of Figures 1 and 2). However, it was partially infilled.
2. The north wall is approximately 33 feet long and primarily composed of brick masonry
except that a large portion of the second floor is covered with white sheathing material.
The sheathing appears to be recessed from the brick (arrow, Figure 3). The owner is
uncertain as to whether there is damaged brick underneath or stud framing. There was
no access to check the sheathing or underneath.
t.--,,,,_1/4. - '5?1,04.„, 1- ,
)Ik,
''''.- '1,77.)1k-7,: .--.'N''.- ''...3...,NSSNr ''''''' '''N'-
4--,,,,,,,,,,s114.
--,,,,...,_ ' . -.'''',.,, ''.... , ' ' '•' \ 0,,,
.z
k 1 tea. _,r-..
LA.,,
F '".<:,.'''..,,..,, ..„ ''w. }4 �` y�:4 ",}..'''s ,` t. '�,r
I -- -�..,., t'"` , '� 1�i,
Figure 3—Recessed sheathing
3. The building has a mortared stone masonry foundation and a shallow crawl space. From
the crawl space, I observed new steel beams and wood floor joists. Neither of these
bear on the north wall.
4. The brick wall has at least two wythes (courses thick); there are no header bricks
evident. On the interior, the walls are covered with wallboard over stud framing. The
original masonry wall was not visible from the interior. The interior framing is covered so
it is unclear whetherthe north wall supports the second floor or the roof.
5. I observed one location on the northeast corner where the brick was missing and a nail
was visible from the interior wood studs. This may be the only type of anchorage of the
brick to the interior wood studs.
6. The exterior brick of the north wall has several problems:
a. Missing bricks, damaged bricks, eroded mortar(Figure 4).
BCE 537-18 Page 2
„,,,,,
1„,„
.„'"�`L.... - �•.''' -_�ia-.�?'��� a+....: y.�. ate._ "�. .�•�;r,
Figure 4
b. Plant growth just above the previous roof line (Figure 5).
1
-----1 , "—mo+—.fir'-----' +rn-esy
f !=ma'• ��•~ am. _
;..r-,fir �” — i=±' . •��.-^�' F-- ------_nrN jl• _`.' _4-_�^• - • ,.,-7F'�K"7 —
_ , -4-,
, „_......„...3, r______:::::::::::_i___=;_. e___,:....,____„:_,, _f_,_,:—r—_r--47:7_r__,:-_:_,L___,__::::L.__:.::,___:_:‘,7:::.3. ___,... _, ,
..w\+r.-
..-.rr�-„ —L - � +err.-.ter-'---------
.-e_•.,-------. •' - �µ '- - y _+
�J"'�ti'1r1-`tea-.i.r•.T�'.f.r"""'.•,,--1.-----
' ff
3i��fes. w..�. a -_. -,- _- ._ -. .___._
,..r .,� y.._1f11
Figure 5
c. Figure 5 (dashed upper red line) also shows the approximate upper sloping roof line
of the previous building at 73 Henry Street noted on Figures 1 and 2. The bricks at
this line appear much worse and the joints are fully eroded. The brick wall has a
noticeable bulge generally in the area of the lower dashed red line.
d. Figure 6 is an older image from Google Earth showing the previous building which
was demolished earlier this year. The red arrow indicates the roof slope of 47
Caroline St. pitches north. Figure 7 is taken from Zillow and shows the east edge of
the north wall and the adjacent low roof(red arrow) from the previous building.
BCE 537-18 Page 3
+ ''t`-- 4- s.ter' ,—_-,k•- ;'f } r- -,
r
-R9. .. -G-
#� rte, y' v
,, .. -_ , -' 4 .....,:z r J 1 . _.-'"'' A .A _ - �. '
•
---. •,,,,'c,..,.,--- -:-,,-.1'—'7"Igt
Et -��w� s ` -- , ,. { +4, A
r N'kr -X-'-'..1,7-----,,,,", \ -'-'' 1- --'`'',11°!---- -,: -1-. *---,„›,.....)...1741- :1 ' '' 1, ------'' 1131 ,
44 4 1 itiiiiiiwk- j", ,. ,....:: •,_• . ., . ...,(5",:-..q.., ....,, ...,,,?� �
_ '''-'—M `�►� .ail
. __�._�- _�-mss.___- -�--__ � �_..,-_ ___.-..._
Figure 6 -Aerial view _ Figure 7-East view of north wall
e. Deteriorated opening with cracked and displaced brick (Figure 8). The interior has
been filled in with concrete masonry. However, the masonry is not sealed around
the edges. The wood framing is rotted and the temporary shoring is rotted. The
lower roof line from Figure 1 and 2 is also visible.
i. .. `i '.`- ..-•... ., - �-i:•Vim,•. „.
'"ti--•_ - `-- - - - r - -mow• _•......_'_ .
` u► ,., +yam F'_ _ �l- '- ._r w r y;` -_. `-v-_- ,x k `--
•mow +..-+t•T - "..
f I. .r� -.-.. r ,_mss '�'_�"a'� .. '
;. ______S„ = ''* - `-st.-",',,.-"t0 '- -.\',v -T--,-- —
i1 ' - 1 4/* ,, . 4 1, = ,1 , ,
•
Figure 8-Head of opening in north wall
f. Mortar joint erosion at the northwest corner of west wall (Figure 9). The downspout
is missing and has fallen to below(see arrow).
BCE 537-18 Page 4
{� �. r 1,
y ,
,
i /ff
IR
f{
y'F _ Y e_'
r r'.': }sem..
/ .;
/ : - I '
i ..., , - :,,,-.,,,
Figure 9—Northwest corner
Comments and Recommendations
1. The proposed building at 73 Henry Street will make the north wall of 47 Caroline Street
inaccessible. Figure 10 is taken from the contract documents provided by Mr. Greg
McCauley of Bonacio Construction. The shaded area represents north wall of 47
Caroline. The new building will extend approximately 10.5 feet above the north wall.
meq '=� --------
i!
liii
1 L 11iii._: -..,
ia i'=��„rt'el
f `{! rRrrru.ay
___27_,,sly:
1
4 j1
L. i'€ _.._._J
611
1119 ,._.a.L.,,_
ii
U
Ii
Void between the two walls - I
■11 !1
•:::
swrw.■ li
11
R
Figure 10—Design Section 21A353
BCE 537-13 Page 5
2. The north wall has signs of some previous repairs including repointing and some brick
replacement. There are generally no repairs evident below the upper roof line probably
because the wall was inside the previous Henry St. building and not visible to the owner
of 47 Caroline St.
3. The missing, cracked, damaged and displaced brick should be replaced.
4. The plant growth indicates there has been water leakage into the wall for a long time.
Remove the growth and all the roots.
5. The roofing residue left at the roof lines from previous 73 Henry Street indicates the
roofing material was never adequately fastened to the north wall. The attachment was
only with roofing cement. Thus, these roofing lines were vulnerable to water leaks.
It isn't clear why there was a separate roof line over the doorway. However, the water
damage at the doorway, which was below two lines of roofing, indicates there has been
long-term leakage.
The doorway opening should be partially rebuilt by:
a. Remove the wood. Provide temporary shoring.
b. Mortar fill the gaps around the concrete masonry. Install anchors as needed.
c. Brick in the opening completely; anchor the brick to the concrete masonry and fill the
collar joint solid.
d. Rebuild the displaced brick above the opening.
6. Provide lateral bracing to the brick wall at the bulge. Rebuild the bulge and include new
wall anchors into the existing floor structure.
If no floor anchors are found, add star or plate anchors along the entire wall.
Check the roof level and do the same.
7. The sheathing on the second floor is covering damaged brick or some other mterial. It
should be removed to view what is underneath and repair it as well.
8. Repoint the portions of the north wall that are not rebuilt as well as the northeast corner
of the west wall below the downspout.
9. Due to the age of the wall, use ASTM C270, Type 0 mortar for masonry repointing and
rebuilding.
10. Besides repairing the north wall, another issue that should be addressed is preventing
water infiltration between the new and existing buildings. Figure 10 shows that there is
to be a void between the two walls. Any water that enters this void will be problematic
because there will be no access to correct any damage. Thus, there needs to be a sure
method for preventing water infiltration. The owners of 47 Caroline St. might want to
have the void filled with rigid insulation to improper their building.
Figure 11 shows the new building rendering from the design drawings. The red arrow
highlights that the roof drainage runs toward the new building. Currently, there is a roof
gutter on north wall 47 Caroline St which is to be removed. Thus, an alternate means of
removing roof water and winter ice is necessary.
•
BCE 537-18 Page 6
(-1
•
•
y_
Uthan Loon.Nanny;sr
Figure 11 —New building adjacent to 47 Caroline St.from 4/R200
Figure 12 shows the design detail for the intersection of the new building with the
existing. It too shows the proposed void between the two buildings.
This detail needs to be revised. It will not be adequate to prevent water from getting into
the void space because:
a. The existing roof pitches to the joint. The water and ice will puddle and leak through
at the joint.
b. The metal cover is not a watertight expansion joint. The 1 inch overlap provides no
water resistance.
jj ,,,„!Ll Sr.l.r+.11arrry
1,41 Will
MTttlap.41•11101 rif1!
{` 11lg1']eU1Cr a<l115l AL T,etlt,
fA•,.Tf rllrr l.tiRl rR 4f76[•'}L'MtT,
• li i,6!11'8 IA:SIIII(L13Ml1IY
Void between the two walls
T ITiEv121:i.1:,,,IAT10/5 of mrrAL 9Dlt4+t AT ADJN.7,04T PA
Figure 12--Design Detail 71A405
There are numerous resources for expansion joint detailsthat the architect should
consider. Figure 13 was taken from the Copper Development Association, Inc.
(https://wwiv.copper.orq/applications/architecturerarch dhblarch-
detailslbuildin o ex•ansionhroof ed•es.html . This detail has two key features besides
accommodating expansion. It is metal, like the design detail, which will be more resilient
to snow and ice. It also is elevated off the roof with wood blocking so the rain does not
run directly over the joint. The detail should be installed to prevent water and ice from
getting through the joint.
BCE 537-18 Page 7
r
I
,iii ,„14
,..001,r
AllrrAlrf00. -
MP.:
{ CLf'F[{€hlE
Appyv
j1 riz2.-
"00.Iv r uNric.Ism
aMA
VAP.000
` r 5ElWA'
cornn ow
warm
e,"
.- ti
1 m r S ,'.I4 Com[[COMP
Mt SI Pr
// a A/ � r-... mm r C.
.4APFP'
FrAVA
= C.5.0517.PSI
rus►ru:,
rev
rilral aaPreffir . � WNIC!,�' !
'07 reirj• ,, .ifiri2E. W,A=!!,dr•
IM `A. I
Lni=
Figure 13--Example of copper expansion joint
The final piece is the roof drainage of 47 Caroline Street. The owner reports he has
snow and ice buildup on the roof edge and gutter each winter.
The current design documents do not show any drainage accommodate for 47 Caroline
Street. Mr. McCauley indicated they were discussing canting the roof with rigid insulation
and pitching it to the northeast corner of the west wall. At that point, they would add a
scupper through the existing parapet to the downspout.
There are few options available. The Bonacio proposal is one and adding internal drains
is another. A drainage scheme should be worked out with the owners of the existing
building which also tries to eliminate potential ice dams.
11.The final point to make is that there will be increased drifted snow buildup on the roof of
47 Caroline Street due to the taller proposed building. See Figure 14 taken from ASCE
7-05. (The design documents reference the 2010 NYS Building Code and ASCE 7-05. 1
assume that this will be updated to the current code. However, the drifted effects are
uncghanged.)
Based upon my calculations using the data from the design drawings on S000, the snow
on the existing roof will be approximately 2 ft (hb) and drift will add approximately 4 to 5
feet of drift snow (hd). The weight of drifted snow will add more that two times what it
would be were the new building not there (pd = 95 pounds per square foot versus 40).
That increased weight will taper down to at 18 feet(VV)from the north wall.
BCE 537-18 Page 8
Surcharge Load
Due to DrMing
ha ;as
1 ill
Salaaced Siow Load
I r r T
W
I
FIGURE 7-8 CONFIGURATION OF Snow DRIFTS ON LOWER ROOFS
Figure 14—Figure 7-8 from ASCE 7-05
Therefore, the total weight on the existing roof is projected to increase from 40 pounds
per square foot to 135 pounds per square foot at new building. This requires
strengthening of the existing roof or removal during snow events when the snow
accumulation exceeds two feet. The expansion joint that is finally selected should also
be protected against the weight of the snow and ice that will form at the new wall.
Please call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
--r
):
David T. Biggs, P.E.
Principal
BCE 537-18 Page 9