HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 05 29 Regular 600 Tuscawilla Unit 12 WallCOMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM 600
May 29, 2012
Special Meeting
REQUEST:
Informational
Consent
Public Hearings
Regular X
KS
City Manager
KL
Department
The Public Works and Community Development Departments are requesting that the
City Commission: (1) Affirm Staff's conclusion that the Tuscawilla Units 12/12A wall
is in various states of disrepair and should be demolished and removed, replaced, or
placed on a rehabilitation program for the ongoing repair, maintenance, and periodic
upgrade of the wall; and (2) Review several options related to addressing the potential
safety hazard concerns of the Tuscawilla Units 12/12A wall and provide final
direction regarding the City's handling of those concerns.
SYNOPSIS:
Based on a comprehensive evaluation, City staff and the City's structural engineering
consultant have concluded that the existing brick wall along the Winter Springs Boulevard
and Northern Way boundaries of Tuscawilla Units 12/12A is in a state of disrepair and a
potential safety hazard. Two Public Workshops have been held recently to advise the City
Commission regarding this situation and to collect input and discuss possible options for the
repair, replacement, or removal of the wall.
This agenda item provides a comprehensive summary of the issue and presents options for
the Commission's consideration. The purpose of this agenda item is for the City
Commission to receive and review all available information on the wall, consider the
options available to address the potential safety concerns related to the condition of the
wall, and provide final direction regarding the City's handling of the potential safety
concerns.
Regular 600 PAGE 1 OF 11- May 29, 2012
CONSIDERATIONS:
Information Previously Presented:
Tuscawilla Units 12/12A were platted by the city of Winter Springs in 1982 and 1983. The
Plats depict a 10 foot wide drainage, utility, fence and landscape easement generally along
the rear lot lines of the lots abutting the subdivision's southern and western boundaries,
adjacent to Winter Springs Boulevard and Northern Way. The Plat provides that all streets
and easements shown on the Plat were dedicated to the perpetual use of the public.
Around the time that the subdivisions were platted, the developer also recorded A Notice of
Restriction on Real Estate establishing covenants and restrictions on the Platted property.
With respect to the easement area depicted on the Plat, the Restrictions provide that "the
easement area of each lot and all improvements in it shall be maintained continuously by
the owner of the lot, except for those improvements for which a public authority or utility
company is responsible."
The Tuscawilla Units 12/12A brick wall is approximately 3,000 -feet in length and generally
runs along the subdivision's southern and western boundaries, adjacent to Winter Springs
Boulevard and Northern Way (see Exhibit 1).
There is no record or evidence whatsoever indicating that the City has ever taken any
responsibility for the wall. In addition, with respect to the platted easement area, the City
Attorney has opined that section 177.081, Florida Statutes, provides that approval of a plat
does not create an obligation upon any governing body to perform any act of construction or
maintenance within any publicly dedicated easement areas except when the obligation is
voluntarily assumed by the governing body.
Permit logs show that the City issued a building permit for the wall on December 1, 1983 to
Winter Springs Development Corporation, and the wall was likely built between the time
periods of late 1983 through mid -1985.
The wall is constructed of 5 -inch wide brick panels approximately 4.7 -feet high and 14.5-
feet wide between 5 -foot high columns that are 1.5 -feet square. The panels have a lattice
pattern of openings (see Exhibit 2 for a typical wall panel photograph).
Residents of Tuscawilla Units 12/12A do not currently have an HOA to maintain the wall
and as a result, the wall has deteriorated due to the lack of maintenance after it was initially
constructed about 26 years ago.
City Engineering Staff recently performed a field review and installed yellow caution tape
around approximately 150 linear feet of the wall that appeared to present a safety hazard
due to instability. The hazardous locations are all at corner sections of the wall and the
short extensions down the side streets.
A structural evaluation of the entire wall was completed by CPH Engineers in March 2012.
CPH's evaluation identified wall failures at many locations due to brick expansion,
corrosion, settlement, and tree roots. CPH determined the wall footing has an inadequate
Regular 600 PAGE 2 OF 11- May 29, 2012
width and depth, and the wall has no vertical reinforcement. CPH concluded that the wall
does not meet the stability requirements of the current building code, or the building code
that was in place at the time of construction, and that it cannot be brought up to code
without substantial reconstruction. A copy of CPH's report is attached as Exhibit 4.
A survey of the wall location was performed by the City's survey consultant, Southeastern
Surveying and Mapping Corporation, in February 2012. The purpose of the survey was to
determine the location of the wall with respect to the right -of -way line along the entire
3,000 -foot length. The survey is posted on the City website, www.wintersprin sfl.org
under "Public Notices." A detailed review of Southeastern's survey determined that the
wall location is as follows:
Wall Location:
% of Total
Entirely in City Right-of-Way
61%
Entirely in Platted Easement
14%
Entirely on Private Property
(outside of easement)
6%
On the Right -of -Way Line
19%
Total
100%
It appears that based on the information gathered by the City, the developer of Tuscawilla
Units 12/12A intended for the wall to be placed in the 10 foot wide drainage, utility, fence
and landscape easement generally along the rear lot lines of the lots abutting the
subdivision's southern and western boundaries, adjacent to Winter Springs Boulevard and
Northern Way. However, based on Southeastern's recent survey, City staff can now
reasonably conclude that substantial portions of the wall were inadvertently placed within
the City's rights -of -way or along the boundary of the rights -of -way.
Staff obtained several quotes from local contractors for the demolition and complete
removal of the wall. The low bid price was $25,000 plus any necessary sidewalk repairs.
Assuming an allowance for sidewalk and other miscellaneous repairs in the amount of
$7,000, the total cost to remove the wall, grade, and sod the disturbed area would be about
$32,000.
Staff has discussed brick wall repair and replacement costs with several area contractors and
developers. The cost to construct a new brick wall that meets the current Florida Building
Code is estimated to be in the range of $100 /foot, or $297,700 for the entire wall (wall
construction only).
Regular 600 PAGE 3 OF 11- May 29, 2012
Seminole Masonry has submitted a proposal of $475,000 for replacement of the entire wall,
including:
• Demolition and haul -off of the existing wall
• Removal of trees and shrubs within 4 -feet of the wall
• Replacement of the entire sidewalk adjacent to the wall
• Construction of a new 6 -foot, solid brick wall with 16" columns on 40 -foot
spacing
• Temporary chain -link fence during construction
• Sodding of all disturbed areas
• Irrigation repairs
Staff also reviewed a proposal from Alternative Wall Systems to repair the wall. At the
Tuscawilla Units 12/12A wall, the Alternative Wall Systems approach would not fully
address the structural deficiencies and would not bring the wall into compliance with the
Florida Building Code.
Public Workshops were conducted at City Hall on January 31, 2012 and March 28, 2012.
The purpose of the workshops was to present information, collect input, and to discuss
possible options for the wall's repair, replacement, or removal, in addition to discussions of
potentially creating an assessment area to fund repairs and maintenance of the wall if it
were to remain.
Informational Update:
Several issues related to the wall were raised at the March 28 workshop, or thereafter, and
are addressed below:
• Survey Accuracy
To support the accuracy of Southeastern's field survey of the wall location, Staff
obtained and reviewed eight (8) lot surveys from abutting properties at various
locations along both the Winter Springs Boulevard and Northern Way sections of
the wall. The lot surveys were prepared at various times by different survey firms
and were on file at the City as part of building permits, or were provided by
homeowners as part of the wall discussion. In all eight cases, Southeastern's survey
matched very closely with the lot surveys.
At this time, Staff has not seen any documents showing the wall location in conflict
with Southeastern's survey. Staff has requested lot surveys, if available, from the
remaining abutting property owners, and Staff will continue to evaluate any
potential conflicts, if they arise. Therefore, at this time, Southeastern's survey
remains a reliable source of information from the City's perspective.
• Liability:
Approximately 80% of the Tuscawilla Units 12/12A Wall is located within or
Regular 600 PAGE 4 OF 11- May 29, 2012
partially on City rights -of -way. The wall has been determined to be structurally
deficient by a licensed structural engineer and therefore, the City Attorney has
opined that the portions of the wall located on the rights -of -way present a potential
liability and risk for the City if conditions of the wall remain the same or the wall
continues to deteriorate. Further, the City should take reasonable steps to mitigate
against the potential liability and risk.
As such, if the City Commission decides to allow the wall to remain in the right -of-
way, the potential liability will need to be managed by taking reasonable steps to
remediate the safety concerns presented by the condition of the wall. One means of
managing the potential liability and risk exposure to the City, which is further
discussed later in this agenda item, is the demolition and removal of some or all of
the wall. Another means of managing the liability and risk is the establishment of a
Special Assessment Program. In a Special Assessment Program, portions of the wall
posing an immediate safety concern (about 150 linear feet) would be rebuilt with a
new wall that complies with the current Florida Building Code and would be
structurally and visually superior to the existing wall.
Furthermore, to manage any future liability exposure and risk that could arise by
leaving the remaining portion of wall in the rights -of -way, the following steps could
be taken as part of a Special Assessment Program:
1. Portions of the wall (about 2,850 linear feet) not immediately replaced with a
new wall would be placed on a regular evaluation and maintenance program to
monitor, repair, and potentially replace various segments of the wall over time.
2. The wall would be added to the City's property damage insurance policy just
the same as all walls located within, and under the areas of responsibility of, the
other City Special Assessment Programs: Tuscawilla Lighting and
Beautification District and Oak Forest Wall and Beautification District.
3. Trees located immediately along the wall within either an easement or the right -
of -way would be routinely maintained to reduce potential damage to the wall.
In summary, in this approach, since the City would oversee maintenance of the wall
and manage the related Special Assessment Program, Staff believes that it would not
be necessary to remove the wall from the right -of -way as the City's potential
liability exposure would be managed by a combination of ongoing monitoring,
maintenance, and insurance coverage.
• New Documents:
Staff has researched all available City records related to Tuscawilla Units 12/12A
for any information on the wall. Since the March 28 workshop, no new documents
have been located or provided to Staff or the City Commission that would alter or
otherwise change or affect Staff s prior findings. The relevant historical documents
located to date include:
• Plat — Tuscawilla Unit 12
• Plat — Tuscawilla Unit 12A
• Final Engineering Record Drawings for Units 12 and 12A
• Restrictions on Real Estate (`Deed Restrictions' —Units 12 and 12A)
• Building Permit Log showing the City issued a building permit to Winter
Regular 600 PAGE 5 OF 11- May 29, 2012
Springs Development Corporation on December 1, 1983 for the wall
. Lot surveys for eight (8) abutting properties
Staff also contacted Mr. Charles True, an engineering consultant who worked on
Tuscawilla Units 12/12A for Winter Springs Development Corporation. Mr. True
did not have any documents related to Tuscawilla Units 12/12A. In recent telephone
conversations with Staff, Mr. True offered the following historical points based on
his recollection of the project.
Per Mr. True:
• The wall was never intended to be the City's responsibility
• The purpose of the wall was to: 1) block direct vehicle access from the backs of
abutting lots to WS Blvd; and 2) to enhance the value of the Tuscawilla Unit 12
properties
• Winter Springs Development Corporation elected to build the wall; it was not
required by the City or shown on any of the approved development documents
for Tuscawilla Unit 12
• The plat, deed restrictions, and easements were setup with the intention that
each individual lot owner be responsible for their portion of the wall
• The wall did not affect property owners in back of the subdivision, so there was
no need for an HOA
• Mr. True was not aware of approval or intent by any party to locate the wall in
the right -of -way
Mr. True's comments seem to support City staff's conclusion that the wall was
intended to be placed within the 10 foot easement area, but was inadvertently placed
within the City's rights -of -way.
Options:
Based on the structural evaluation, Staff s conclusion is that the wall is in disrepair
and should be demolished and removed, replaced, or placed on a rehabilitation program for
the ongoing repair, maintenance, and periodic upgrade of the wall. The following options
are presented for the City Commission's consideration. These options were developed
based on input received from the City Commission and residents to date, along with Staff's
evaluation of the costs and feasibility of various potential options.
Option 1 — Demolish and remove the entire wall at a cost to the City of $32,000
• Approximately 80% of the wall is in the right -of -way or on the right -of -way line.
• The wall is structurally deficient, unsafe in certain locations, and cannot be
structurally repaired without substantial reconstruction.
• There is no current entity in place to maintain the wall.
• Demolishing the wall permanently solves the problem and the potential liability of
having a deficient wall located in or immediately adjacent to the City's right -of -way.
• Because portions of the wall are located on private property, demolishing the entire
wall would require a right -of -entry from the respective property owners to remove
portions of the wall located entirely on private property (approximately 6% of the
total wall length on eight properties). Property owners who are unwilling to grant a
right -of -entry could be subject to Code Enforcement action pursuant to the City's
unsafe structure ordinance.
Regular 600 PAGE 6 OF 11- May 29, 2012
• After wall demolition, the abutting residents could install fences, walls, and
landscaping for screening and /or security. These items would have to be located
outside the right -of -way on private property.
• Several residents have expressed concern about the overall appearance of the area
after the wall is removed, especially if the wall is replaced with fences of various
styles.
Option 2 — City Offers a Special Assessment Program
A Special Assessment Program would establish a partnership between the City and the
90 property owners in Tuscawilla Units 12/12A for the repair, selective /periodic
rebuilding, and long -term maintenance and upgrading of the wall. The Assessment
Program would have two components charged to the property owners: a capital
assessment to pay for one -time capital costs and /or recurring loan payments, and a
maintenance fee charged annually to pay for maintenance and administration costs. The
amount of the assessment for each property is dependent on the location of the property
and the extent of the City's participation in the program. If an Assessment Program is
formed, Staff favors a two -tier fee structure with the 20 abutting properties at 1.5 benefit
units and the remaining 70 properties at 1.0 benefit units. This means that the 20
abutting property owners would pay 50% more than the non - abutting property owners
due to additional benefits the wall may provide to abutting properties (screening,
security, noise reduction, beautification, etc.).
It is important to note that the two -tier fee structure and its cost allocation are subject to
change based on results of research conducted during the program establishment
process. Consultants for the Assessment Program will research and formulate the most
reasonable and defensible methodology for the Tuscawilla Units 12/12A Wall Area as
part of the process. Under Florida Law, two requirements for the imposition of this type
of a special assessment on property owners must be met, and potentially defended if
challenged:
1. Assessed property must receive a special benefit from the service or facility funded
by an assessment.
2. The assessment must be fairly and reasonably apportioned among the benefited
properties.
For example, the Oak Forest Wall and Beautification Assessment Program, which has a
wall located close to a major roadway, uses a three -tier fee structure based on three
benefit components: Beautification, Noise Abatement, and Light Abatement. Due to its
location, the Tuscawilla Units 12/12A Wall could potentially have less benefit
components identified during the establishment process; hence the two - tiered fee
structure that is favored by Staff.
Under the Assessment Program for Units 12/12A, the first phase would consist of the
demolition and replacement of approximately 150 -feet of the wall posing an immediate
safety hazard, at an estimated cost of $32,000. Replacement sections of the wall must
be built in full compliance with the current Florida Building Code. After initial
demolition and replacement of the most deficient sections, maintenance funds collected
under the Assessment Program would be used for items such as: cosmetic repairs,
patching, cleaning, sealing, minor brickwork, and selective structural repairs and /or
replacement sections based on need and available funding.
Regular 600 PAGE 7 OF 11- May 29, 2012
Should the City Commission desire to offer a Special Assessment Program, two
versions of Option 2 are presented for the Commission's consideration (all amounts are
estimated based on the best available information but are subject to market changes
prior to finalization):
Option 2A — City creates an Assessment Program and makes a partial
contribution to the Program in the amount of $32,000
• The estimated cost to demolish the entire wall is $32,000.
• Instead of funding wall demolition, the City would contribute up to $32,000 for
the demolition and replacement of approximately 150 -feet of the wall posing an
immediate safety hazard.
. Units 12/12A property owners fund the capital cost to establish the assessment
program ($29,500) plus the annual maintenance assessment.
. Under Option 2A, the one -time capital assessment would be $405 for the 20
abutting homeowners and $270 for the 70 non - abutting homeowners.
. Owners could elect to participate in financing of the capital assessment where
the annual cost would be $105 for the 20 abutting homeowners and $70 for the
70 non - abutting homeowners, amortized over afive -year period.
. Under Option 2A, the annual maintenance assessment would be $159 for the 20
abutting homeowners and $106 for the 70 non - abutting homeowners.
Option 2B — City creates an Assessment Program and does not contribute
funding to the Program
• Units 12/12A property owners fund the capital cost for the demolition and
replacement of approximately 150 -feet of the wall posing an immediate safety
hazard ($32,000), the capital cost to establish the assessment program
($29,500), plus the annual maintenance assessment.
• Under Option 213, the one -time capital assessment would be $885 for the 20
abutting homeowners and $590 for the 70 non - abutting homeowners.
. Owners could elect to participate in financing of the capital assessment where
the annual cost would be $120 for the 20 abutting homeowners and $80 for the
70 non - abutting homeowners, amortized over a 10 year period (subject to
available financing).
. Under Option 213, the annual maintenance assessment would be $159 for the 20
abutting homeowners and $106 for the 70 non - abutting homeowners.
Please refer to Exhibit 3 for a detailed breakdown of the costs for Options 2A and
2B. Option 2B assumes a loan in the amount of $61,500 for capital costs amortized
over a 10 year period, which is subject to interest rates and other financial terms and
conditions dictated by the marketplace.
Option 3 — No Assessment Program; Homeowners take full responsibility for
the wall and fund wall maintenance
• If no Assessment Program is created, the wall could still be funded for
replacement and repairs directly by a group of homeowners, either as part of an
HOA or a separately organized wall maintenance entity.
• To address the immediate safety concern, the 150 linear feet of wall that has
Regular 600 PAGE 8 OF 11- May 29, 2012
been determined to be most hazardous to the public would be removed
immediately by the City at a cost of up to $3,000. A right -of -entry would be
required from five property owners to remove portions of the wall located
entirely on private property. Property owners who are unwilling to grant a
right -of -entry could be subject to Code Enforcement action.
• Due to current safety concerns related to the wall, the formation of an HOA or
separate entity that can receive title to the vacated portion of the right -of -way,
or otherwise accept responsibility for the wall, would need to be completed
within a time certain (within 12 months); otherwise, the City would proceed
with demolition of the wall (Option 1).
• The HOA or separate entity would need to obtain the land rights to maintain the
wall, including:
• Receiving a vacated portion of the right -of -way from the City.
• Obtaining easement rights from private property owners where the wall
is currently located on private property.
• Until the homeowner's group assumes legal responsibility for the wall, the City
would retain the option of demolishing portions of the wall in or on the right -of-
way that are determined to be a public hazard.
Option 4 — City vacates the right -of -way under the wall
• Theoretically, vacating the right -of -way completely and forever removes the
potential liability of the wall from the City's property.
• The vacated portion of the right -of -way would be conveyed to the abutting
property owners by operation of law at such time the City Commission adopts a
vacation of right -of -way resolution and records it in the Official Public Records
of Seminole County.
• The abutting property owners could choose to remove, replace, or repair the
wall as desired and /or as necessary.
• The cost to vacate the right -of -way is estimated to be less than $1,000 for the
related fees, notices, surveyor's sketch & legal description, and recording fees.
• Deteriorating sections of the wall that are not made safe and continue to be
neglected would be subject to Code Enforcement action.
Procedural Considerations:
Depending upon the public input provided at this meeting and the final direction given by
the City Commission, each of the options stated above will have its own procedural course
to implement the option. The City Manager, City Attorney and City staff are prepared to
advise the City Commission in more detail on the various procedural considerations after
public input and the final direction given by the City Commission.
Straw Ballot Considerations:
If the City Commission deems it appropriate to poll the residents of Tuscawilla Units
12/12A before deciding which option to select, the City Commission may want to require a
non - binding straw poll to gather the formal opinions of the residents. The City has used non-
binding straw ballots in the past to collect input from residents on various issues, most
recently in 2009 during the planning phase of the Ranchlands Paving Project. Non - binding
straw ballots are effective because they allow all property owners the opportunity to provide
input, including those who cannot attend public meetings. If the City Commission directs
Regular 600 PAGE 9 OF 11- May 29, 2012
staff to prepare a straw ballot, staff recommends that it be mailed to all 90 property owners
in the subdivisions, with each assessed property receiving one vote.
Further, staff would also recommend that the City Commission limit the options (maximum
of two preferred) to be placed on the straw ballot, so that the ballot and results can be
clearly understood. The straw ballot results would be tracked by lot number in order to
ensure that each property is limited to one vote. The results of the straw ballot would be
reported to the residents and City Commission as part of a regular Commission Agenda
Item, at which time the City Commission could provide further direction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This agenda item is requesting the City Commission to review all available information and
provide final direction related to addressing the potential safety hazard concerns of the
Tuscawilla Units 12/12A wall. The financial impact on the City will depend on the final
direction given by the City Commission. Estimated financial impacts for the various
options are stated above.
COMMUNICATION EFFORTS:
This Agenda Item has been electronically forwarded to the Mayor and City Commission,
City Manager, City Attorney /Staff, and is available on the City's Website, LaserFiche, and
the City's Server. Additionally, portions of this Agenda Item are typed verbatim on the
respective Meeting Agenda which has also been electronically forwarded to the individuals
noted above, and which is also available on the City's Website, LaserFiche, and the City's
Server; has been sent to applicable City Staff, Media /Press Representatives who have
requested Agendas /Agenda Item information, Homeowner's Associations /Representatives
on file with the City, and all individuals who have requested such information. This
information has also been posted outside City Hall, posted inside City Hall with additional
copies available for the General Public, and posted at five (5) different locations around the
City. Furthermore, this information is also available to any individual requestors. City Staff
is always willing to discuss this Agenda Item or any Agenda Item with any interested
individuals.
A meeting notice has been mailed to all 90 Tuscawilla Units 12/12A property owners
which included a link for downloading or viewing the complete agenda item in
advance of the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Commission:
1. Affirm Staff s conclusion that the Tuscawilla Units 12/12A wall is in disrepair and
should be demolished and removed, replaced, or placed on a rehabilitation program
for the ongoing repair, maintenance, and periodic upgrade of the wall.
2. Review the options for the Tuscawilla Units 12/12A wall as outlined herein in order
to provide final direction related to addressing the potential safety hazard concerns of
the Tuscawilla Units 12/12A wall.
Regular 600 PAGE 10 OF 11 - May 29, 2012
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Exhibit 1 -Wall Map (1 page)
2. Exhibit 2 -Wall Photograph (1 page)
3. Exhibit 3 -Wall Options Cost Estimate (2 page)
4. Exhibit 4 - CPH Structural Evaluation (12 pages)
Regular 600 PAGE 11 OF 11 - May 29, 2012
Exhibit 1
N
T u scawill a n i a Ma w �� E
d
S
1577 1606
704 15791581 � VI/ 1608
583 O HV CK 1610 1612 z Z
1 OD
96 1705 7071706 1587 1601 CT
1603 1605 1613
4 1703 v 1704 1707 1708 1607 160 1611
1701 Q 1702 1705 v 1706 1596 1,1597
� 1700 co cQ 1703 170f gti 595
671569 sr 1701 �,'�
1571 `'� al 1602 1604
1573 1700 1590 1 1 /�� 1606 1608
1575 59 0 OVF 1610
1577 1588 �� 1R 1612
1579 � 989 988
1587 1581 1615
F� Q. 991 V� 990 1614
1662 s'A 15831585 O �-
1664 /i� Q- 993 O 992 1617 1618
1666 �s
l63 e� 9951 Q�� 994 1619
1668 `Q O � �,�
1665 1670
� 996 1621 1600 1602
1667 H �, .� 1604
1669 C� 1672 � 9 $ 1623 HO v
1601
'672 1671 �� 1674 1625 16031605 1607
1674 S� 1676 1624
1673 /,A 1627
1676 1678
73 1675 1626
1 1675 1678 1680 1629 y
1680 1677 0 1604 1606 1608 1610
1679 1682 1631 O t)R 1612
1682 1681
04 1602 1609
1
1681 1684 635 0 V 1607 1614
1684 AgH � O OJ 1611
1689 2 163 7 1616
1 116
1686 B r i 1 �► �605
1691 p 1613
1693 P� 1688 16 eels ti 1603 1618
1695 1690 6 q� B ti oo 1601
SQ PN 1692
L NG 1 �O� 1615 1620
16961694 726 0 1604 1606
724 G��N 1 Z9 1502 to 1602 CLOUD 1622
8 722 727 1600 `,�� CT
720 1504 G VAN 1605 1607
725 O
718 723 1601 1624
714 716 721 1503 1506 1603
� 717 719 7 1626
' 715 1502 1505 1508
713 1501 1504 1629
'1l C �� 1507 1510 1631 A FL
1503 � 1633 vG�
� 1630
1501 1502 2 1506 1512 p0 0 1632
1503 0 1505 � � � 1634
50 5 o O 1504 -� 1511 1514 1636
1 4 n DR 1510 G< 1606 1608
704 706 0 717 1515 � 1 16
GOLFP OINT 713 715 1512 2 �L 1604
707 709 N 2 1602 O� 01 1609
>► 1518 � 1600 5 P �� 607
1509 1511 O� 151 •
1581 k C k1 � �� -��� -�
1579 1511 2 1512 � 1520 N 1603 1605
)82 &N '9� 1513 2 1516 1521 1601
1577 1513 G 'A 1514 � 1522 2
1580 FtS � ISIS �, 1518 1523 O N
1524
1578 C>� 1575 1515 1516 1520 O 1630
1526 Q
1573 0 1517 1525 �4
1574 1517 1518 1519 1522 1527 1632
1571 1528
1 c 71 1524
N b I
A�e
AL
r
L Z 11 q
K
, P p
)op
iYolloolopi .. Pi
.
j 0 1p i
d
k•�M AL);L%l
IL
:-d 65
' L
EXHIBIT 3
l Tuscawilla Units 12/12A - Options Cost Estimate
All information is estimated based on the most accurate data available.
m
m
LLI
Ln
E
M
V
V
a
J �^
E
E
E
E
._
+�
W
GJ
+.+
.�
E
Q
+�.+
O
*,
Q V
H
0
�^
LA
M
W
E °�
0
0
G
G
N
0
O
V
>
r Option Demolish Wall
I
-- - -
- - --
--
- --
-- --
- --
- - --
- --
I
- --
_______Capital _
I �
$32,000
$32,000
___L___
Option 2 Assessment
A Capital (5Yr)
$32,000
$29,500
$32,000
$29,500
$70 I
$105
Maintenance
$2
$2
$5
$0
$10
$106
$159
....................................................................................................................................................
B (5) Capital (10 Yr)
$32,000
$29,500
...............................
.............
................ ...............................
$0
$61,500
............ ...............................
$80 I
$120
Maintenance
$2,500
$2,500
$,000
$0
$10,000
$106 I
$159
Option 3 Homeowners Pay To Repair
------------------------------------------------------
Wall (,32,000 +). Deadline for repairs, If not met - would revert to Option 1.
Option 4 City Vacates The
Right Of Way
$1,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Demolition /Rebuild Cost consists of rebuilding (to code) 150' of the wall known to be immediately unsafe.
.(2) Assessment Program Establishment includes: legal, admin, and finance costs for the intial establishment of the assessment program. ;
s(3) Cosmetic Repairs / Maint consist of patching, cleaning, sealing & minor brickwork. No structural repairs.
1(4) A Renovation Plan could be implemented over a multi -year period. Cost not included and to be determined.
s(5) Option 2 -B Assumes that both the $32,000 Demolition /Rebuild Cost and $29,500 Assessment Program Establishment Costs
(Capital Components) are paid by the Assessment Program.
1* NOTE: Capital Payment - Financing based on 5 or 10 yrs at 4% interest with P &I payment shown. A different rate /term
, '
may apply at the time of financing.
EXHIBIT 3
Page 2
FijCitional Information For Options 2 A/6
,The Assessment Program may have two components charged to the property
!owner, a capital assessment to pay for any one -time capital costs and /or
re- occuring loan payments, and a maintenance assessment charged annually
,to pay for all maintenance and administration costs.
I
I BM. = Benefit Units - The B.U. structure shown is subject to change based on the
idue dilligence process as part of establishment of the Assessment Program,
if approved.
2- Tiered Assessment
B. U .'s
Lots I
1.00 Lots Away From
Wall
70
1.50 Lots Along Wall
20
Assessments
1.0 B.U.
1.5 B.U.
Option 2 -A
$176.00
$264.00 ;
Option 2 -B
$186.00
$279.00
Capital Pre - Payment
1.0 B.U.
1.5 B.U. '
(Initial) Option 2 -A
$270
I
$405
Option 2 -B
$590
$885
EXHIBIT 4
City of Winter Springs
Tuscawilla Units 12 and 12A
Brick Wall Analysis
March 21, 2012
CPH Engineers, Inc
1117 East Robinson Street
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: 407 - 425 -0452
www.cphengineers.com
Job No. W04151
J:AW04151 \Civil\Documents \Reports \preliminary engineering report - final with cover. doc
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The City of Winter Springs solicited proposals to investigate a brick screen
wall located on the street frontage of Tuscawilla Unit 12/12A. The wall
provides a screen from the roadway and was constructed in 1983 on the
northern side of Winter Springs Boulevard and the eastern side of
Northern Way. Our proposal covers the following:
"Data Gathering and Evaluation
1) City will uncover the footings at several locations for visual inspection by the
Engineer.
2) Engineer will visit site, view excavated footings and photograph wall and
footings. Critical evaluation items include the footings, the proximity of large
trees and roots and actual condition of the wall (especially the mortar and
associated reinforcement).
3) Engineer will prepare an analysis based on experience with similar wall
design and construction.
4) Engineer will compare the wall "as constructed" with recommended
standards for wall construction based on current standards and loading
criteria.
5) Engineer will evaluate the possibility of repair and /or reconstruction of the
wall.
6) Engineer will determine if any sections of the wall can be saved /re -used.
Report
1) Engineer will prepare a letter style report of the findings of the investigation
and analysis.
2) Engineer will attend one public meeting with the City and the residents of the
community to present the report. The meeting is scheduled for March 28,
2012."
1.2 TIME SPECIFIC APPLICABLE CODE
The wall was permitted on December 1, 1983 and we believe that it was
constructed in 1984. The applicable building code, at the time, was the
1982 Standard Building Code (SBC) published by the Southern Building
Code Congress International. The primary design concern for walls is the
wind load and the ability of the wall to withstand the wind load without
collapse.
J:AW04151 \Civil\Documents \Reports \preliminary engineering report - final with cover.doc
Section 1205 —Wind Loads provides the required wind load design
criteria. The provisions related to this wall include:
1) The wind speed map — Figure 1205.1, which indicates a wind speed of
100 mph for the area.
2) The Basic Wind Load Pressure —Table 1205.1, which indicates a
pressure of 20 psf.
3) The shape factor —Table 1205.2 which shows a 1.4 factor. This yields
a factored force of 28 psf.
4) The Stability — 1205.3 Stability (b) "The overturning moment calculated
from the wind pressure shall not exceed two - thirds (2/3) of the dead
load resisting moment." This results in a safety factor of 1.5.
5) Engineering analysis (Section 3) of wall stability was based on the
1982 SBC criteria.
1.3 CURRENT BUILDING CODE
The 2010 Florida Building Code (FBC) initially enacted as FBC 2001
(effective date January 2002), references ASCE 7 for design loading
standards. The FBC replaced the SBC in 2002. ASCE 7 was revised in
2010. This revision included major language and wind speed map
changes to the wind load provisions. As part of the FBC 2010, ASCE 7 -10
is in effect on March 15, 2012. The following is for a structure covered by
Chapter 29, Wind Loads on Other Structures and Building Appurtenances
— MWFRS, of ASCE 7 -10 and located in Seminole County, Florida.
1) The wind speed — Category I, 129 mph. Category I is for non - essential
structures and includes fences. FBC 2010 and ASCE 7 -10 allows for a
lower hazard for non - occupied buildings and structures.
2) The Velocity Pressure — calculates as 20.6 psf.
3) The Gust Factor — 0.85
4) The shape factor —force coefficient Cf equals 1.3.
5) Wind load pressure — 22.76 psf
6) Stability Factor — FBC 2010 does not have a provision for a stability
factor.
7) FBC 2010 and ASCE 7 -10: Combined Design Load Factors — 1.0
times W (the wind load pressure) and 0.6 times D (the deadload).
This results in an equivalent wind pressure of 38 psf because it
creates a Safety Factor of 1.6667.
Although there has been considerable language change in ASCE 7 -10 by
taking all design factors into consideration, there is not a significant
difference between the 1982 SBC and FBC 2010. The 1982 SBC results
in an " equivalent wind pressure" of 42 psf and the FBC 2010 results in
an " equivalent wind pressure" of 38 psf for a freestanding wall
application as described in Chapter 29 of ASCE 7 -10.
J:AW04151 \Civil\Documents \Reports \preliminary engineering report - final with cover.doc
No allowance is allowed in either code for the lattice work design. There is
insufficient open space in the lattice work to get credit. The open space
must be over 60% open to get a minimum wind load "credit" of 20 %. The
actual open space is only 18 %.
1.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing wall is constructed of 5 inch wide brick. It consists of panels
about 4.67 feet high by 14 feet long between columns that are
approximately 18 inches by 18 inches. The columns are approximately 5
feet tall. The wall and the columns are placed on a concrete footing of
varying widths and thicknesses.
There are several locations where the wall also serves as a retaining wall.
It appears that the wall retains at most about 18 inches of soil. This is not
a major issue, but will need to be addressed in any design if the wall is
replaced or if the wall is removed. If removed and not replaced, there will
be an issue of re- grading which will have to occur on the property side
because of the existing sidewalk.
J:AW04151 \Civil\Documents \Reports \preliminary engineering report - final with cover.doc
SECTION 2.0
Data Gathering
2.1 Field Visits
A field visit was performed on March 1, 2012 with Brian Fields, City
Engineer. We observed many areas of concern:
1) corrosion of horizontal reinforcement
2) brick expansion failure
3) footing settlement failure
4) tree root encroachment (causes footing failure and vertical alignment
issues)
Corrosion of horizontal reinforcement
lip
Brick expansion failure
J:AW04151 \Civil\Documents \Reports \preliminary engineering report - final with cover.doc
Settlement failure
Another field visit was performed on March 14, 2012 to determine if
reinforcement was placed in the existing wall. We used a metal detector
to scan the wall. We found the horizontal reinforcement (some of which is
exposed) and there appears to be some additional horizontal
reinforcement at the column and wall connection. No vertical
reinforcement was found.
2.4 Footings Dig -ups
The City excavated the area at seven locations and provided this
information to the Engineer. Figure 2 -1 shows the location of the
excavations. They exposed the footing under the wall and under the
columns and found the dimension shown below in Table 2 -1:
J:AW04151 \Civil\Documents \Reports \preliminary engineering report - final with cover.doc
Settlement and tree root failure
Table 2 -1
Sample Footing Dimensions
Location
Wall Section
Column Section
( inches)
1
12X21
12X31.5
2
9X 19
9X41.5
3
8X 19
8X39.5
4
8X 13
8X28.5
5
9.5X 17
9.5X31.5
6
7X 15
7X30.5
7
14X 16
14X24.5
Note: Footing dimensions are shown as depth x width.
J:AW04151 \Civil\Documents \Reports \preliminary engineering report - final with cover. doc
J:AW04151 \Civil\Documents \Reports \preliminary engineering report - final with cover.doc
Tuscawilla Unit 12112A Wall �;,
Footing Excavation Locations �'��
SECTION 3.0
ANALYSIS of EXISTING WALL
3.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
The wall was constructed in 1983. Therefore, we analyzed the collected
information based on the 1982 SBC to determine if the wall is in
compliance with the building standards in effect at the time of
construction.
3.2 DESIGN ANALYSIS
The wall /footing does not exceed the normal soil bearing pressure
capacity of the existing soil and is in compliance with the bearing criteria.
Allowable soil bearing capacity is 2000 psf. The heaviest section of wall
only results in a bearing pressure of 350 psf.
There is a deficiency in the wall based on the 1982 Standard Building
Code. A structural analysis of the overturning moment versus the resisting
moment indicates that the wall does not meet the stability requirement.
Therefore, the wall also does not meet the FBC 2010 criteria. If any
section of the wall is rebuilt, the design would be required to conform to
the FBC 2010.
The wall does not have vertical steel to resist the bending moment
created by the calculated wind pressures. The 1982 SBC does not
address vertical reinforcement, but design standards in 1982 indicate that
a minimum vertical reinforcement such as a number 4 bar every 48 inches
would be required. The wall cannot be retrofitted with rebar and grout to
resist the bending moment forces because of the open spaces created by
the current design /construction of the wall. In addition, the rebar cannot be
anchored into the footing.
We also do not know that the footing is reinforced. Horizontal
reinforcement is required to resist bending moments produced by
differential settlement of soil under the footing (if any). Horizontal
reinforcement in a footing is normally based on the width and depth of the
footing. Minimum horizontal reinforcing would be two number 4 bars
continuously placed parallel in the footing. Wider footings also require
reinforcing perpendicular to the parallel bars. Wall design requires that the
vertical reinforcing for the walls extends down into the footing.
The only reinforcing in the wall appears to be horizontal "ladder" type joint
reinforcement. This type of reinforcement provides minimal strength in the
horizontal direction and none in the vertical direction where it is needed to
J:AW04151 \Civil\Documents \Reports \preliminary engineering report - final with cover.doc
resist the bending moment created by the wind pressures. Very little shear
force is created on a thin wall such as this one and no shear
reinforcement would be required.
It is possible that the existing wall could be brought up to current code by
a combination of "core filling" the existing columns with grout and rebar
and also reconstructing the existing column footings. In addition, new
grouted and reinforced columns with proper footings would be added
between the existing columns at 48 inches on center. This would triple the
number of columns. All of the columns would be designed to carry the
column load and the wall load like a post and beam system. It is likely that
such reconstruction would cost as much as building a new wall to replace
the existing. It would also be difficult to match the new bricks to look like
the existing.
3.3 SIDEWALKS
The wall is very close to the sidewalk. A wall that meets code would
require a much wider footing to resist the bending moments created by
the wind pressures. Therefore, if the wall is reconstructed, we believe that
the sidewalk would have to be adjusted accordingly or that the sidewalk
would need to be removed, the new footing constructed and a new
sidewalk poured over the top of the footing in areas where the two items
will conflict.
3.4 COSMETIC HORIZONTAL CORROSION and EXPANSION STRESS
FAILURES
Horizontal reinforcement was provided in the wall approximately at two
brick courses from the top and bottom of the wall. Horizontal
reinforcement was not provided in the section with the brick open cells.
Horizontal reinforcement is provided in concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls
to limit contraction cracks. Contractions cracks are common in CMU walls
because CMUs are the wettest that they will ever be when delivered to the
construction site. The manufacture of CMU is based on a wet material
placed in a mold to form a block unit. They are placed outside to dry, but
are still wet when installed. Over time, after installation, the blocks dry.
When they dry, they shrink and this shrinkage will cause cracks to occur
in the wall. This is very common in Florida.
Bricks, however, are formed and then kiln dried. They are the driest that
they will ever be when delivered to the site. They will continue to expand
after installation. Therefore, horizontal reinforcement provides little to no
advantage in a brick wall. The only thing that horizontal reinforcement
J:AW04151 \Civil\Documents \Reports \preliminary engineering report - final with cover.doc
provided in this wall was corrosion which caused expansion of the joint
and the mortar to break out from the joint. Therefore, the corrosion of the
reinforcement is not a concern as the steel provides no strength to the
wall. We believe that the corrosion in the wall is cosmetic and could be
repaired by cleaning out the joint and installing new mortar. This would be
similar to "tuck pointing" a brick wall or chimney.
Brick expansion has caused the failure of the bricks in the columns and in
the wall directly adjacent to the columns. See the picture in Section 1.
Brick walls must be provided with an expansion contraction joint. This is
an open joint about a half inch wide. This joint is sealed with a
compressive material and a flexible caulk. As can be seen in the picture,
the brick expanded and had no where to go. So it pushed into the top of
the column (the weakest point) and broke the bricks and the mortar bond.
We observed that this occurs at about every third column. Repairs are
required to a minimum of 33% of the columns. For this wall, approximately
70 columns need repair. We observed that the top row of brick was
installed very "tightly" and there was no tolerance for expansion. This can
be corrected by removing one brick from the top row at each side of the
column and then re- constructing the top of the column. Or for aesthetics,
the brick can be removed and cut to allow the space to be filled, while
leaving a 1 /2 inch gap. There are some locations where the brick wall
below the top row is also tight up next to the column. An expansion joint
should be provided at these locations. For the most part, the damage was
caused by the top row. Walls, whether they are constructed of CMU or
brick, need to be allowed a certain tolerance for movement. They cannot
be placed in a "rigid" condition. The "row top" brick repair to allow for
expansion would be required at every column.
We believe that the sections of wall described above can be repaired
cosmetically. If the wall is repaired cosmetically, the City should obtain a
release from each land owner adjacent to the fence that accepts the wall
"as -is ". A repair, as described above, does not provide any "structural
integrity ". Please be advised that such repairs are cosmetic only and they
do not provide any structural changes or integrity.
If a column or any section of the wall must be removed, then the column
and /or wall would have to be designed to meet FBC 2010.
3.5 SETTLEMENT AND TREE ROOT FAILURES
The areas where the foundation has settled or been disturbed by tree
roots will require a total reconstruction of the wall. These walls cannot be
repaired. The walls will be required to meet current code, 2010 FBC, and
be designed accordingly. These walls exist at:
J:AW04151 \Civil\Documents \Reports \preliminary engineering report - final with cover.doc
1) 1600 Little Sparrow Court
2) 1633 Wood Duck Drive
3) 1601 Wood Duck Drive
4) 1637 Wood Duck Drive
5) 1602 White Dove Drive
Several areas have trees very close to the wall. The tree roots have
caused damage to the wall foundation. In the reconstruction of the wall,
the tree roots would be severely damaged and the tree may eventually
die. It is recommended that the trees be removed in the areas where the
wall is reconstructed.
If the trees are to be saved, we do not recommend that a wall be
constructed. If the wall is replaced, it is likely that the tree will not survive
and if the tree survives, then in the future the roots will cause wall failure
again. Therefore, the wall should be demolished and not replaced if the
trees are given a priority.
J:AW04151 \Civil\Documents \Reports \preliminary engineering report - final with cover.doc