Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem VI (B) Progress Report on City Hall and Police Department Capital Improvement Project AGENDA 10-6-92 "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" Item VI B Ocit'oee .,...„•a...1,4-3...11..,,,)1 CITY OF OCOEE RUST JOIHNSON 4 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE PAUL W.FOSTER v O OCOEE FLORIDA 34761 (407)656-2322 VERN COMBS SAM WOODSON Of 0000 �`,` CITY MANAGER ELLIS SHAPIRO MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners FROM: Montye Beamer , Director of Administrative Services 29/73 DATE : September 28 , 1992 RE : CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Based upon the conceptual design as presented to the City Commission on June 16 , 1992 , C . T . Hsu & Associates , P .A. has worked with the civil engineers , the geotechnical engineers, and the structural engineers to establish the sites for City Hall and the Police Department . Additional borings and costs will be calculated for the retention pond (required for the impervious surfaces to be added in the expansion) and the new access road. The attached reports represent the results of the numerous discussions and testing. As indicated in his letter, the architect and team of engineers recommend the demolition of the existing City Hall , the removal of the muck, and the use of the original conceptual design. Mr . Hsu will be present at the October 6 , 1992 , commission meeting to discuss the building site as well as the schematic design . MEB: fdg Attachments AC. 4/ C.T. hSU + ASSOCIATES, P.A. • • • September 17, 1992 Ms. Montye E. Beamer Director of Administrative Services City of Ocoee 150 N. Lakeshore Drive Ocoee, FL 34761 RE: CITY OF OCOEE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX Dear Montye: C.T. Hsu + Associates, P.A. (CTH+A) is most pleased to submit the following items for your review: ❑ Evaluation of Existing City Hall remodel vs. razed schemes ❑ Preliminary geotechnical report prepared by L.J. Nodarse & Associates o Existing City Hall building review report prepared by K & R Engineers We have thoroughly evaluated various options regarding the City of Ocoee Municipal Complex site development, including moving the planned City Hall building further away from the lake to limit impact of the muck area. After several meetings/workshops involving C.T. Hsu + Associates, Professional Engineering Consultants (civil engineers), L.J. Nodarse & Associates (geotechnical engineers), Fruland & Cox (structural engineers), Mr. Jim Shira and you, our team's final recommendation is to demolish the existing City Hall, remove muck in the area and construct a new Municipal Complex at the location as planned. Please let us know if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, C.T. HSU + ASSOCIATES, P.A. Q /1114r4/C11.( ilA/"11 Chu-Tzu Hsu, A.I.A. Principal CTH:keb Enclosures As Stated c: File (CR)(PF) EVALUATION OF EXISTING CITY HALL BUILDING °Him September 17, 1992 REMODEL SCHEME RAZED (NEW) SCHEME PRO: PRO: • Existing city hall function may stay • Brand new instead of remodeled during new city hall construction (no compromise in design) • One phase construction • Efficient site access • Demuck will be feasible • Cost efficient conventional footing systems instead of piling system • Asbestos free • Less disturbance to city hall functions (relocated) CON: CON: • Project may need to be developed in • Interim move will be required for existing two phases city hall functions • Construction access will be less efficient • Will have to underpin existing City Hall walls at east end • The new city hall structure may have to be on piling system • Settlement cracks may occur on pavement areas if demuck is not done. • No significant cost savings • Design compromise • May need to remove asbestos materials • City hall functions will be disturbed by the construction activity 1 • KSL `ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS 222 arch St., Suite 201, Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Telephone 407-933-2040 Facsimile 407-933-0129 MEMORANDUM September 17, 1992 TO: C.T. Hsu + Associates FROM: George Knudsen SUBJECT: Ocoee City Hall Existing Structure Survey FILE: 109.201 On Wednesday September 2,Mr. Bill Word and I visited the Ocoee City Hall and reviewed the existing city hall structure with an eye toward remodeling the building to fit in with the City's expansion plans The existing City Hall is a single story structure constructed of concrete block with face brick. It has a half basement on the east end of the building. This basement area which is now being used for office space has only a seven foot ceiling. The roof system is constructed of wood trust joist with plywood decking and a built up roof. The existing electrical system, a 200 amp residential panel, has reached it's capacity. The HVAC system is a mixture of a ducted HVAC system and residential type window air condition units. We found that the following items would need to be addressed in order to make the existing building structurally sound or to meet local and state codes: "Specialists in Owner Representative Services and Project Management" 1. There are structural cracks in the wall at the north side and east end of the building. These walls would have to be underpinned to prevent further settlement. If underpinning is used on this building then the new building would probably require a pile foundation since you would not be able to remove muck right up to the foundation of the existing building. The underpinning operation will interrupt portions of the City Hall Function. 2. The HVAC system in the building would need to be redesigned and replaced. The wall type air condition units should be removed. 3. The Electrical system needs to be upgraded to handle all the additional loads imposed upon it since the system was installed The telecommunications system will also need to be substantially upgraded. 4. The Toilet facilities do not meet code requirement in regard to handicap code or number of required fixtures. This will require additional area for the restrooms. 5. A major remodeling of the building would also normally require complete repainting, new ceiling tile, floor covering and replace the exterior mansard panels on the sides and rear of the building. 6. Handicap access must be provided on both levels to meet code and ADA requirements. 7. The building must be vacated in order to accommodate a complete remodeling activity. Therefore the cost of the double move and temporary quarters or phasing of the construction must be considered. 8. There appears to be 12" x 12" asbestos floor tile located in the hall to the basement and the basement. This cannot be disturbed during the remodeling. If it is to be removed, the work must be performed by a specialty contractor licensed to remove and dispose of hazardous material thereby creating no health hazard, for the occupants of the building or the construction workers. However if the building is to be razed the tile can be removed along with the concrete and other materials. The only precautions may be to keep wet during removal. 9. The wind loads have been revised in the newer additions of the Standard Building Code. If the building is to be brought up to the Current 1991 code,the following items need to be addressed: A. Masonry walls probably need to be reinforced. B. Wood trusses are probably not designed to handle the wind uplift of the new code. C. The wood trusses need to be anchored to bearing supports for this wind uplift. For A& B,a detailed investigation and evaluation of the internal structure would be necessary. In our opinion it will cost nearly as much to remodel the City Hall and make it fit in with a new design as it will to completely raze it and start new. With the existing structure gone it will then be possible to undercut the bad soil and replace with compacted fill eliminating the cost of piling on the new building. It will also make the construction operation more efficient. See the attached Cost Estimate. Temporary relocation would be required for both remodeling or razing . The noise of construction next to the building and/or underpinning operations would make City employees work in the building extremely difficult. However any moves may be easily offset by the Time and Cost savings, since the project can then be built in only one phase. It is our recommendation to the City of Ocoee not to remodel the existing City Hall building. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincere! ,p George C. Knudsen,P.E. ESTIMATED COST TO REMODEL OCOEE CITY HALL description of work quantity unit unit cost total cost Interior demolition 4,000 sf $1.50 $6,000 Underpin to prevent settlement 1 is $35,000.00 $35,000 Rework roof and mansards 4,000 sq $3.00 $12,000 Rework interior partitions 4,000 sf $1.96 $7,840 Interior doors and trim 4,000 sf $1.53 $6,120 Wall finishes 4,000 sf $0.79 $3,160 Floor finishes 4,000 sf $5.54 $22,160 Ceiling finishes 4,000 sf $2.50 $10,000 Interior painting 4,000 sf $1.25 $5,000 Plumbing 4,000 sf $3.44 $13,760 HV/AC 4,000 sf $5.71 $22,840 Electrical 4,000 sf $5.10 $20,400 Total of Construction Cost $164,280 Contractors Overhead and Profit $32,856 Permits and fees $16,428 Estimated Remodeling Cost $213,564 Estimated $53 Cost per sf x . Geotechnical, Environmental & Materials Engineers September 17, 1992 LIN Project No. 92-0333 LJNodarse &Associates,Inc. TO: CITY OF OCOEE 150 Lakeshore Drive Ocoee, Florida 32761 Attn: Ms. Montye Beamer RE: Interim Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed City Hall Expansion Ocoee, Florida Dear Ms. Beamer: L.J. Nodarse & Associates, Inc. (UN) is pleased to present this Interim report of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above-referenced project. The purposes of this study were to explore subsurface conditions at the site and to use the data obtained to develop engineering recommendations to guide site preparation, and design of foundations, pavements and stormwater retention facilities. This report briefly describes our exploration procedures, the data obtained, and presents options for preparing the site and foundations for support of the proposed structure at this site. The proposed two story structure will have a footprint of about 60 by 110 feet. The site selected for the new structure is just east of the existing Ocoee City Hall. The new structure will be oriented with the long axis of the structure in a north to south direction. • A new stormwater pond is planned along the north side of the structure and additional parking is planned for the west side. Plans to evaluate the remodeling of the existing City Hall structure are also being considered. The subsurface exploration at the site was performed using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings, test pits and hand auger borings in conjunction with muck probes. The SPT borings extended to a maximum depth of 50 feet below the existing ground surface at the site. Test pits, borings, and hand auger boring/muck probes were performed on 807 South Orlando Avenue•Suite A•Winter Park, Florida 32789•Telephone 407.740.6110♦Facsimile 407.740.6112 Project No. 92-0333 Page 2 an approximate 25' x 25' pattern to provide data for evaluation of the shallow subsurface conditions. All test locations were located by pacing or taping from prominent landmarks at the site and locations should be considered approximate. The exploration at the site generally confirmed a subsurface profile encountered in a preliminary study at the site performed by Michael D. Sims & Assoc. This profile generally included a surficial layer of brown to light brown fine sand. This layer varies in thickness from 2 to 5 feet across the site. This surficial layer is underlain by a stratum of highly organic muck and peat. This stratum is typically fibrous in the upper portion which grades to a more fined grained organic silt in the deeper areas. The thickness of this layer varies from about 2 feet to over 10 feet depending on the location. Below the muck the deeper SPT borings encountered silty and clayey fine sand to a depth of about 47 feet. The final stratum encountered was a greenish gray clay which extended from about 47 feet to the 50 foot termination depth of boring B-4. The groundwater level measured at the various test locations for this study was at or very near the top of the muck and peat layer and averaged about 4 feet below the existing ground surface. This subsurface profile imposes severe limitations on the required site preparation and associated foundation system used to support the proposed structure at this site. The peat and muck encountered at varying depths and thicknesses across the site will not support any additional load imposed by either structures or added fill soils without producing excessive settlements. Settlement of several inches would be anticipated for even small amounts of fill or light structure loads. The results of this study and the past history of settlement also suggest that the existing City Hall structure is constructed partially over this compressible layer. Thus any additional settlement of the peat or muck would tend to cause additional settlement and distress in the existing structure. The combination of the proximity of the existing structure to the new construction site and the presence of the compressible peat and muck limits the available foundation options for the new structure. One of these options is to remove the muck prior to construction and then support the new structure on conventional shallow spread or strip footings. This option would be best implemented by demucking all areas where new construction or fill soils are planned as well as the area beneath the existing City Hall. This, of course, also includes the inconvenience of moving out of the City Hall structure while construction is under way. The total demucking option is the most assured method for support of the new structures at this site, and is strongly recommended. Partial demucking of the area under the new structure only is also an option. However to accomplish this the existing structure would have to Ile underpinned or otherwise supported to prevent it from damage while the adjacent area is excavated and backfilled. The underpinning operation is generally an expensive operation and would require a partial evacuation of the existing structure while it is being performed. Partial demucking of the structure area will also allow differential settlement to occur between Project No. 92-0333 Page 3 the new structure and adjacent areas where demucking has not occurred. For these reasons, partial demucking of the site is not recommended. Deep foundations will also provide adequate support for the new structure. These foundation systems include driven piles, drilled shafts, and auger cast piles. However, to provide protection of the existing structure during pile installation, underpinning of the existing structure is also recommended. Support of the structure in this manner would also require the first floor to be designed as a structural slab. Any surrounding structures • or fill which would be placed over the compressible peat and muck would be subject to significant settlements which would be differential to the pile supported structure. These differential movements are often tolerated in some industrial settings by periodically regrading or re-constructing areas adjacent to the structure. This deep foundation alternative is recommended for support of the structures if the limitations of differentially settling surrounding areas can be tolerated. A study of the condition of the existing structure has been performed by K&R Engineers & Constructors to evaluate the cost of remodeling this structure. As stated in their report, this cost is in the neighborhood of $213,000. This figure included a cost to underpin the structure of about$35,000. Taking into consideration the cost of evacuating the structure during this operation and other unknown factors it is anticipated that the underpinning cost could be more in the range of$50,000. This would increase the total cost to retain the existing structure at approximately $230,000. A much more desirable situation is provided by removing the existing structure prior to new construction, proceeding with a selected option for site preparation and foundation construction, and subsequent construction of the new facility. This scenario provides for greater uniformity in the construction and support of the new facility and would provide superior long term stability and performance of the structures. For comparison purposes, very rough estimates of pile foundations and the structure demucking have been calculated. These estimates are based on assumptions of actual building footprint, building configuration and foundation loads, estimated muck quantities, and other assumed factors that are not yet defined for this project. However these numbers are presented to provide an order of magnitude comparison for the options described. Project No. 92-0333 Page 4 An auger cast pile of 30 ton allowable compressive capacity was used to develop the relative cost of the pile foundation. This pile section length and load carrying capacity appears to be compatible with the soil profile encountered at location B-4. Using this pile section and a total number of piles estimated by Fruland and Cox based on an assumed structure type and rough structural loads, a rough cost for installation of the piles at the site is about $250,000. An estimate of the number of yards of muck removal was also obtained from the data obtained from this study. This muck quantity was estimated to be approximately 2100 cubic yards. For the purposes of this estimated this number was doubled to take into account inherent inaccuracies in the data, the extreme variability of the deposit, and other factors of the demucking operation. A cost per cubic yard of$12.00 was used to develop a cost to remove and replace this muck quantity. Replacement yardage was based on assumed finish floorelevation equal to the existing basement floor elevation and a demucking area of only slightly larger than the proposed building footprint. An estimate of 2000 cubic yards of re-handled material at a cost of about $8.00 per cubic yard was also estimated. Based on these assumptions and limitations the demucking option has a cost premium of about $70,000. The estimates presented in this report are developed based on a number of assumptions of building types, construction and other factors which are poorly defined at this time. The figures presented are intended for use in evaluating the relative cost of the options presented. This estimated costs should not be used to develop actual costs or budget estimates for construction or funding requirements for this project. L. J. Nodarse & Associates, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project for you. If you have any questions concerning this interim report, please feel free to contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, L.J. NODARSE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Michael J. Preim, P.E. Mana:er, Geotechnical Services // 6J ila Jammal Nodarse, P.E. President & 'FOLEY & LARDNER • III NORTH ORANGE AVENUE,SUITE 1800 POST OFFICE BOX 2193 ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32802-2193 JACKSONVILLE. FLORIDA TELEPHONE 14071 423-7656 IS A MEMBER OF GLOBALEX TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDAWITH MEMBER OFFICES IN FACSIMILE 14071 648-1743 TAMPA, FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA LONDON, ENGLAND MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN PARIS. FRANCE MADISON, WISCONSIN BERLIN. GERMANY CHICAGO. ILLINOIS STUTTGART, GERMANY WASHINGTON, D.C. DRESDEN. GERMANY ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA SINGAPORE ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND TAIPEI. TAIWAN MEMORANDUM TO: OCOEE CITY COMMISSION THROUGH: ELLIS SHAPIRO FROM: R. DUKE WOODSON DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1992 RE: AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPERS ' AGREEMENTS The attached Amendment would amend the Developers' Agreements entered into by the City at the time of the purchase of the sewer utility from Prima Vista in 1987 . The Amendment addresses the revenue and maintenance fee which was adopted by Resolution on August 18, 1992 , and provides that the City will provide for a time of payment for the "Prima Vista Developers" which equitably reflects the payment schedule provided for in the existing Developers ' Agreements. The Amendment also provides that the City will not selectively enforce the charging and collection of the revenue and maintenance fee, which is provided for in the August 18 Resolution. Because the "Prima Vista Developers" have paid a revenue and maintenance fee for several years while other developers have not, the Amendment provides for a waiver of the extension fee which the developers would have to pay in 1997 if they wish an extension of the capacity allocation. I recommend the Commission approve the Amendment and authorize execution by the Mayor. cc: Montye Beamer millinhAMPOMMIONw Paul E. Rosenthal 4.9..-T t � L j,Y EA R 5 I=; X1, 1 j