Loading...
12-2-19 Meeting-Report from Wells FargoVisuai ��ructural Damage Assessment 198 Poinsettia Road Atlantic Beach, FL -32233 Prepared for: Brianna Snook REO Asset Recovery Manager III Wells Fargo Home Mortgage — Premier Asset Services WFHM I One Home Campus I Des Moines, IA 50328 Prepared by: EMA Forensic Associates, LLC Structural Forensic Engineers &Special Inspectors Project Number: 09627 November 20, 2019 Structural Forensic Engineers & Special inspectors Brianna Snook REO Asset Recovery Manager III Wells Fargo Home Mortgage - Premier Asset Services WFHM I One Home Campus I Des Moines, IA 50328 RE: Visual Structural Damage Assessment 198 Poinsettia Street, Atlantic Beach, Florida 1.0 INTRODUCTION Tel: (904) 361-9877 Reference No. 09627 November 20, 2019 VIA: Electronic Mail A visual non-destructive structural inspection of the residence located at 198 Poinsettia Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida, was performed with the authorization of Ms. Brianna Snook, REO Asset Recovery Manager at Wells Fargo Mortgage,Des Moines, Iowa. The purpose of this assessment was to perform a visual inspection of the accessible areas of the structural frame and report the structural condition. The scope of this inspection was minimal, and any issues pertaining to the extent of hidden areas of damage in roof and attics, walls, geotechnical investigation, structural analysis, and load path analysis were not included in the scope of this report. The owner's agent Ms. Peggie Watrron was present on the premises during inspection. The following tasks were performed as part of our structural assessment: 1.1 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY Based on the observations at the time of the site visit, the following are comments and oVinions offered by the engineer. These comments and/or recommendations are conceptual in nature and are based on a reasonable degree of professional certainty. It was the opinion of the engineer. • The referenced northeast side of the structural frame and roof section above represents an immediate dangerous or unsafe structural condition and must be I mmediately shored. Entry must be limited to professionals to shore the structurally compromised areas. • The damaged northeast section of the townhouse roof, walls, and interior fl oor framing were consistent with the damages caused by excessive moisture and leaks. This had caused damage to the structural components and wood rot in the referenced framing on the northeast and east side of the building. EMA Forensic Associates, P. O. Boy 69194 8, Orlando, FL -32869 ,Email: infonEMAengineers.com 1 tructural Forensic Engineers & Special Inspectors Tel: (904) 361-9877 Reference No. 09627 • Approximately 18 linear feet length of the east exterior load-bearing wall was noted to be moderately damaged on the second and third floors due to leaks. This has caused the 2nd and 3rd -floor framing to get dislodged from the east wall. The damages to the exterior frame have contributed to the roof and floor framing sagging/bulging due to lack of adequate structural support. • The northeast section of the referenced structure was noted to be leaning eastward and was only supported by first -floor patio columns and minor frame members. • The northeast section of the roof exhibits damages pertaining to on-going leaks and roof issues. The roof joists could not be inspected due to a lack of safety. • Damages to the roof as viewed using the client's supplied photographs to the northeast part of the flat roof were moderate. The open section of the roof finishes had caused moisture intrusion over a period of time, thus causing damage to the north wall, east wall section, and the floor framing below Based on our observations of open and accessible areas of the residence, it was EMA professional engineering opinion with reasonable certainty that approximately 2S-30% of the lateral and vertical load -carrying capacity of the structure has been compromised. The damages per current Florida Building Code may be classified as Substantial or Below Substantial Damages based on observations of future evaluation of the gutted interior framing, after shoring the structural components. However, the current damaged framing warrants repairs to bring the building in compliance with the current edition of the Florida Building Code (2017, Existing Residential). All these areas must be immediately secured and shored to avoid any issues of public and life safety until the client repairs the structure. EMA could not make any determination of the extent of damaged roof joists and elements, and/or any hidden interior or exterior wall framing of the structure due to safety concerns and lack of access. 2.0 STRUCTURE OVERVIEW This visual inspection was performed to check the extent and nature of the damages to the structural frame of the townhouse. This inspection consisted of ONLYvisual methods performed on readily accessible/open areas. These assessments were conducted in accordance with the "Guidelines for Structural Condition Assessment of Existing Buildings" of the American Society of Civil Engineers, "State of Florida Building Construction Standards, Part VII, State Minimum Building Codes," ASTM E2018: "Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments, "ASTM E678: "Standard Practice for Evaluation of Technical Data and ASTM E620: "Standard Practice for Reporting Opinions of Technical Experts." EMA Forensic Associates, P. O. Box 691948, Orlando, FL -32869 Email: info��EMAen�neers.com Structural Forensic Engineers & special Inspectors Tel: (904) 361-9877 Reference No. 09627 The subject structure was a three-story townhouse located in Atlantic Beach, Florida. Per Duval County Property Assessor's website, the townhouse was built in 1983. The exterior walls of the property were reported to be a wood frame. The interior of the structure was a wood frame with drywall finishes. The roof was noted to be a flat roof on wooden joist systems overlain with waterproofing membrane. The floor was a concrete slab. The front of the house faces east towards the Poinsettia Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida. 2.1 DOCUMENT REVIEW Documents Reviewed As part of EMA's assessment of the reported damage of the subject residential structure, EMA reviewed the various sections and editions of Florida Building Code and other material: 606.1 General Structural repairs shall be in compliance with this section and Section 601.2. Regardless of the extent of structural or nonstructural damage, dangerous conditions shall be eliminated. Regardless of the scope of repair, new structural members and connections used for repair or rehabilitation shall comply with the detailing provisions of the Florida Building Code, Building for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, and location. 606.2.1 Repairs for less than substantial structural damage For damage less than substantial structural damage, the damaged elements shall be permitted to be restored to their pre -damage condition. 606.2.2 Substantial structural damage to vertical elements of the lateral force- resistingsystem A building that has sustained substantial structural damage to the vertical elements of its lateral force -resisting system shall be evaluated in accordance with Section 606.2.2.1, and either repaired in accordance with Section 606.2.2.2 or repaired and rehabilitated in accordance with Section 606.2.2.3, depending on the results of the evaluation. 606.2.2.1 Evaluation The building shall be evaluated by a registered design professional, and the evaluation findings shall be submitted to the code official. The evaluation shall establish whether the damaged building, if repaired to its pre -damage state, would comply with the provisions of the Florida Building Code, Building for load combinations that include wind or earthquake effects, except that the seismic forces shall be the reduced Florida Building Code, Building -level seismic forces. EMA Forensic Associates, P. O. Bo1691948, Orlando, FL -32869 3 Email: info cr>EMAengineers.com Structural Forensic Engineers & Special Inspectors Tel: (904) 361-9877 Reference No. 09627 606.2.2.2 Extent of repair for compliant buildings If the evaluation establishes that the building in its pre -damage condition complies with the provisions of Section 606.2.2.1, then the damaged elements shall be permitted to be restored to their pre -damage condition. 606.2.2.3 Extent of repair for noncompliant buildings If the evaluation does not establish that the building in its pre -damage condition complies with the provisions of Section 606.2.2.1, then the building shall be rehabilitated to comply with the provisions of this section. The wind loads for the repair and rehabilitation shall be those required by the building code in effect at the time of original construction, unless the damage was caused by wind, in which case the wind loads shall be in accordance with the Florida Building Code, Building. The seismic loads for this rehabilitation design shall be those required by the building code in effect at the time of original construction, but not less than the reduced Florida Building Code, Building level seismic forces. 606.2.3 Substantial structural damage to gravity load -carrying components Gravity load -carrying components that have sustained substantial structural damage shall be rehabilitated to comply with the applicable provisions for dead and live loads in the Florida Building Code, Building. Snow loads shall be considered if the substantial structural damage was caused by or related to snow load effects. Undamaged gravity load -carrying components that receive dead, live, or snow loads from rehabilitated components shall also be rehabilitated if required to comply with the design loads of the rehabilitation design. 606.2.3.1 Lateral force -resisting elements Regardless of the level of damage to gravity elements of the lateral force -resisting system, if substantial structural damage to gravity load -carrying components was caused primarily by wind or seismic effects, then the building shall be evaluated in accordance with Section 606.2.2.1 and, if noncompliant, rehabilitated in accordance with Section 606.2.2.3. Florida Building Code, Building Section 1612.2 Definitions, SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT Any repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or improvement of a building or structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the improvement or repair is started. If the structure has sustained substantial damage, any repairs are considered substantial improvement regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: EMA Forensic Associates, P. O. Boy 691948, Orlando, F`L-32869 .Email: infor�EMAengineers.com EMA Structural Forensic Engineers at Special Inspectors Tel: (904) 361-9877 Reference No. 09627 1. Any alteration of a historic structure provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure. Florida Bung Code, Existing Buildings Section 202 Definitions A. Chapter 5 Repairs -Section 506.2 of the Florida Building Code -Existing Building states. a. Repairs to damaged buildings shall comply with this section and Section 611, Reroofing. B. Chapter 6 Alterations - Level 1 Section 611.1.1 of the Florida Building Code - Existing Building states: a. Not more than 25% of the total roof area or roof section of any existing building or structure shall be repaired, replaced or recovered in any 12 -month period unless the entire roofing system or roofsection conforms to the requirements of this code. C. Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) for the Department of Community Affairs; a. Division of Housing and Community Development, Chapter: Florida Building Commission - Operational Procedures i. Rule 9B-3.047 Mitigation Retrofits Required 1. "The Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site -Built Single -Family Residential Structures, effective date April 6, 2008. SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. A condition where one or both of the following apply: 1. The vertical elements of the lateral force -resisting system have suffered damage such that the lateral load -carrying capacity of any story in any horizontal direction has been reduced by more than 33 percent from its pre -damage condition. 2. The capacity of any vertical component carrying gravity load, or any group of such elements, that supports more than 30 percent of the total area of the structure's floors and roofs has been reduced more than 20 percent from its pre -damage condition and the remaining capacity of such affected elements, with respect to all dead and live loads, is less than 75 percent of that required by this code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, and location. o In any story, the vertical elements of the lateral force -resisting system, in any direction and taken as a whole, have suffered such that the lateral load -carrying capacity has been reduced more than 33% from its pre -damaged condition, or ■ The capacity of any vertical load -carrying component, or any group EMA Forensic Associates, P. O. Boy 6y19-48, Orlando, FL -32869 of such Email: uifoCco MAengineers.com Structural Forensic Engineers at Special Inspectors Tel: (904) 361-9877 Reference No. 09627 1. Any alteration of a historic structure provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure. Florida Bung Code, Existing Buildings Section 202 Definitions A. Chapter 5 Repairs -Section 506.2 of the Florida Building Code -Existing Building states. a. Repairs to damaged buildings shall comply with this section and Section 611, Reroofing. B. Chapter 6 Alterations - Level 1 Section 611.1.1 of the Florida Building Code - Existing Building states: a. Not more than 25% of the total roof area or roof section of any existing building or structure shall be repaired, replaced or recovered in any 12 -month period unless the entire roofing system or roofsection conforms to the requirements of this code. C. Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) for the Department of Community Affairs; a. Division of Housing and Community Development, Chapter: Florida Building Commission - Operational Procedures i. Rule 9B-3.047 Mitigation Retrofits Required 1. "The Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site -Built Single -Family Residential Structures, effective date April 6, 2008. SUBSTANTIAL STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. A condition where one or both of the following apply: 1. The vertical elements of the lateral force -resisting system have suffered damage such that the lateral load -carrying capacity of any story in any horizontal direction has been reduced by more than 33 percent from its pre -damage condition. 2. The capacity of any vertical component carrying gravity load, or any group of such elements, that supports more than 30 percent of the total area of the structure's floors and roofs has been reduced more than 20 percent from its pre -damage condition and the remaining capacity of such affected elements, with respect to all dead and live loads, is less than 75 percent of that required by this code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, and location. o In any story, the vertical elements of the lateral force -resisting system, in any direction and taken as a whole, have suffered such that the lateral load -carrying capacity has been reduced more than 33% from its pre -damaged condition, or ■ The capacity of any vertical load -carrying component, or any group EMA Forensic Associates, P. O. Boy 6y19-48, Orlando, FL -32869 of such Email: uifoCco MAengineers.com Structural Forensic Engineers & Special Inspectors Tel: (904) 361-9877 Reference No. 09627 ■ elements, thatsupport more than 30% of the structure's floor and roofs) has been reduced more than 20% from its pre -damaged condition and the remaining capacity of such affected elements, with respect to all dead and live loads, is less than 75% of that required by this code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, and location. ➢ Section 407. 3.3 Below substantial structural damage: • Repairs to buildings damaged to a Level below the substantial structural damage level, as defined in Section 202, shall be allowed to be made with the materials, methods, and strengths in existence prior to the damage unless such existing conditions are dangerous as defined in Chapter 2. New structural frame members as defined in Chapter 2. o Section 708 and 708.1.1 it )I of the Florida Building Code -Existing Building indicates the following. • Not more than 25 percent of the total roof area or roof section of any existing building or structure shall be repaired, replaced or recovered in any 12 -month period unless the entire roofing system or roofsection conforms to the requirements of this code. 3.0 SITE OBSERVATION &EVALUATION IVon-Destructive visual inspection and observations were conducted by EMA staff engineers to confirm the accuracy of any existing information and to assess the condition of the structure's visible framing and roof portions within the scope of this inspection. 3.1 FIELD OBSERVATIONS Observations of the referenced property's Exterior revealed the following: • Evidence of damaged exterior north and northeast wall frame was noted (Photographs 4 through 8). • Evidence of structural cracks, bowing or leaning exterior walls/roof elements were noted (Photo 9 through 12). • Evidence of damaged roof fascia/soffit along the northside was noted (Photo 13 through 15). • Evidence of moderate roof damage to the northeast section of the roof wooden joists and coverings was noted (Photograph 16 through 18). • Evidence of out of plumb south wall adjoining unit 196 was noted (Photo 19). • Evidence of damaged framing members in the north exterior wall from the roof to the first floor was noted (Photo 20 through 22). EMA Forensic Associates, P. O. Boa 691948, Orlando, FL -32869 0 Email: info�i�EIVIAengineers.com Structural Forensic Engineers & Special Inspectors Tel: (904) 361-9877 Reference No. 09627 • Evidence of broken entry stairs and minor delamination to balcony wood members was noted (Photographs 23 through 25). Observations of the referenced property's Interior revealed the following: • Evidence of substantial moisture -induced drywall damages was noted in various interior walls of the residence (Photographs 26 through 28). • Evidence of extensive moisture -damaged framing members in the northeast section of the exterior wall was noted on various floors (Photographs 27 through 30). • Evidence of dislodged and partially damaged 2,�d-floor framing members on the northeast side of the property was noted (Photographs 31 through 32). • Evidence of moisture -damaged roof wood joists was noted in various roof sections (Photographs 33 and 34). 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the observations at the time of the site visit, the following are comments and opinions offered by the engineer. These comments and/or recommendations are conceptual in nature and are based on a reasonable degree of professional certainty. It was the opinion of the engineer: • The referenced northeast side of the structural frame and roof section above represents an immediate dangerous or unsafe structural condition and must be immediately shored. Entry must be limited to professionals to shore the structurally compromised areas. • The damaged northeast section of the townhouse roof, walls, and interior floor framing were consistent with the damages caused by excessive moisture and leaks. This had caused damage to the structural components and wood rot in the referenced framing on the northeast and east side of the building. • Approximately 181inear feet length of the east exterior load-bearing wall was noted to be moderately damaged on the second and third floors due to leaks. This has caused the 2nd and 3rd -floor framing to get dislodged from the east wall. The damages to the exterior frame have contributed to the roof and floor framing sagging/bulging due to lack of adequate structural support. • The northeast section of the referenced structure was noted to be leaning eastward and was only supported by first -floor patio columns and minor frame members. EMA Forensic Associates, P. O. Bo16919�18, Orlando, FL -32869 7 Email: info��EMAen�ineers.com IP AA A MWIVEr r Structural Forensic Engineers & Special Inspectors Tel: (904) 361-9877 Reference No. 09627 • The northeast section of the roof exhibits damages pertaining to on-going leaks and roof issues. The roof joists could not be inspected due to a lack of safety. • Damages to the roof as viewed using the client's supplied photographs to the northeast part of the flat roof were moderate. The open section of the roof finishes had caused moisture intrusion over a period of time, thus causing damage to the north wall, east wall section, and the floor framing below Based on our observations of open and accessible areas of the residence, it was EMA professional engineering opinion with reasonable certainty that approximately 25-30% of the lateral and vertical load -carrying capacity of the structure has been compromised. The damages per current Florida Building Code may be classified as Substantial or Below Substantial Damages based on observations of future evaluation of the gutted interior framing, after shoring the structural components. However, the current damaged framing warrants repairs to bringthe building in compliance with the current edition of the Florida Building Code (2017, Existing Residential). All these areas must be immediately secured and shored to avoid any issues of public and life safety until the client repairs the structure. EMA could not make any determination of the extent of damaged roof joists and elements, and/or any hidden interior or exterior wall framing of the structure due to safety concerns and lack of access. 4.1 Conditions and Limitations This document was prepared for the exclusive use of Wells Fargo Mortgage and was not intended for any other purpose. The observations and opinions contained herein are limited and are based on the information available to us at the time of inspection. The evaluation performed on the above date was a limited visual non-destructive assessment of the referenced areas of the damaged frame. Areas hidden from views such as roof, slab - on -grade, attic, ceilings, interior walls, subsoils, and floor/foundation cavities or other inaccessible areas were not examined. No structural analysis has been performed on any portion of this structure to determine the load -carrying capacity or the load path along the damaged section of load-bearing framing. This document does not address any geotechnical, subsoil conditions, the cause of differential settlements, mechanical, electrical, or plumbing issues. Please note that EMA reserves the right to revise the observations and opinions above, as conditions change, or additional information becomes available. This document was prepared for our client's use, and EMA disclaims any liability for use by others. The condition of the premises may change after the date of our inspection due to many factors such as weather, fire, moisture, leaks, actions taken by others, or passage of time itself. Our report deals with the conditions of the premises at the time of the inspection only. By accepting this report, the client agrees to hold harmless EMA fully, it's staff, EMA Forensic Associates, P. O. Box 691948, Orlando, FL -32869 Email: infonaEMAen�ineers.com Structural Forensic Engineers & Special Inspectors Tel: (904) 361-9877 Reference No. 09627 engineers, and consultants for any hidden damages, issues, and/or any litigation for any reason whatsoever based on the findings of this inspection. The report is not to be considered as a guarantee of the condition, and no warranty is implied. This report is non -transferable from the original client and cannot be used in any litigation and/or insurance claim support due to the limited nature of the scope of work. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and to our company itself, all reports are submitted as a confidential property of EMA, and authorization for publication of statements, conclusion, and extracts from our reports are reserved, pending our written prior approval. EMA cannot be held responsible for any hidden defects that may negatively impact the performance of the structure. This report is intended to provide an overview A the existing conditions and should not be used as an indicator of future performance; no expressed or implied warranties or guarantees of any kind are given. EMA appreciates this opportunity to have assisted you with this inspection. Please contact us if you need additional engineering services. Sincerely, EMA Forensic Associates, LLC. ENS 5256 * _ 'VSTATE Or pO • C I O P� ••irw�v``` 94, '0 N 1 111 t t11 11/22/2019 Mujahid Ali, Ph.D., P.E.S.I Senior Principal Engineer FL P.E. License No.: 052567 Encl. Figure 1 Location Maps Attachment A Site Photographs EMA Forensic Associates. P. O. Boy 691948, Orlando, FL -32869 0 Eni1i1: infoi�r�EMAen�neers.com Reference No. 09627 Figures �"�UUC7UU Howell Park <-b LP , Atlantic Beach Elementary Scho... 3rd ST Reference No. 09627 Figures i-avafia Rd 198 Poinsettia St, r _, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 pany fl ♦ Fly's Tie Irish Pub Downto.vn n_ Ocean 6� Restaurant _ Neptune Beach One Ocean Resort £x r ,oAtlantic BlvdASA. north Beach fish camp _ — Poe's Tavern �l Y'I Y't Lucky's Fdarket Sliders Oyster Ear Publix Ta b .^,t 1_ -end Trout Pi'meI FZD Jacksonville t13 9 ^ _ 198 Poinsettia St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 ,1, zuz; zoz eutyec R;\V"' Ponte Vedra Beach Ponte Vedra Bellair Orange Park yB Palm-VaIIey Lakeside Qr5 St Johns Fleming Fruit Cove Island Ponte %fedra Figure 1—Locat0 r. . ,41PF Q triton Rr� ?tuna Rd Howell Park <-b LP , Atlantic Beach Elementary Scho... 3rd ST Reference No. 09627 Figures i-avafia Rd 198 Poinsettia St, r _, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 pany fl ♦ Fly's Tie Irish Pub Downto.vn n_ Ocean 6� Restaurant _ Neptune Beach One Ocean Resort £x r ,oAtlantic BlvdASA. north Beach fish camp _ — Poe's Tavern �l Y'I Y't Lucky's Fdarket Sliders Oyster Ear Publix Ta b .^,t 1_ -end Trout Pi'meI FZD Jacksonville t13 9 ^ _ 198 Poinsettia St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 ,1, zuz; zoz eutyec R;\V"' Ponte Vedra Beach Ponte Vedra Bellair Orange Park yB Palm-VaIIey Lakeside Qr5 St Johns Fleming Fruit Cove Island Ponte %fedra Figure 1—Locat0 Attachment A Site Photographs Reference No. 09627 Attachment A—Site Photographs rAA/1 '-.ik*r L� f Y 4 MMLY �-st F > i�N,ji4 is t# aIs W ¢ tt i1 i 1 is to isY d so dir xx.i Ail 11 r i `�� Reference No. 09627 Attaclunent A—Site Photographs Arl asl \� } 19r oil � - View of displaced and buckled wall at the northeast corner of the property Reference No. 09627 Attachment A—Site Photographs Reference No. 09627 Attaclunent A -Site Photographs 0 - View of leaning/out-of--plumb south wall of the property adjacent to unit 96. Reference No. 09627 Attachinent A—Site Photographs � L• � I j r I 1 , Irl; fir i1 lid _— �T I I dd tt#OF L2 - View of the damaged an d bulging out second -floor beam due to wet rot. Reference No. 09627 Attachment A—Site Photographs - View of partially damaged roof joists above a north roof section. Reference No. 09627 Attaclunent A—Site Photographs ._ IfA it t e j- i �1 ;j 16 - View of the damaged northeast section of the flat roof, north-west roof, and revious repairs (courtesy of Wells Fargo &Duval County). �I 'i i 41. F, Reference No. 09627 Attachment A—Site Photographs mr 7 Lw L7 - View of a hole through the north main roof a cause of moisture intrusion. Courtesy of Wells Fargo & Duval County). Reference No. 09627 Attachment A—Site Photographs J _ dd i 19 - View of leaning north section of the property. 0 View of evidenceof / secooor ore Reference No. 09627 Attaclunent A—Site Photographs 21 - View of a few damaged 2nd -floor northeast wall framing. At ANN ' •�IN4,r t] 1 . All O ^VON.� +r5 � t NO R Alit NUN ON)r % , IlL �j' ♦\ try. r �tC✓'. WON Or 4 ill llil rO / ss MUM • IN • • • ' • ' • • ' • ' • • • N� LIN i41 II t ry Nil t Of pi Ilk 4 NT r Or I S 1 / 7r• , .�. if IN ON Oil, `i SiN, OR IL Not T rOr Nol k: t r N 4j $$� t. ( 14 1 ON, I ,Y �< INC I fill 4 le / if NINNIN�' O /¢Nit a Reference No. 09627 Attachment A—Site Photographs Reference No. 09627 Attachment A --Site Photographs L.Z=LLzlL; ` AOIOO ¢`. k� J , I r m Reference No. 09627 Attacluuent A—Site Photographs