RPA ENGINEERING, P.A. Structural Engineering Solutions

102 Regency Blvd., Suite A1, Greenville, NC 27834 Ph. 252-321-6027 Fax 252-355-2179

135 Parkway Office Ct., Suite 201, Cary, NC 27518 Ph. 919-859-5611 Fax 919-859-5610

September 16, 2009 Mr. Carl Rees Urban Development Planner City of Greenville PO Box 7207 201 W. 5th St Greenville, NC 27835-7207 Re: Structural Evaluation of State Theater Building, Greenville, NC – RPA Project No.2009135 Dear Mr. Rees: We have completed our structural evaluation of the existing building noted above. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the structural integrity of the fly loft area (high area at rear of the building). Following is a summary of our observations with recommendations for addressing any concerns that were identified. Our services are of limited scope, involved only a visual examination of reasonably accessible areas except as may be specifically discussed within the body of the report. This report is an assessment of the noted conditions based on visual evidence and our qualified knowledge and experience. It is not a guarantee or warrantee of the condition or suitability for a particular use. Further, we are not responsible for conditions which could not be seen or were outside of the scope of our services at the time the services were rendered. This is not a building inspection or building code compliance inspection. While we may comment on any building code or other untoward conditions we observe, they are not the focus of this investigation. Unless otherwise specifically described below, we have not performed any destructive or invasive testing or procedures during the investigation. For reference, left and right directions are assuming facing the front of the building. The front of the building is assumed to face due south. Background Information I performed a previous evaluation of the building in 2007 for a prospective buyer (see attached report dated November 8, 2007), but I was not able to examine the rear fly loft area due to inaccessibility because of the height. At the time of my latest visit on September 14, 2009, scaffolding had been erected in the left rear corner of the building, which enabled me to examine a portion of the fly loft area The existing State Theater building is located on West 5th Street in downtown Greenville, NC. It was most recently known as the Park Theater and was referred to as White’s Theater before that. The building is primarily a one story structure with a small second floor area near the front. I understand that the building was constructed in 1924 and was known at that time as the State Theater. It has been vacant for several years. Structural Evaluation of State Theater Building

1 of 10

The building construction consists of wood roof framing and solid load-bearing masonry exterior walls. The footprint of the building is approximately 40’x100’. The main roof is a gable profile running from front to rear and there is a higher roof over the fly loft area at the rear of the building which is elevated about 30’ above the main roof eave. The main roof structure consist of timber roof trusses at about 10’ on center with rough-cut 2x8 rafters and ceiling joists at 24” on center spanning between the trusses. The trusses bear on the exterior masonry side walls, which consist of 3 wythes of 4” brick (approx. 12” total wall thickness). The walls of the fly loft area consist of rough cut 2x8 studs at approximately 12” on center. The exterior is covered with diagonal board sheathing. There are 2 levels of joists in the fly loft area. There are 2x8 ceiling joists at 24” to 30” on center which bear at the top of the masonry walls (base of stud wall). These joists support an acoustical tile suspended ceiling and some ductwork. There is a platform level about 16’ to 18’ above the ceiling joists. The joists supporting the platform appeared to be triple 2x10 members connected together with 1x4 boards, with gaps between them, for sheathing. I was not able to measure the member sizes due to lack of access. The rafters are about 6’ above the platform level and also appear to be triple 2x10 members. The majority of wall framing in the fly loft area was covered with some type of thin white fiberboard panel. There is a mechanical room at the north end of the building, attached to the fly loft north wall. This room was not accessible and I understand that it will be demolished, so assessing its condition is not required. Observations and Recommendations I performed a visual examination of the fly loft area of the building on September 14, 2009. The purpose of my examination was to identify any visible structural problems/concerns. The examination was cursory in nature in that I only examined areas of the building that were readily visible. I did not remove wall and ceiling finishes, etc. to examine the structure beneath except as noted below. The following items were observed during my visit. Attached are photographs which are related to these items. See photographs 1-4 for general views of the building exterior. See my earlier report dated November 8, 2007 for my observations/recommendations concerning the main building. 1. The exterior walls are covered with some type of black roofing sheets which are nailed to the exterior sheathing. There are areas at the base of the east and west walls where the sheets have fallen off exposing damaged sheathing boards (photographs 3 and 4). The damaged sheathing should be replaced with diagonal boards or plywood or OSB sheathing and re-covered with some type of siding material. I understand that the existing siding material will be removed and replaced with a different material. 2. Some of the rafters and roof sheathing at the northwest corner and center portion of the north wall are damaged and have collapsed (photographs 5 and 9). I could not assess the full extent of the damage due to lack of access but it appears that at least 8 to 10 rafters have collapsed and a large section of the roof sheathing is missing. I understand that the roofing will be replaced. Once this is done, the existing sheathing and rafters and be more closely inspected. All damage members should be replaced and the roof sheathing should be replaced with 5/8” plywood. I recommend that new hurricane anchors be installed at all new and existing rafters to connect them to the tip of the stud walls. A Simpson H2.5A or equivalent anchor should be used (600 lb minimum uplift capacity). 3. A few of the existing 2x8 studs are damaged (photograph 7). Damaged studs should be replaced with double 2x8 No.2 Southern Pine studs. The new double 2x8 will be equivalent to the existing rough cut single 2x8 studs. 4. The existing 2x8 ceiling joists only support the suspended ceiling system and some ductwork, all of which will eventually be removed (photographs 6 and 11). The joists can be removed also because they are serving no other purpose. This is recommended because the headers supporting Structural Evaluation of State Theater Building

2 of 10

the joists are not in good condition and have numerous splices and the joists are not wellconnected to the headers (photograph 12). The joists are toe-nailed to the headers, which will not provide much support. Also, the joists do not have adequate lateral support. More substantial framing will need to be installed at this level to provide lateral support for the exterior walls. I understand that the proposed future renovation of the building may include a 2nd floor in the loft area. This would provide the required lateral support for the walls if the floor elevation is near the top of the masonry walls. 5. There is a steel lintel beam above the duct wall opening near the center of the north wall which consists of 2 parallel I-beam sections (photograph 10). The beams are fairly rusty and the inner one is not bearing fully on the brick at each end. I could not examine the outer beam. This wall opening will probably be filled in during the renovation. If so, the beam will not be needed and can be removed. If not, the end bearing conditions should be corrected. Conclusion The building generally appears to be in relatively good structural condition except for the items described above. The most serious problem is the damage to the roof framing and sheathing described in item 2. This problem should be corrected as soon as possible so that further damage to the building does not occur. Any damaged studs as described in item 2 should be replaced or repaired as soon as possible. The problems with the wall sheathing described in item 1 and the lintel beam in item 5 are structurally minor and not urgent but should be addressed soon to prevent significant problems from developing in the future. Item 4 is not urgent and can be done later. I understand that the renovation of the building will probably be done in two phases. The first phase will consist of making structural repairs to the building and repairing the roofing and wall covering so that they are adequate to keep water out of the building. The second phase would consist of completing the remaining renovation work. It is my recommendation that all items described above except for item 4 (removal of ceiling joists) be completed as part of the phase 1 work. Item 4 can be completed as part of phase 2. Also, items 2, 3, and 4 in the “Interior” section of my November 8, 2007 should be done as part of phase 1 work. The building renovation will require that the existing building structure be brought up to current North Carolina Building Code load requirements (wind, seismic, snow, and live loads). This may require strengthening of some of the framing members and walls and providing additional lateral support for walls. Evaluation of the capacity of the existing framing members to support the Code required loads is beyond the scope of this investigation but we can provide assistance with this if needed. All opinions and conclusions are considered accurate to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty based on the evidence available at the time the report is issued and are subject to revision based on receipt of new or additional information. Our services are confidential in nature and we will no release this report to any other party without your express consent. If desired, we can provide additional services to design and provide drawings for correcting deficiencies and modifying the floor or roof framing and any other structural changes proposed for the building. Please call me if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely,

Mark S. Roy, PE President/Structural Engineer Structural Evaluation of State Theater Building

SEAL 17348

9/16/09 3 of 10

Damaged sheathing

Photograph 1 – Fly Loft Front View

Photograph 2 – Fly Loft Area Rear Wall

Structural Evaluation of State Theater Building

4 of 10

Damaged sheathing

Photograph 3 – Fly Loft Area East Wall

Damaged sheathing

Photograph 4 – Fly Loft Area West Wall

Structural Evaluation of State Theater Building

5 of 10

Roof framing Platform framing

Photograph 5 – Fly Loft Platform and Roof at Northwest Corner

Joists

I-Beam at front wall Suspended ceiling

Photograph 6 – Fly Loft Ceiling Joists at West Wall

Structural Evaluation of State Theater Building

6 of 10

Damaged stud

Photograph 7 – Damaged Stud at East Wall

Photograph 8 – Studs and Interior Panels at Rear Wall

Structural Evaluation of State Theater Building

7 of 10

Photograph 9 – Platform and Roof Framing at Center of Rear Wall

Photograph 10 - Wall Opening at Center of Rear Wall

Structural Evaluation of State Theater Building

8 of 10

Photograph 11 – Ceiling Joists at Rear Wall

Photograph 12 – Ceiling Joist Header Structural Evaluation of State Theater Building

9 of 10

Damaged sheathing

Photograph 13 – Fly Loft East Wall

Structural Evaluation of State Theater Building

10 of 10