(610) 437-0979 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & … Engineering Report.pdfincluding Craig Hynes and Philip Roeder, both representing the Bethlehem Building ... made to fix this crack with the

٠ Build your foundation on a solid BASE ٠ 35 years of service with integrity ٠

Page 1 of 16

BASE ENGINEERING INC. (610) 437-0978 (610) 437-0979 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 1010 N. QUEBEC STREET, ALLENTOWN, PA 18109-1607 FAX (610) 432-3800 www.BaseEng.com [email protected]

CIVIL STRUCTURAL MUNICIPAL ELECTRICAL MATERIAL HANDLING MECHANICAL SUPERVISION

June 24, 2016

City of Bethlehem Building Department. 10 East Church St Bethlehem, PA 18018 ATTN: Craig Hynes Chief Building Inspector RE: 30 E. 3rd St. Bethlehem PA Structural Assessment – Base Project No.: 2016-080 Mr. Hynes: Pursuant to your request, Base Engineering, Inc. (Base) has completed our investigation regarding the structural condition of the existing multi-story commercial building located at 30 E 3rd St., in Bethlehem PA. The purpose of this investigation was to address concerns raised by the City of Bethlehem regarding the overall condition of the property, including the structural integrity of the building, as well as identify a schematic scope of work (and cost) necessary to repair the structure, if required. It is our understanding that the building has been abandoned for approximately 20 years. This investigation was limited to observations of those elements visible at the time of a recent site survey of the property. Physical testing of building materials, destructive or non-destructive and review of the original construction documents were outside the scope of this work, and were not performed. INVESTIGATION The building in question is a three-story, plus basement, historic commercial structure located in the downtown area of Bethlehem, PA (Photo 1). The 5100 ± square foot building consists of exterior multi-wythe brick bearing walls supporting wood floor joists and a wood framed (trusses) roof system. Based upon conversations with the City of Bethlehem (the City), it is our understanding that the building has been empty since the mid-to-late 1990’s. It is further our understanding that there have been numerous issues regarding water infiltration and mold with the property, and that the City has issued numerous violations to the building owner regarding these issues.


Page 2 of 16

Base performed a site survey of the property on June 15, 2016 to observe the condition of the property. These observations were limited to visual assessments of the structural elements of the building only. Also present at that time were members of various departments of the City, including Craig Hynes and Philip Roeder, both representing the Bethlehem Building Department. Initial observations were made of the exterior of the building. The exterior walls consist of multi-wythe brick, with the east façade being covered in a stucco finish. The front (north) side of the building consists of a “finish” brick for the exterior wythe, with large storefront windows spanning the entire face of the first floor (Photo 2). The overall condition of the brick in this area appears sound, with little signs of distress. The seal around the storefront windows appear to have failed. A large crack is present in the eastern window. An attempt has previously been made to fix this crack with the use of clear packing tape (Photo 3). The eastern wall of the building is covered in stucco (Photo 4), which is failing. Visible cracks in the finish were observed (Photo 5), as well as a noticeable bulge in the finish (Photo 6). These conditions suggest that the stucco has delaminated from the back-up brick, and is failing. This condition poses a safety concern to pedestrians around the building, and should be addressed as soon as possible. The rear of the building consists of exposed brick, which is extremely weathered (Photos 7 and 8), with severe spalling and flaking of the face of the brick (Photo 9). While some distress should be expected in a building of this age, the condition found in this case is extreme and suggests a lack of maintenance on the wall, and probable damage/distress due to water infiltration. A bow in the parapet at the rear of the building was also observed at this time. A visual survey of the interior of the building was also performed at this time. The interior of the building exhibits severe signs of distress due to water infiltration and high humidity, probably due to a lack of air circulation (Photo 10). The second floor framing was observed from the main level of the building. In general, the framing members appeared sound and stable. Large portions of the ceiling finish (most likely plaster) had collapsed exposing the floor structure above (Photos 11 and 12). A portion of the floor has collapsed, adjacent to the stair up to the second floor (Photo 13). The conditions on the second floor (looking up to the third floor frame) were similar to those found below (Photos 14 and 15). The 1100 square foot portion of the building at the rear of the structure also showed signs of previous distress and repair. Scaffolding was located in this area supporting the third floor (Photo 16). This scaffolding also extended up on the third floor to the roof (Photo 17). Severe water staining and mold were also present at this level. The roof structure was viewed (from below) from the third floor. The roof construction consists of wood rafters and beams, supported by roof trusses spanning the width of the building. Similar conditions exist at this level, included failed ceiling finishes and the presence of high humidity, signs of water infiltration and mold (Photo 18).


Page 3 of 16

The truss at the front of the building has completely failed, and collapsed onto the third floor (photos 19 thru 21). This creates a condition whereby the building is unsafe, and most likely overloads the third floor structure. In addition, the collapse of this portion of the roof has most likely redistributed how the roof loads are supported, and may be overloading the remaining, “in-tact” roof structure as well. Finally, the interior of the adjacent building was also observed during this investigation. The occupants of that space noted that previous repairs had been made to the common wall, to address issues arising from water infiltration in this wall. At the time of our site visit, Base observed distress in the wall finishes (Photo 22), most likely due to this on-going water infiltration issue. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the investigation noted above, it is our professional opinion that while the building has sustained substantial damage, it is still overall structurally sound and able to support the required gravity and lateral loads, provided that repairs are performed to the damaged elements. The overall condition of the second and third floor structures appear, at the time of our site visit, to be fair and structurally sound. The majority of the damage appears to be failure of the ceiling and wall finishes, most likely due to water and moisture problems. Several isolated areas of the floor structure have failed, but they do not appear to have affected the overall stability of the building as a whole. While the floors of the building appear relatively sound and stable, repairs are still necessary to ensure future stability of the building. The main structural concern with the building is the collapse of a portion of the roof structure. The collapse of a portion of the roof has undoubtedly placed undue strain on the remaining portions of the roof, as well as the portion of the third floor which the roof now rests on. At this time it is not possible to determine when the roof collapsed, but it has likely contributed to some of the distress found on the interior of the building. While it is our professional opinion that the overall building is currently stable, there is enough significant damage to the structure to suggest that this condition is subject to change at any time. The condition of the building presents a significant safety concern to the general public immediately outside the building, as well as to the occupants of the adjacent, attached structure. Any change in condition of the subject property may affect the adjacent building. Therefore, in order to ensure the safety of the general public and the integrity of the building, we recommend that repairs be undertaken immediately. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon our observations and conclusions, Base feels that remedial repairs to building should take place as soon as possible. A basic scope of work is as follows:

The existing floor and roof structures should be immediately shored to prevent further movement/deterioration/collapse of the structure. As a partial collapse of the roof has


Page 4 of 16

already taken place, it is imperative to stabilize the remaining structure immediately, prior to the start of any repairs. In addition to the roof and floor structures, the exterior wall of the building (primarily at the front) should be shored and secured from possible future collapse.

The collapsed portions of the roof (debris) should be removed to eliminate additional distress to the third floor.

The roof of the building should be made weather-tight in the area of the collapse to prevent further damage to the structure.

Portions of the existing ceiling and wall finishes on all floors should be removed to expose the wall studs and floor joists and roof rafters. Any elements found damaged should be repaired and/or replaced as required. It will not be possible to determine the extent of this work until the finishes are removed.

The areas of roof and floor collapse should be repaired or replaced, including sheathing. This work should be coordinated with the survey of the interior conducted after all of the finishes are removed.

A full survey of the brick on the south (rear) and west sides of the building should be performed. These walls should be repaired, including repointing of joints and removal and replacement of all damaged and compromised bricks. The stucco on the east façade should be removed and the wall visually surveyed to determine if additional remedial work is required in this area.

All work should be performed by qualified contractors with experience with this type of work and repair. Additionally, all work should be overseen by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Pennsylvania. Once these repairs are completed, it is Base’s professional opinion that the structure should be capable of supporting the assumed loads. Please note that the scope of work outline above does not address the issue of water infiltration and mold at the property. Additional work will be required to ensure that the building is weather-tight and remediated. The extent of this work cannot be determined without a full survey of the roof and the building envelope. Due to safety concerns regarding this property, we do not recommend that this survey take place until repairs to the structure are completed. As requested, Base has also attempted to develop an “Opinion of Probable Cost” for the scope of work noted above. Based upon the scope of work outlined above, we estimate that the City should budget a construction cost of 400,000. This estimate is for the structural repairs alone (demolition, reconstruction and estimated engineering fees), and does not include the cost of weatherproofing the structure or remediation of the mold. In addition, this cost does not include additional, unanticipated work which may be required and determined during the course of the work outline above.


Page 5 of 16

Please note that Base Engineering is not a professional estimator, and all costs and opinions of probable costs should be taken as budgetary figures only. The opinions and conclusions noted above are based upon the limited visual observations made during the June 15, 2016 site visit. These observations were limited to those areas and elements that were readily visible at the time. Additional testing, both destructive and non-destructive, was outside the Scope of this work, and thus not performed. Base should be notified immediately of any information found which is contrary to the assumptions and observations noted. If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Barry A Cohen, PE Senior Structural Engineer Attachments: Photographs 1 – 22


Page 6 of 16

PHOTO 1

PHOTO 2


Page 7 of 16

PHOTO 3

PHOTO 4

CRACK IN WINDOW


Page 8 of 16

PHOTO 5

PHOTO 6

CRACK IN STUCCO

BULGE IN STUCCO


Page 9 of 16

PHOTO 7

PHOTO 8


Page 10 of 16

PHOTO 9

PHOTO 10


Page 11 of 16

PHOTO 11

PHOTO 12


Page 12 of 16

PHOTO 13

PHOTO 14

COLLAPSED AREA


Page 13 of 16

PHOTO 15

PHOTO 16


Page 14 of 16

PHOTO 17

PHOTO 18


Page 15 of 16

PHOTO 19

PHOTO 20


Page 16 of 16

PHOTO 21

PHOTO 22

Documents

(610) 437-0979 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & … Engineering Report.pdfincluding Craig Hynes and Philip Roeder, both representing the Bethlehem Building ... made to fix this crack with the