Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.405 S Monarch St.0079.2017 (3).ARBK March 10, 2017 Monarch at the Park Condominium Owners Association (Association) c/o: Mr. Donn Williams Director of Engineering Limelight Hotel 355 South Monarch Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Report on Limited, Initial Evaluation of Water Leakage Problems At Exterior Deck of Unit 302 into Unit 208 (Below) Monarch at the Park Condominiums, 405 South Monarch Street, Aspen, Colorado BC&E No. 17020 Dear Mr. Williams: In general accordance with our proposal dated January 16, 2017, BC&E, LLC has completed the limited evaluation of the water leakage problems which have been reported at the above-referenced property. During our site visit on February 16 and 17, 2017, it was apparent that there was a significant leakage problem through the exterior deck of Unit 302 and into the interior and deck soffit of Unit 208 below. We understand repairs for this issue are of a high priority for the Association. For this reason, we have addressed the leakage problem at this location in this report, and will address the reported water leakage problems and building envelope- related concerns at other locations for the building in a separate report. Purpose and Scope of Limited, Initial Evaluation The purpose of our limited, initial evaluation was to develop opinions on the probable cause(s) of the leakage problems and to make preliminary recommendations to improve the probable watertight performance of the areas which are currently leaking to reduce the risk of future leakage, or to make recommendations for additional investigation, if necessary. Our services included the following: 1. We reviewed relevant portions of the original design drawings dated March 14, 2008 to develop an understanding of the construction and the as-designed details. We also reviewed relevant portions of the specifications provided to us dated August 28, 2006, which may not be the final “For Construction” set of specifications given the date and the apparent lack of some information. We also reviewed photographs related to the leakage that you sent to us. As requested, we briefly reviewed relevant portions of the Declarations of Covenants for the Monarch on the Park Condominiums (undated and unsigned) as it refers possible “ownership” of the exterior deck. 2. We visited the site on February 16 and 17, 2017 to observe and document with notes and photographs areas of past and current leakage problems, as well as the conditions made readily exposed to view from both the interior and exterior of the building. During this site visit, we discussed with you and representatives of Aspen Constructors, Inc. (ACI), the contractor currently performing renovation work within Unit 302, the history of the leakage problems at various locations around the building and information related to the findings and corrective measures that may have been made in an effort to address the leakage problems. Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM BC&E Monarch on the Park Association c/o: Mr. Donn Williams March 10, 2017 Page 2 of 14 3. We prepared this report summarizing our findings, initial opinions, and preliminary recommendations for repairs. As discussed with you on site and as discussed later in this report, we have attached to this report a number of conceptual sketches illustrating our preliminary recommendations for repairs to address the current water leakage problems at the exterior deck of Unit 302. These conceptual sketches are not design documents for the repair work and are noted as “Not For Construction.” However, they may be used by you to solicit preliminary budget-level pricing from a qualified contractor and for discussion purposes by the Association. More fully-developed repair documents and specifications will be required to perform the repair work at the Unit 302 deck, and may be needed for permitting (if necessary). Observation services will also be necessary during the repair work as described later in this report. General Description of Building and Background The building was originally designed by CCY Architects, Ltd. (CCY) and constructed by R.A. Nelson & Associates (RANA) in about 2008, concurrently constructed with the Limelight Lodge hotel building located to the north (which was also designed by CCY and constructed by RANA). The Monarch Condominium building is of Type V-B construction and the 2003 International Building Code (2003 IBC) applied. The condominium building is a two-story rectangular-shaped structure with a complex exterior façade with stone cladding, small portions of horizontal lap wood siding, and exposed structural steel elements. There are multiple balconies and exterior terraces of varying configurations throughout the building, including a large rooftop terrace which wraps the west half of the building. There are a number of shallowly-sloped (1/8 inch per foot) canopies with translucent panels at various locations around the buildings. When constructed as projecting canopies, these canopies typically drain toward the exterior building walls of the building, and collect water in a downspout near the building wall. There are a few canopies or other roof areas with low- slopes with standing seam metal roofing. The roof configuration is complex with a number of large, curved roof areas and some sloping roof areas covered with standing seam metal roofing, which typically drain into internal gutters. Other portions include a low-slope membrane roofing system with perimeter parapet walls. There is one-story below-grade parking garage under the building, with access from the south (alley) side. No water leakage problems were reported in the parking garage. Based on our brief review of relevant portions of the Declarations of Covenants for the property, it appears that the exterior deck at Unit 302 is not part of the “Unit.” It appears exterior decks are “Limited Common Elements” by definition; however, since the exterior deck at Unit 302 also serves as a “roof” above interior space of Unit 208 and above the exterior deck of Unit 208, it may be considered a “General Common Element” as Section 2.1.x states “any portion thereof serving more than one Unit or any portion of the Common Elements is a part of the General Common Elements.” It appears that the translucent canopy would be considered a “roof” and therefore a “General Common Element.” We recommend that the Association’s attorney be consulted for final judgement on this matter as it affects ownership of and responsibility for the exterior deck and adjacent canopy, as well as the Association’s ability to affect repairs. Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM BC&E Monarch on the Park Association c/o: Mr. Donn Williams March 10, 2017 Page 3 of 14 Reported Leakage Problem at Exterior Deck of Unit 302 Unit 302 is on the uppermost floor of the building, located at the northeast corner of the building. At the east end of Unit 302 is a large exterior deck. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the deck is located over interior finished space of Unit 208, as well as a smaller deck at the southeast corner of Unit 208. Photo 1 shows an overall view of the east side of the building, and Photo 2 shows an overall view of the deck from Level 3. There is a translucent canopy which wraps the southeast corner of the deck. The translucent panels slope from east to west, where water is collected in a sheet metal gutter positioned along the east side of the deck and along the east exterior building wall. The sheet metal gutter along the deck is intended to interface with sheet metal flashing along the balcony edge. The sheet metal gutter along the east building wall interrupts the horizontal wood lap siding. White-colored adhesive membrane appears to have been installed to seal the joint between the translucent panels and the sheet metal flashing along the south edge of the deck. These conditions are discussed in more detail below. Figure 1 - Plan of Unit 208 (yellow indicates Figure 2 - Plan of Unit 302 (yellow indicates extent extent of Unit 302 exterior deck above) extent of exterior deck, green indicates canopy) Photo 1 - Exterior deck at Unit 302 Photo 2 - Exterior deck at Unit 302 (shows canopy and Unit 208 deck soffit) Unit 208 Unit 302 1 3 2 4 Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM BC&E Monarch on the Park Association c/o: Mr. Donn Williams March 10, 2017 Page 4 of 14 Based on our discussion with you, we understand that the water leakage problems in Unit 208 appeared in mid- December 2016, when there was 6-12 inches of snow/ice on the canopy surface and in the adjacent gutter, followed by warm weather which melted the snow followed by moderate to heavy rain. Leakage into Unit 208 was observed at a number of locations (numbers noted in Figure 1) as follows: 1. At the steel columns of the Unit 208 deck (which support the Unit 302 exterior deck) and at the soffit edges (located below the gutter of the canopy with translucent panels), as shown in Photo 3. 2. At the interior column inside Unit 208 (northwest of the Unit 208 deck), as shown in Photo 4. 3. Along the steel beam (below the exterior lift-and-slide door to the Unit 302 exterior deck) and through small holes in the composite steel deck below the structural concrete slab for the exterior deck, as shown in Photo 5. 4. Wet spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation was found on the steel beam above the ceiling, located at the north end of the canopy gutter near the end of the stone-clad guardrail for the Unit 302 exterior deck, as indicated in Photo 6. Photo 3 - Leakage at column at deck and corner of soffit Photo 4 - Leakage at interior column Unit 208 Photo 5 - Leakage along steel beam and hole in Photo 6 - Wet SPF insulation on steel beam composite steel deck near north end of gutter at stone-clad guardwall Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM BC&E Monarch on the Park Association c/o: Mr. Donn Williams March 10, 2017 Page 5 of 14 We examined these areas and noted signs of leakage including rust, water stains, and mineral deposits. Much of the interior ceiling inside Unit 208 below the exterior deck of Unit 302 had been removed, and the soffit of the Unit 208 deck had been removed prior to our site visit, and therefore, we are unable to assess the condition of the gypsum ceiling materials. It is worth noting that per Detail 1/AR6.02 the underside of decks above interior space are to be insulated with spray-foam insulation and covered with a 15 minute thermal barrier (3/4 inch Monocoat); however, this was not applied to the underside of the portion of the deck of Unit 302 which is above interior space of Unit 208. This should be further evaluated and corrected if necessary during the repair work inside Unit 208. Using a hose, we water tested portions of the sheet metal gutter, the canopy with the translucent panels, and the detailing along the edge of the Unit 302 deck, where the canopy gutter joins the exposed steel framing. This water test revealed a number of leaks, including: at the gutter-to-downspout connection, at joints in the downspout, at the corner of the gutter, between the edges of the translucent panels and the edge framing for the canopy, and at joints between the sheet metal flashing and the exposed steel framing along the deck edge (particularly at the corners). Figure 3 - Section through canopy, gutter, and deck edge Photo 7 - Gaps between flashing and steel framing (red line indicates location of waterproofing membrane) Photo 8 - Improper preparation of drop tube in gutter Photo 9 - Adhesive membrane not well adhered Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM BC&E Monarch on the Park Association c/o: Mr. Donn Williams March 10, 2017 Page 6 of 14 The design drawings for this condition (Detail 2/AR6.72 shown in Figure 3) indicate sheet metal flashing to wrap the exposed steel framing. We observed gaps and splits in the sealant between the flashing and steel framing (see Photo 7), gaps between adjacent steel framing members, gaps at corners of the gutter, gaps between the bottom of the stone cladding on the guardwall and the top of the sheet metal gutter, and improper preparation of the drop tube for the gutter at the downspout (see Photo 8). We observed daylight through the flashing-to-steel interface viewed from the deck below. We also observed that some white-colored adhesive membrane had been applied to the surface of the translucent panels and the sheet metal flashing along the south edge of the deck, presumably to cover gaps between the two, and we observed that portions of the membrane were not well adhered (see Photo 9). All of these, we believe, are likely contributors to the leakage problems at the steel columns of the Unit 208 deck and at the soffit edges. The water testing revealed that water was able to pass through between the canopy and canopy gutter and the exterior wall cladding for the canopy (and possibly behind the cladding) located above first floor level. This resulted in wet conditions at the south entry call box (see Photo 10) at the ground level and on the stone cladding of the second floor and ground floor levels on the east façade (see Photo 11), which are areas that should be well protected from moisture. Photo 10 - Water at south entry call box Photo 11 - Water below canopy on east façade above Level 1 (from water testing Unit 302 deck) The specifications do not include information regarding the translucent panels for the canopies; however, Detail 9/AR6.74 indicates the “Lumasite” panels are to be supported on a 3/8 inch thick neoprene pad above the structural steel framing and joined with a polycarbonate H-profile through which stainless steel screws are to secure the translucent panels to the structural steel framing. The joints in the translucent panels of the canopy were sealed with what appears to be a white-colored preform silicone joint sealant (such as Dow 123 tape), bedded to the panel in silicone sealant covering some type of joint connector. Where these joints are parallel to the slope of the panels (such as on the portion of the canopy east of the deck) they appear to be adhered relative well. However, where the joints are perpendicular to the slope of the panels (such as along the south edge of the deck) they appear to create a small dam and block the flow of water. We noted accumulation of dirt and other materials on the translucent panels, which appeared to penetrate at a joint and stain the wall cladding below (see Photo 12) indicating the adhesion may have failed at this location. The canopy gutter along the east side of the deck was discussed above. We observed the sheet metal gutter at the west end of the canopy along the south side of the deck, and noted water stains below the gutter (see Photo 13) and improper preparation of the drop tube for the gutter at the downspout. Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM BC&E Monarch on the Park Association c/o: Mr. Donn Williams March 10, 2017 Page 7 of 14 Photo 12 - Stains below joint in canopy panel Photo 13 - Water staining below gutter at end of canopy We also observed cracks in the mortar joints and missing mortar in the stone veneer located at the east end of the canopy gutter (see Photo 14). We did not water test this portion of the stone veneer; however, we noted significant efflorescence on the stone veneer below this area (see Photo 15). The drawings do not show how the steel channels which support the translucent panels are to be flashed where they penetrate the stone veneer or how they are to be integrated with the water-resistive barrier behind the cladding. It appears likely that water is entering behind the stone cladding at the cladding-to-sheet metal gutter interface and/or between the steel channel and stone veneer. Photo 14 - Cracks in mortar joints and missing mortar Photo 15 - Efflorescence on stone below canopy end We also used a hose to water test the surface of the exterior deck at Unit 302 in the vicinity of the meeting rail of the lift-and-slide door, by allowing water to flow over the surface of the deck and the leading edge of the threshold (but not water testing the door or threshold itself), as shown in Photo 16. Leakage appeared through a hole in the steel decking into Unit 208 (see Photo 5) within about 15 minutes. Based on this, we believe that the likely cause of the water leakage is a breach in the waterproofing membrane on the structural slab surface below and/or in front of the door. In our experience, lift-and-slide doors commonly have anchors for the threshold that are often not properly integrated with the waterproofing membrane which extends into the sill of the rough opening. Detail 1/AR8.05 shows the waterproofing membrane extending from the deck under a blocked-out area under the door threshold; however, no details for the anchorage of the threshold are indicated. Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM BC&E Monarch on the Park Association c/o: Mr. Donn Williams March 10, 2017 Page 8 of 14 Photo 16 - Water test of lift-and-slide door at Unit 302 Photo 17 - Snow melt tubes from Unit 302 deck We observed the conditions at the snow melt tubing penetration into the wall framing, where they connect to the manifold. It appears that the orange polyethylene tubing penetrates at an elevation lower than the top of the interior floor, which is at the same elevation as the top of the exterior topping slab (see Photo 17). Typically, hot fluid-applied rubberized asphalt waterproofing membranes require rigid pipes of suitable materials (copper, cast iron, or PVC but not polyethylene) in order to properly detail the waterproofing membrane around the penetration. Additionally, it is very difficult to waterproof pipes which are grouped together as shown in Photo 17, and we often find this condition results in eventual leakage. Although we did not observe signs of leakage at these penetrations or in the area below, it is our opinion that these penetrations could eventually leak since they are positioned below the top of the exterior topping slab. During our site visit, we did not remove any portions of the concrete topping slab to examine the waterproofing membrane. Based on the limited portions of the membrane which were visible along the deck edges, we believe that the waterproofing membrane is a hot, fluid-applied (probably fabric-reinforced) rubberized asphalt waterproofing membrane (consistent with the Specification 07142), and more specifically that made by Carlisle Coatings and Waterproofing, Inc. (CCW-500R). This waterproofing membrane likely has a “watertightness” warranty (10-years as per Specification 07142); however, we did not review any documents that confirm this. We did review the warranty for the same type of waterproofing material for the Limelight Lodge, which was designed and built by the same firms concurrent with this building, which indicated that Summit Roofing installed the CCW-500R and was Substantial Completion as of November 2008. We recommend that the warranty for the waterproofing membrane for the Monarch Condominiums building be researched further, and the manufacturer (and the installer, if possible) be contacted relative to waterproofing repairs for this installation. Based on our review of the drawings, it appears that the structural concrete slab on steel decking was installed with a level surface; therefore, the waterproofing membrane does not have slope to drain. While drainage at the waterproofing membrane level is preferred for a number of reasons, in some instances this slope omitted to make the construction of the structure easier. In our opinion, with a properly designed and installed hot, fluid-applied, fabric-reinforced rubberized asphalt waterproofing membrane system (such as the CCW-500R, which we believe was likely installed on this project) the risk of leakage associated with installing the membrane in a dead-level application is relatively small. We noted that the deck drains were indicated to be a promenade deck drain (specifically J.R. Smith 1450), which has subsurface drainage weep slots. The drains which were installed on the deck appeared to be in general conformance with this requirement. There were no Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM BC&E Monarch on the Park Association c/o: Mr. Donn Williams March 10, 2017 Page 9 of 14 signs of leakage associated with the deck drains at the Unit 302 deck. Therefore, we believe that the drains probably provide adequate subsurface drainage for the waterproofing membrane in this application. We also observed that the waterproofing membrane wrapped up the vertical surface of the steel angle pour stop along the edge of the deck where the steel guardrail was located, as indicated in Figure 3. The drawings do not indicate any specific type of termination for the membrane at this location. In our experience, when the waterproofing membrane terminates below the top of pavement, the membrane should be secured with a termination bar, extend into a reglet, or be counterflashed (with metal or another suitable membrane) so that the waterproofing membrane does not debond from the substrate. We observed small amounts of waterproofing membrane exposed along the top edge of the steel angle pour stop (at the edge of the concrete slab). We do not know if the membrane was installed in this manner, or if the membrane has softened and pushed out from the vertical surface of the pour stop. The membrane is not intended to be exposed to sunlight and will deteriorate. Figure 4 - Guardwall detail (red line is as- Figure 5 - Top of guardwall (green line indicates installed wpm; green line is as designed) as-designed membrane, red arrow indicates gap) The waterproofing membrane appeared to extend up the bottom of the OSB exterior wall sheathing by about 12 inches above the topping slab, which is generally consistent with Detail 3/AR6.50. We believe the waterproofing membrane from the deck similarly extended up the bottom of the OSB sheathing on the guardwall, which differs from that shown on Detail 6/AR6.51 (shown in Figure 4). In our opinion, the as- constructed condition is a better waterproofing detail than the as-designed detail, as it does not allow water on the surface of the topping slab to flow under the guardwall framing which could result in leakage behind the exterior-side cladding on the guardwall. We observed the conditions at the top of the guardwall, and noted that there did not appear to be any type of membrane to cover the top of the framing for the guardwall (as per Detail 2/AR6.51, shown in Figure 5). The detail shows penetrations through the membrane for the fasteners for the steel plate at the top of the guardrail, although how the penetration is to be made weathertight is not indicated. The drawings show the interior side of the guardwall to be constructed with wood lap siding over sheathing; no water-resistive barrier is indicated behind the siding and none was installed. Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM BC&E Monarch on the Park Association c/o: Mr. Donn Williams March 10, 2017 Page 10 of 14 Photo 18 - Efflorescence on stone wall below guardwall Photo 19 - Joint in Styrofoam not taped or sealed The exterior side of the guardwall has stone veneer. The drawings show sheet metal flashing above the stone veneer to extend to the bottom of the steel plate on the top of the guardwall. We observed an unsealed gap about 1/8 to 1/4 inch wide (indicated on Figure 5), into which water that clings to the underside of the relatively shallowly-sloped steel plate can enter and get behind the stone cladding and in the guardrail wall framing. We believe that this could be the source of moisture which appears to be getting into the stone veneer below the top of the guardwall, resulting in efflorescence (see Photo 18). Photo 20 - HWT Tape could be easily peeled off Photo 21 - Self-adhered flashing laps OSB sheathing instead of Styrofoam, but no apparent damage The specifications do not include the specific water-resistive barrier to be used on the building, but Detail 3/AR6.04 indicates that the stone veneer was to be installed over an air space or drainage mat over 3/4 inch thick rigid insulation with all joints taped and sealed over exterior sheathing. We observed a small portion of the exterior wall assembly at the Unit 302 which was behind wood siding, and believe that the conditions are likely similar behind the stone veneer. We observed that only some of the joints in the Styrofoam were taped while others were not (see Photo 19). HWT House Wrap Tape was used for the tape; however, the tape was not well-adhered to the Styrofoam surface and could easily be peeled off (see Photo 20). Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM BC&E Monarch on the Park Association c/o: Mr. Donn Williams March 10, 2017 Page 11 of 14 Additionally, we noted that the self-adhered flashing membrane along the sill and jambs for the south-facing window at the Unit 302 deck extended onto the OSB exterior wall sheathing behind the Styrofoam, rather than onto the surface of the Styrofoam. This is, in our opinion, contrary to good construction practice and proper installation methods. Despite these conditions, the OSB sheathing did not appear to be water stained or damaged in the limited area we observed (see Photo 21). Based on this, we believe the intended performance of the water-resistive barrier in this application is compromised, although there has not been evidence of damage in the limited area we observed. This issue will be discussed in more detail in our other report on building envelope-related concerns at other locations around the building. Preliminary Recommendations for Repairs to Exterior Deck at Unit 302 In the following we have outlined our preliminary recommendations for repairs to the exterior deck at Unit 302 to improve the probable watertight performance the exterior deck and to reduce the risk of future leakage, and to improve the probable weathertight performance of the areas below the deck. Prior to the repair work, we recommend that the Association’s attorney be consulted for final judgement on the ownership of and responsibility for the exterior deck and adjacent canopy, as well as the Association’s ability to affect repairs. We also recommend the warranty for the original waterproofing membrane system for the Unit 302 exterior deck be reviewed, and manufacturer and installer of the waterproofing membrane be contacted pursuant to the warranty requirements to address warranty-related items associated with the waterproofing membrane system. Further, the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (if any) be consulted regarding modifications to the deck edge as shown in our conceptual details which illustrate our preliminary recommendations. Lastly, the need for permits and/or design review by the City of Aspen for any repair work should be considered and obtained (if necessary) prior to commencing repairs. As discussed on site, we believe there is a breach in the waterproofing membrane below the lift-and-slide door threshold and/or on adjacent exterior deck structure. To repair such a breach, it will be necessary to remove the concrete topping slab in front of the door and to remove the door panels and door threshold to access the membrane at these locations. The topping slab has hydronic snow melt tubes, and these will likely be damaged in the vicinity of the concrete which is to be removed. Further, there is concern that partial removal of the waterproofing membrane in the vicinity of the door and subsequent patching of the concrete will be aesthetically objectionable to the Owners of Unit 302. Also, as noted above, there are a number of conditions which we believe likely affect the long-term watertight performance of the membrane including the termination along the steel angle pour stop for the topping slab and the penetration of the snow melt tubing, and we understand that the Owners of Unit 208 likely have a very low tolerance to the risk of leakage and resultant damage to their unit and exterior deck. Finally, it is unlikely that any type of warranty can be secured for a partial waterproofing repair at selected locations. Therefore, based on this, it is our preliminary recommendation that the entire exterior deck of Unit 302 deck be re-waterproofed. Utilizing mark-ups of the original design drawings, we have attached conceptual details illustrating our preliminary recommendations, which include the following: • Remove the entire concrete topping slab on the exterior deck of Unit 302, including hydronic snow melt tubing up to the manifold in the wall. • Remove the lift-and-slide door panels, threshold, and door frame (if necessary). • Remove the lower portions of the wood siding on the exterior building walls and guardwalls. • Remove the existing drainage mat on top of the waterproofing membrane. • Examine the condition of the existing waterproofing membrane. Depending on the findings from this activity, the existing membrane may be able to remain in place and a new waterproofing system applied over the properly-prepared surface of the existing membrane (which we have assumed to be the case Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM BC&E Monarch on the Park Association c/o: Mr. Donn Williams March 10, 2017 Page 12 of 14 for the purposes of our preliminary recommendations). Should problems be detected with the installed membrane (such as failure or deterioration of the membrane itself) or widespread delamination of the membrane from the structural slab surface or other substrate, then consideration should be given to removing the existing membrane on the deck surface in its entirety and properly preparing (or replacing) substrate materials to achieve suitable conditions to receive a new waterproofing membrane. This can affect the cost and duration of the work significantly. • Prepare the existing waterproofing membrane to repair breaches in the membrane (including under the door threshold and in front of the door) and any areas of membrane damaged by removal of the concrete topping. This will likely include heating the membrane and removing the bonded cap sheet on the top surface of the existing waterproofing membrane. • Install a new 215-mil hot, fluid-applied, fabric-reinforced rubberized asphalt waterproofing membrane over the existing membrane (if possible) and a new bonded cap sheet, protection board, and drainage mat, with new perimeter details including the following: o Extend the waterproofing membrane up the sheathing of the exterior building walls and guardwalls. o New termination of the membrane along the structural steel angle pour stop. o New framing and detailing around a snowmelt tubing so that the tubing does not penetrate the waterproofing membrane below the elevation of the exterior topping slab. o New tie-in to the existing drains. o New detailing at gas line penetration at the northeast corner of the deck. • Following a successful water flood test, install new snow melt tubing and a new concrete topping slab. • Reinstall or install new water-resistive barrier, sheet metal flashing, and wood siding materials at exterior building walls and guardwalls. • Reinstall the lift-and-slide door with proper waterproofing detailing of door threshold anchors. As discussed above, we believe that significant leakage is occurring along the deck edge where the canopy, gutter, and sheet metal flashing all interface. Because the interface of all these materials and systems is so complex, we recommend that the deck edge area be covered with blocking to simplify the profile and a colored, single-ply, fully-adhered roofing membrane (such as Sarnafil Décor PVC roofing membrane), including the following: • Install the new roofing membrane extend continuously from the edge of the concrete topping slab (where it should be properly flashed with the deck waterproofing membrane at the steel angle pour stop), over the deck edge, into the gutter for the canopy, and onto the canopy area (up to the front, outer edge of the canopy). In our opinion, this will reduce the risk of future leakage problems into the Unit 208 deck soffit. Additionally, this will reduce the risk of future leakage problems associated with the canopy and sheet metal gutter, and the resultant water staining on the surfaces below. o It should be noted that this will change the appearance of the deck edge and would obliterate the translucent nature of the canopy. If the Association determines that it is necessary to keep the translucent panels, it is possible to cover the deck edge and gutter with a new roofing membrane (as generally described above); however, we believe the exiting panels would likely need to be removed and reinstalled to affect the repairs and the interface between the new roofing membrane and the translucent panels could leak in the future. o In our opinion, it is not reasonably practical to make the deck edge detailing “watertight” over the long-term by trying to apply sealant to the all of the joints in the materials. Further, in our opinion, the use of a liquid-applied UV-resistant waterproofing membrane (such as a fabric- reinforced PMMA membrane) has a higher risk of leakage over the long-term than that which we recommend. Therefore, we have conceptually detailed this area to be boxed-out to simplify Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM BC&E Monarch on the Park Association c/o: Mr. Donn Williams March 10, 2017 Page 13 of 14 the profile and allow for ease of installation of the roofing membrane which we believe will lower the risk of leakage. • The stone veneer at the northeast end of the canopy gutter should be removed and reinstalled to facilitate proper flashing and interface with the roofing membrane in the gutter as well as addressing the problems with cracked and missing mortar. Depending on the findings from the stone removal, we may recommend additional detailing be provided for the steel channel penetration through the stone veneer and at the water-resistive barrier behind the stone. • The new roofing membrane should extend into the gutter located at the west end of the canopy on the south edge of the deck. This will likely require removal and reinstallation/replacement of a portion of the wood siding above the gutter to facilitate proper interface with the membrane and flashings. • The existing downspout penetrations should be corrected to address leakage problems, or fabricate new downspouts. Install new electric heat tracing in gutter and downspouts up to and several feet beyond the point of appropriate discharge. Also as discussed above, we noted potential water-leakage related issues associated with the top of the guardwalls. To address these issues, we recommend the following: • Remove and reinstall/replace the existing wood siding on the interior side of the guardwall to allow for the installation of a new water-resistive barrier (where not currently exists). • Remove and reinstall the existing steel plate caps on the top of the guardwall to allow for the installation of a new self-adhering membrane flashing (properly integrated with the water-resistive barrier on the exterior building walls), proper detailing of steel plate fastener penetrations, and proper slope to the deck of the steel plate cap. • Remove and reinstall the existing sheet metal flashing at the top of the stone veneer on the exterior side of the guardwall to allow for the proper integration of the self-adhering membrane flashing over the existing water-resistive barrier behind the stone veneer, proper overhang of the sheet metal flashing beyond the face of the stone veneer below, and sealant between the steel plate cap and top of the sheet metal flashing. As noted above, this report and the attached conceptual sketches illustrating our preliminary recommendations may be used to solicit preliminary budget-level pricing from a qualified contractor and for discussion purposes by the Association. However, it should be noted that these conceptual sketches are not design documents for the repair work and are noted as “Not For Construction.” Next Steps In our opinion, the activities related to consulting the Association’s attorney, resolution of warranty-related items, review by the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (if any) and the City of Aspen (if necessary) should be initiated prior to the commencement of the repair work. Aside from that, in our experience, the next step for a repair project such as this would be for the Association to determine the scope of repair work (which may include all or some of the preliminary recommended repairs outlined above). Once this scope of repairs is determined and authorized by the Association, the repairs should be designed and repair details and specifications should be developed by BC&E. This would usually take the form of a more complete drawings and specifications (in the form of General Notes), which could be used for permitting (if necessary) and to obtain competitive bids for the repair work (if desired). Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM BC&E Monarch on the Park Association c/o: Mr. Donn Williams March 10, 2017 Page 14 of 14 Also, based on our experience, we recommend that BC&E be involved during the repair work to observe the existing conditions and develop opinions whether repair details should be modified and/or augmented to address discovered conditions, as well as to develop opinions as to whether the repair work which we observe appears to be in general conformance with the design. We would be glad to provide a proposal for these design and construction observation services once the repair scope has been determined by the Association. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further service. Sincerely, BC&E, LLC Linda M. McGowan, P.E., A.I.A. Reviewed by: Christopher M. Morgan, P.E. Principal Principal Enclosure Conceptual Sketches Illustrating Preliminary Recommendations (Sheets 1-10), attached. Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM Received 5/08/2017 10:07:46 AM Received 5/08/2017 10:07:47 AM