palace lofts final report palace lofts4-11

REPORT ON

LEAKING PROBLEMS at PALACE LOFTS CONDOMINIUM UNIT 3L

Case Number:10CV5868

Claim Number: AE15695

M+S File Number: 32.10087

PJCKN File Number: 20154-21084

K.S. Leutenegger Trust v. Palace Lofts Condominium Association/West Star Management Corp./Stefco Home Improvement Services Inc.

April 8, 2011

Prepared for:

McConaughy and Sarkissian, PC Pryor Johnson Carney Karr Nixon, PC

8310 South Valley Highway, Suite 250 5619 DTC Parkway, Suite 1200

Englewood, Colorado 80112 Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111

Ivan Sarkissian, Esq. Kevin P. Ahearn, Esq.

Sara Holmes, Esq.

Prepared by:

JNX Group, LLCLarry D. Jenks AIA

Consultant

JNX Group, LLC 165 South Hudson Street Denver, Colorado 80246 720.231.0634

JNX Group, LLC165 South Hudson StreetDenver, Colorado 80246

303.322.6841 (land)720.231.0634 (cell)

April 8, 2011

Scott Landry, sEq.Sara Holmes, Esq.McConaughy and Sarkissian, PC8310 South Valley Highway, Suite 250Englewood, Colorado 80112Client: Palace Lofts Condominium Association

Kevin P. Ahearn, Esq.Pryor Johnson Carney Karr Nixon, P.C.5619 DTC Parkway, Suite 1200Greenwood Village, CO 80111

Client: West Star Management Corporation

Case #: 2010CV5868

Project: Palace Lofts Condominiums, Unit 3L

Location: 1499 Blake StreetDenver, Colorado 80202

Subject: K.S. Leutenegger Trust v. Palace Lofts Condominium Association/West Star Management Corp./Stefco Inc.

Dear Mr. Sarkissian, Ms. Holmes, and Mr. Ahearn:

As you requested, I have investigated the alleged construction defects at the

above referenced condominium in the PalaceLofts building. This report docu-

ments my findings, opinions and conclusions in this matter.



303.322.6841 (land)720.231.0634 (cell)

Sincerely,

Larry D. Jenks A I A, C S IJNX Group, LLC



303.322.6841 (land)720.231.0634 (cell)

Table of Contents

1. Background 1

2. Pertinent Information 1

3. Terminology 1

4. Information Reviewed 1

5. Scope 1

6. Repair/Remediation History for the Terrace at Unit 3L 1

7. Inspections 1

8. Opinions 1

9. Summary of Issues and Allegations 1

10. Findings 1

11. Conclusions1

12. Closing 1


1. Background

I have been a licensed architect in the State of Colorado since 1977. I am

currently the owner and sole proprietor of an independent architectural con-

sulting firm called JNX Group, LLC. JNX Group, LLC engages primarily in non-

traditional architectural activities. I founded the firm in the spring of 2003 to

serve as the organizational platform from which to write and publish a book

entitled Architectural Office Practices and Standards (ISBN 0-9754830-0-5).

This book is a guide and compilation of standards, practices, procedures and

conventions for architects to use in managing architectural projects and in

preparing architectural working drawings.

Before I started JNX Group, LLC, I was a principal with the Denver firm of

Klipp Colussy Jenks DuBois Architects, PC for nearly 20 years. This firm is

well-known (now known only as klipp) in the Rocky Mountain region for its

wide range of project types, design excellence, and, during my time there,

was also well-known for the excellence of its continuing education programs,

its learning environment, and its excellence in preparing construction draw-

ings. I served as the Principal-in-Charge of Technical Operations (among

other things). In this capacity, I performed technical and constructability re-

views on all of the firm’s projects (several hundred during my 20 years

there).

I was retained by the law firm McConaughy and Sarkissian, PC, who repre-

sents Palace Lofts Condominium Association, and by Pryor Johnson Carney

1 of 39

Karr Nixon, PC , who represents West Star Management in the case K.S.

Leutenegger Trust v. Palace Lofts Condominium Association/West Star Man-

agement Corp./Stefco Inc. As I understand it, the lawsuit was brought to as-

sign responsibilities for the water and mold damage that has occurred in Unit

3L, owned by the K. S. Leutenegger Trust.

Unit 3L has experienced leaking at several times in its brief 12+ year history.

Repairs and remediation were undertaken in 2007 (perimeter slab caulking),

2008, 2009 (perimeter slab caulking), and 2010. In 2010, the entire moisture

management system of the terrace (concrete topping/wearing slab, protec-

tion board, waterproofing membrane, rigid insulation) was replaced, and wa-

ter tests performed by Gene Budler in 2011 show that leaks remain some-

where in the system. It is not clear whether there are contributing leaks from

the nearby 3N terrace, which has not had any repair/remediation work done.

I have relied on photographs from Borne Engineering, Karen Leutenegger,

and McDonald Waterproofing for conditions that I was not able to witness

personally.

2. Pertinent Information

Project Occupant:Karen S. Leutenegger Palace Lofts Condominiums 1499 Blake Street, Unit 3LDenver, Colorado 8020

2 of 39


Owner/Plaintiff: K. S. Leutenegger Trust

Defendant: Palace Lofts Condominium Association

Defendant: West Star Management Corp.

Defendant: Stefco, Inc.

3. Terminology

In my research of the project files of this case, I have come across several

terms that have been used to describe the same things. For example, the

terrace at Unit 3L has also been referred to as a patio, deck, balcony, and

perhaps other terms. I have elected to use the term “terrace” because that

is the term used on the original construction drawings.

I have also noticed the use of the terms “caulking” and “sealant.” The terms

caulk and sealant are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are actually

two different things. Caulks or caulking compounds are non-elastomeric. This

means they do not return to their original size and shape after being

stretched or compressed. Caulk materials are used for filling small joints

[1/4” (6mm or less)] where little or no movement is expected. Sealants are

elastomeric materials used to seal joints where movement is expected (typi-

cally 25 to 50%). In my experience, the term “caulking” has come to be used

by the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) as a generic term to de-

scribe any kind of joint or crack filler. The term “sealant,” on the other hand,

3 of 39


has come to be used to mean a particular kind of caulk — one that has elas-

tomeric properties. The work that was done by defendant Stefco involved the

use of sealant. However, since the terms have been used interchangeably in

all of the legal records, I have used the terms interchangeably in this report

as well, following the lead established in the Complaint and Jury Demand.

4. Information Reviewed

DOCUMENTS

DEPOSITIONS

■ Rough draft Transcript of Deposition of Karen S. Leutenegger, dated

April 5, 2010

EXPERT REPORTS

■ Borne Engineering report entitled Planter Removal Verification, Palace

Lofts Condominiums, Denver, Colorado Project #08070 , dated May 10,

2010

■ Borne Engineering report entitled Balcony Leak at Units 3L and 3M,

Palace Lofts Condominiums, Denver, Colorado, dated June 7, 2010

■ Borne Engineering report entitled Balcony Leak at Units 3L and 3M,

Palace Lofts Condominiums, Denver, Colorado, dated August 5, 2010

■ Borne Engineering report entitled Balcony Terrace Repairs at Units 3L

and 3M, Palace Lofts Condominiums, Denver, Colorado, dated November

17, 2010

4 of 39


■ Gene Budler report entitled Physical Inspection of Palace Lofts Condo-

minium Unit 3L, dated March 7, 2011

OTHER INFORMATION

K.S. Leutenegger Trust disclosures

Karen S. Leutenegger Initial 26(a)(1) disclosures dated October 19,

2010 (Palace Lofts Condominiums/Condominium Declaration)

Karen S. Leutenegger Initial 26(a)(1) disclosures dated October 19,

2010 (description of available discoverable information)

Karen S. Leutenegger Supplemental Disclosures dated November 11,

2010

Palace Lofts Condominiums disclosures

Palace Lofts Initial 26(a)(1) disclosures dated November 19, 2010

Palace Lofts 1st Supplemental 26(a)(1) disclosures dated November 19,

2010

Palace Lofts 2nd Supplemental 26(a)(1) disclosures dated December

01, 2010

Palace Lofts 2nd Supplemental 26(a)(1) disclosures dated December

01, 2010

Palace Lofts 3rd Supplemental 26(a)(1) disclosures dated February 7,

2011

West Star Management disclosures

Notice Of Claim

Management Agreement

5 of 39


Inspection Policy

Member Directory

Palace Invoices

Documents From Stefco

Borne Bid Report

Borne Report 5/10/10

Borne Report 8/5/10

Correspondence

Pleadings TRO

Maintenance Insurance Chart

Summary Of Parking

Site Policies

Board Meeting Minutes

By-Laws

Rules And Regulations

Case Files

Initial 26(a)(1) disclosures dated October 21, 2010

Privilege Log

PHOTOGRAPHS

■ Photographs provided by Borne Engineering taken during destructive

testing operations and construction activities

3L, 3M destructive testing 08-04-10

3L, 3M Full Repair Construction Observations 2010-11-17

6 of 39


3M, 3N planters on terraces

2011-01-09 unit 3L

October 2008

Unit 10 A before repairs

Photographs provided by Karen Leutenegger

Photographs provided by Mike McDonald

DRAWINGS

(from the original construction drawings prepared by RNL Design/

Shears+Leese)

A0.04 Partition Types A2.05 Building Sec-tions

A0.02 Door Schedule and El-evations

A5.00Wall Sections

A1.03 Third Floor Plan A5.01Wall SectionsA2.0 East Elevation A5.02Wall SectionsA2.01 West Elevation A5.03Wall SectionsA2.02 South and North ElevationsS5.01 Framing

DetailsA2.03 Building Section S5.02 Framing

DetailsA2.04 Building Sections S5.03 Framing De-

tails

3-ring binder containing 8½ x 11 copies of the project details

7 of 39


2. Scope

I have been tasked with responding to the allegations contained in the Com-

plaint and Jury Demand that pertain to construction defects relating to the in-

stallation of sealant (caulking) on 4 sides of the Unit 3L concrete terrace slab.

I have also been tasked with responding to the findings and conclusions in

the plaintiff’s expert report prepared by Gene Budler.

3. Repair/Remediation History for the Terrace at Unit 3L

My review of the project records has indicated that there were four separate

remediation projects undertaken in attempts to stop the leaking from and

into Unit 3L (in some cases, work at other units was also included under

these contracts, but only the work at Unit 3L is shown in this history).

2008

Project: Perimeter slab caulking

Contractor: Stefco Home Improvement Services

This project was completed on or about on or about April 8, 2008. It con-

sisted of caulking the perimeter of the topping slab on the terrace of Unit 3L.

Project: Remove a 2’ x 2’ section of concrete around drains; rigid insula-

tion; EPDM membrane; protection board

Install a new waterproofing membrane patch in the 2’ x 2’ sec-

tion

8 of 39


Replace the concrete and rigid insulation

Contractor: McDonald Waterproofing

The second project was started on September 10, 2008 by McDonald Wa-

terproofing (McDonald). This project included removing only a 2’ x 2’ section

of concrete around the terrace drains (Unit 3L has two drains). Then a fluid-

applied membrane was installed as a patch around the drain body. The

membrane was covered by a new section of sloped concrete topping around

the drain. A 24-hour water test performed by Borne on September 26 was

not successful. It was decided to replace the two terrace drains, as the origi-

nal drains were inappropriate for use on a separated deck1. By October 18,

2008, both terrace drains had been replaced, and a water test proved suc-

cessful on October 23.

On December 25, 2008, Karen Leutenegger notified the Palace Lofts Board of

Directors that the caulking installed on her terrace by Stefco was negligent,

despite the fact that Borne inspected that caulking and found it to be accept-

able2.

2009

Project: Re-caulk the perimeter slab

Contractor: Stefco

1 A separated deck is one that has a concrete supporting layer and a concrete topping weathering layer separated by a waterproofing membrane2 Letter, page 1, ¶2 from Tracy Mulvihill, Managing Agent for the Board of Directors of the Palace Lofts Condomini-ums, to Karen Leutenegger, dated 1/12/09

9 of 39


Despite the results of the Borne inspection, Stefco re-caulks the terrace

on February 21, 2009. On November 20, Karen Leutenegger informs West-

star that the terrace caulking was applied in a faulty manner. On March 3,

2010, McDonald examines the Stefco work, and informs the interested par-

ties that the caulking installation was less than satisfactory because of cer-

tain preparation deficiencies.

On May 10,2010, Borne issued a report of their findings regarding water

damage in Unit 3L. Borne’s opinion was that leaks were probably occurring

at the joint around the hose bibb; that there were poor sealant joints in the

metal flashing; that there were gaps around the French Doors; that the

French door weatherstripping was not tight; that the door threshold was not

properly sealed; and that the sealant around the perimeter slab was in good

condition at areas near where water intrusion had been observed.

On June 7, 2010 Borne issued a report of their finding regarding follow up in-

vestigation to the repairs made pursuant to the recommendations in their

May 5, 2010 report. During their inspection, Borne observed lapping of the

waterproof membrane and exposed duct tape under the metal flashing.

Borne concluded it was impossible to determine we=there the laps were

properly sealed without conducting further destructive testing of the con-

crete.

10 of 39


Borne recommended further destructive testing and provided another report

dated August 5, 2010.The destructive testing evidently removed approxi-

mately 4’ x 4’ portions of the concrete topping slab, protection board, EPDM

membrane, and rigid insulation. When the EPDM membrane was exposed,

Borne discovered damage to the membrane that appeared to have occurred

during the original construction of the building. The protection board and the

membrane had randomly located pock mark penetrations from debris that

had not been removed prior to pouring the concrete for the topping slab dur-

ing the original construction. Borne recommended removing the entire top-

ping slab, all of the protection board, membrane, and rigid insulation, and

then replacing them all.

2010

Project: Remove the entire terrace slab, membrane, insulation, and pro-

tection board

Contractor: McDonald Waterproofing

The record gets murky at this point. Evidently McDonald was hired to re-

place the terrace topping slab and waterproofing membrane. This work was

evidently similar to work completed by McDonald on another unit elsewhere

in the building (the unit is unidentified in Borne’s report, but other reports in-

dicate that it was Unit 10A). I could find no bid documents or bids for the slab

and membrane replacement work on Unit 3L, but the drawings made by

Borne for Unit 10A would be very similar. Based on the report from Gene

11 of 39


Budler, leaks have continued following the complete remediation program in-

stalled by McDonald.

4. Inspections

I participated in a site inspection of Unit 3L of the Palace Lofts Condominiums

on March 10, 2011. At that time, the sealant installed by Stefco around the

perimeter of the topping slab had been replaced, along with the original (and

patched section of the) topping slab, protection board, rigid insulation, and

waterproofing membrane. The deck drains had been replaced during the

2008 project. I am not aware of a contract that was approved or executed to

address leaking around the French doors which provide access to the Unit 3L

terrace from the master bedroom and another bedroom. In the May 10, 2010

report from Borne, McDonald suggested that a door installer be brought to

the site to remove and then re-install the doors in order to have them

plumbed and re-sealed, but it is not clear if this work was ever done. It ap-

pears from visual observation of the metal flashings, and from the photo-

graphs provided by Borne Engineering that the metal flashings were re-

moved (except for the top cap flashing), and then replaced after the installa-

tion of the membrane and concrete topping slab. It appears that no new

flashings were installed. No photographs were provided to me that show the

membrane being installed, or how the new membrane interfaces with the

French door or the existing flashings.

12 of 39


This is problematic because the installation of the new Sonoshield HLM 5000

liquid, cold-applied elastomeric waterproofing, vertical flashings, and their in-

terface with the existing metal flashings and the French door threshold are

critical elements of the waterproofing system designed by Borne Engineering

and installed by McDonald Waterproofing. The construction drawing provided

by Borne for the Unit 10A repair work (involving the complete removal of the

terrace components) shows a detail of the French door sill. This detail calls

for the membrane (a 2-coat system with reinforcing) to turn up the face of

the curb that supports the door, and then directs the installer to “adhere

membranes to bottom of threshold extrusion.” In my opinion, this results in a

condition that is difficult to install so that it is leakproof (because the bottom

of the threshold extrusion is very difficult to see and access, thereby making

the membrane installation difficult to monitor and control), and further, the

membrane is likely to separate from the threshold over time. It would have

been preferable to have included a sill pan flashing designed specifically for

this application, with prefabricated end dams and a turned up interior lip, as

indicated in Figure 1. This would have required removing the door, some-

thing that McDonald suggested in order to address the perimeter sealants

around the door. It is not clear whether this ever actually occurred or not.

13 of 39


5. Opinions

The following opinions are taken from the Gene Budler report dated March 7,

2011, and include the JNX Group responses to each.

Opinions (from the Budler Report dated March 7, 2011)

JNX Group Opinions

1. Borne's conclusion that punc-

tures to the waterproofing mem-

brane during the original con-

struction sequence contributed

to the water intrusion is correct

1. I concur.

Re: Borne's August 5, 2010 report

14 of 39


Figure 1: Preferred threshold detail at French doors

2. Borne's conclusion that the

original incomplete/improper

flashing membrane installation

at the demising wall contributed

to the water intrusion is correct.

2. I concur.

←RE: Borne's June 7, 2010 and August 5, 2010 reports

3. Borne's conclusion that poor

sealant joints at the hose bib

(sic) and metal flashing joints

contributed to the water intru-

sion is correct.

3. The metal flashing seams

were very poorly fabricated, and

should have been soldered. I

concur that these poor joints


sion.

←RE: Borne's May 10,2010 report

15 of 39


4. Borne's conclusion that the

double doors contributed to the

water intrusion via out of true

hanging, weather sealants, and

threshold sealing is correct. I do

not believe this was however a

major source of intrusion as wa-

ter intrusion at this location

would have been evident to Ms.

Leutenegger. When I questioned

her about this she did not recall

seeing intrusion at this location

4. I concur that the French doors


sion. I disagree that water enter-

ing at this location would neces-

sarily have been evident to Ms.

Leutenegger. If the new water-

proof membrane was not prop-

erly installed under the door

threshold, then moisture could

have entered into the interior of

the unit and might have been

obscured by the wood steps that

were built to gain access to the

terrace through the French doors

to the terrace.

5. Major leaks during rain events

will continue in the areas of

flashing as identified in the water

testing

5. I concur.

16 of 39


6. Smaller leaks during rain

events may continue in the door

assembly as identified in the wa-

ter testing

6. I concur.

6. Summary of Issues and Allegations

I have been tasked with replying to the allegations stated in the Complaint

and Jury Demand (fax dated August 6, 2010) relating to construction defects

in the sealant joints installed by Stefco. The Complaint and Jury Demand lists

the following allegations against Defendants Palace Lofts Condominium Asso-

ciation, West Star Management, and Stefco Home Improvement Services in

this case:

1. Allegation: Improper application of sealantThe sealant or caulking on the perimeter of the terrace of the unit, due to an improper application, fails to prevent water from entering into the inte-rior of the unit. Further investigation has also revealed defects in the con-struction and installation of the metal flashing and the French doors on the terrace of the unit.

2. Allegation: Failure to properly perform caulking and water-sealingDefendant Stefco negligently performed the caulking and water sealing in and around the plaintiff’s terrace and doors. The caulking and water seal-ing services provided by the defendant Stefco fell below any reasonable standard of care and were not in conformance with industry standards.

Defendant Stefco failed to properly design, construct, and install the caulking and water-sealing to allow proper drainage and to prevent water infiltration. This failure constitutes a violation of the City and County of

17 of 39


Denver’s ordinances, including the applicable Uniform Building Code, and constitutes negligence per se.

7. Findings

Background:

Defendant Stefco was hired to install sealant in the isolation joint between

the terrace concrete slab and the perimeter walls on all four sides of the ter-

race. I could find nothing in the project record to indicate that Stefco was

hired to do any work relating to the construction and installation of the metal

flashing or to sealing of the French doors. The basis for the allegation ap-

pears to be the fact that rainwater and melted snow have migrated to inte-

rior areas of the unit, as a result of the alleged improper application of

sealant around the perimeter of the terrace concrete slab.

In order to properly evaluate this allegation, it is first necessary to under-

stand the history of remediation events undertaken to address the leaking

into Unit 3L (see Part 6: Repair/Remediation History for the Terrace at Unit

3L), and then to understand the complete moisture management system

that is in place on this terrace, and how the perimeter caulking relates to

the other components of that system.

The design of the moisture management system for this terrace is a very

common one, and is fairly simple and straight-forward. The terrace moisture

management system design consists of the assembly of components in-

18 of 39


stalled above the structural post-tensioned concrete slab, which provides the

support as the floor for that system. These components are as follows (terms

are taken from the construction drawings for the original building construc-

tion, listed in the order of actual installation, beginning with the first element

placed on the post-tensioned slab3):

1. Roof insulation (rigid foam insulation)

2. Tapered roof insulation cricket

3. Single ply roof system (roofing membrane, an EPDM membrane)

4. Protection board

5. Concrete topping slab

← See Figure 2 on the next page.

←

3 From the original construction drawings prepared by RNL Design and Shears + Leese, associated ar-

chitects

19 of 39


←

1. In this system, the rigid insulation provides thermal protection for the

enclosed, habitable space in the unit below.

2. The tapered insulation provides a sloping drainage surface to direct

water to the drains

3. The roofing membrane holds the water on the terrace until it can be

drained by the deck drains.

4. The protection board protects the membrane from construction activi-

ties involved with placing the concrete topping slab

5. The concrete topping slab provides a wearing surface for users of the

terrace, and also protects the membrane.

←

20 of 39


Figure 2: Schematic drawing showing Unit 3L terrace construction

The compressible filler is part of the isolation joint around the perimeter of

the slab that allows the slab to move independently of the walls that contain

and restrain it. The sealant is also part of that isolation joint, and the sealant

restricts water flow through the joint to the membrane. This allows most of

the water to flow off the surface of the concrete topping slab to the drains. It

should be noted that the drains are promenade type drains. Promenade

drains must be designed to accommodate runoff not only from the wearing

surface, but also from the membrane-covered structural slab below. In order

to be effective, drains must have special weep ports at the structural slab

level, so they can accommodate a subsurface runoff.

The structural slab supports the terrace surfacing system and includes a spe-

cial waterproofing membrane to prevent moisture leakage into the occupied

space below. Structural slab membranes are provided with a protective

wearing system, or protection course, directly above the membrane so that

construction of the upper terrace slab can proceed with minimum risk of

membrane damage.

21 of 39


Figure 3: Schematic drawing showing promenade drain function

Promenade drains are one of the most critical plaza performance features

and must have a two-stage or "promenade" plaza drain assembly. At the

first stage of the drain, weep holes or perforations allow moisture from the

membrane surface to enter the drain. The second stage, the exposed

upper grate, removes moisture from the exposed wearing surface. Both

must remain open and functional for the terrace to resist premature

deterioration.

This system is designed to prevent moisture from leaking into the occupied

space below , or adjacent spaces surrounding the terrace,even if water gets

through the wearing slab, which it is expected to do. Water will penetrate the

wearing slab thru small cracks. It is a well-known behavior of concrete, espe-

cially in this climate, that it will crack. Cracks may also appear at interfaces

between the slab and other materials, such as the metal drains. The water-

proof membrane, installed over a sloping rigid insulation substrate, channels

any of this water entering through cracks to the lower stage of the prome-

nade drains.

In my opinion, if the new membrane had been installed correctly, any mois-

ture that leaks through the isolation joints that are protected by the sealant

likely will not enter into the interior space surrounding the terrace. This is be-

cause the waterproofing membrane provides a second (after the wearing

slab) but most efficacious level of waterproofing in this system. Within a rea-

sonable degree of architectural certainty, leaks to the interior spaces around

the terrace are coming from a different source or sources.

Based on my observation of the 3L terrace, I was able to identify two other

locations that are more likely sources of the water that has made its way to

the interior.

The first and most obvious location concerns the metal flashing. The metal

flashing is installed to protect what would otherwise be an exposed edge of

22 of 39


the membrane, which turns up the face of the wall that surrounds the ter-

race. The exposed top edge is an extremely vulnerable condition. In order to

prevent water from getting behind the membrane at this location, it must be

carefully sealed and/or protected.

Because this edge is so vulnerable, it

is commonly protected by metal

flashing. The metal flashing at Unit

3L is a 3-piece system that is similar

to the flashing details shown in the

SMACNA Manual4 (Figure 4), but is

different. SMACNA details show two-

piece assemblies consisting of a base

flashing going up the face of a wall,

and a cap flashing that acts as a re-

ceiver for the base flashing. The top piece of counter-flashing typically is in-

serted into a joint when it is used with masonry walls.

The flashing in Unit 3L (Figure 5), installed dur-

ing the original construction of the building, dif-

fers from the recommended SMACNA designs in

two ways. The first way is that the Unit 3L flash-

4 SMACNA is the acronym for Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association;

SMACNA publishes an Architectural Sheet Metal Manual, which is the authoritative source for architects

and contractors in the design and fabrication of standard architectural details involving sheet metal.

23 of 39


Figure 4: Excerpts from the SMACNA Manual showing 2-piece metal flashing design

Figure 5: Schematic drawing showing components of the 3L metal flashing system

ing has an added metal base flashing as shown in the figure. This is an

added level of protection that is beneficial to the performance of the design

when fabricated properly. The second way is that the receiver (or cap flash-

ing in the drawing) does not include all of the hems, folds, and bends shown

in the SMACNA detail that allow it to function as

an actual receiver for the counter flashing. Water

that gets underneath the cap in the SMACNA de-

tail is prevented from getting past the fold in the

receiver. However, water that moves upward un-

der the bottom of the cap in the Unit 3L flashing

is free to get behind the flashing and then behind

the membrane behind that the flashing is in-

tended to protect (Figure 6).

However, this flashing design would likely prevent

water from getting behind it if it had been fabricated

properly. The seams, joints, and bends in the flash-

ing at Unit 3L are fabricated very poorly, and large

gaps can be seen in the seams (Figure 7).

When seams are fabricated with openings of this

size, wind-blown rain water and melting snow can

very easily get behind the flashing. The SMACNA

manual makes specific recommendations for fabri-

24 of 39


Figure 7: Photo from Unit 3L terrace showing gaps in the

flashing seams

cating inside and outside corners in sheet metal (Figure 8). Folds should be

fabricated so that pieces join closely, and are then soldered together.

In examining the Unit 3L flashings, I was able to

determine that the top of the membrane is visible

and touchable through the hole, just behind the

flashing. It is not sealed against the underlying

brick, and, in my opinion, this is a likely source of

some of the moisture infiltration problems experi-

enced by Unit 3L.

25 of 39


Figure 8: Excerpt from the SMACNA Manual showing recommended

fabrication of inside and outside sheet metal corners

Another likely source of moisture infiltration occurs at the threshold of the

French doors that provide access to the terrace from the unit. This photo

(Figure 9) shows the metal threshold from the master bedroom of Unit 3L to

the terrace. Based on the pho-

tos taken during the remediation

project of 2010, it does not ap-

pear that this threshold was removed when the new membrane was installed

(work not assigned to Stefco). In order to inhibit the migration of water that

presents at the base of this threshold and travels past the hole shown in this

photo, it would be necessary to remove the threshold and extend the new

membrane up the wall and across the top of the door sill. Then, a new sill

pan flashing should be added, as mentioned in Part 7 Inspections.

My inspection of the 3L terrace also revealed

another location where the waterproof seal is

compromised. This occurs at the bottom of

the jambs of the French doors (Figure 10). As

26 of 39


Figure 9: Photo of Unit 3L French Door threshold

Figure 10: Photo showing French door jamb where flashing is terminated. The end cap

that covers this raw edge of the flashing has been removed

shown in this photo, the membrane does not turn the corner behind the

flashing (see Figure 11). This leaves the intersection of the brick and the

door jamb vulnerable. Considering the poor fabrication of the sheet metal

flashing, this is another likely spot for water infiltration.

The caulking described in this allegation had already been replaced when I

conducted my inspection of the property, so I am not able to address myself

to this part of the allegation. However, in evaluating this allegation, it should

be noted that Stefco was hired to replace the caulking around the perimeter

of the concrete topping slab. Stefco’s scope of work did not include work on

the French doors, except where the caulking was installed at the sill of the

doors.

27 of 39


Figure 11: Schematic drawing showing how membrane should wrap corner of brick

8. Conclusions

I concur with Borne’s findings that the original waterproofing system was de-

feated by holes in the original membrane caused by events during the origi-

nal construction. Water that leaked through cracks in the topping slab, as it

was expected to do, would continue to leak through the damaged membrane

and find its way to interior portions of the 3L unit. The waterproofing system

was replaced by McDonald Waterproofing, and should have restored the wa-

terproofing capabilities of that system, if it had been properly installed. The

perimeter sealant installed by Stefco is a small component in a larger sys-

tem, and its performance alone cannot explain the continued leaking being

experienced in the interior of Unit 3L.

The allegation states “The sealant or caulking on the perimeter of the terrace

of the unit, due to an improper application, fails to prevent water from enter-

ing into the interior of the unit.” This represents what is, in my opinion, a fun-

damental misunderstanding of what is actually taking place on the 3L ter-

race. The perimeter caulking, even in an impeccable installation, would not

prevent the leaking problems experienced by Unit 3L. As I stated in Part 10

of this report, the water-proofing system installed at the Unit 3L terrace is

made up of several components, and, if properly installed, should serve to

keep the interior of the unit dry. The system does not depend exclusively or

even primarily on the caulking in order to function properly. As stated previ-

ously, there are other anomalies in the construction of the terrace that are

more likely sources for water entering into the interior of the unit.

28 of 39


I have seen no photographs documenting the installation of the new, fluid-

applied membrane for the 3L terrace. However, my site inspection of the

poorly fabricated and installed metal flashings results in some significant cu-

riosities. For example, it is highly problematic that the top of a rubber mem-

brane can be felt through a hole in the seam between two sections of flash-

ing. Based on the requirements of the construction drawings for Unit 10A

(and applied to Unit 3L), there should be no rubber membrane present as

part of the moisture management system. Either this is a piece of the old

membrane that should have been removed, or perhaps it is a piece of new

flashing installed as part of the remediation work. However, no rubber flash-

ing is indicated on the construction drawings. Even if I am mistaken about

this material, it is extremely problematic that the top of this material is not

sealed against the brick, and the extraordinarily poor quality of the metal

flashings allows water to penetrate through the flashings and enter at the

top of this material, where it can move behind the membrane and work its

way into the interior of the unit.

Based on photographs provided by Ms. Leutenegger, it is also apparent that

leaking is still occurring under the French doors. This is attributable, in my

opinion, to a poor threshold design that features no sill pan flashing (no end

dams, and no up-turned interior face). This condition is fairly simple to rem-

edy, as described in Figure 1. The problem at the top of the upturned mem-

brane can be alleviated by installing metal flashing with properly fabricated

29 of 39


bends and seams forming a receiver for the lower piece of counter-flashing,

for those seams to be soldered, and for the interface with the brick to be

sealed properly with an appropriate elastomeric sealant.

The continuing leaking of the terrace at Karen Leutenegger’s unit is a serious

problem. It is very unfortunate that it seems to be the result of carelessness

that occurred during the construction of the terrace, and that it was so diffi-

cult to pinpoint and identify. That kind of carelessness is very difficult to pa-

trol and manage on a project of the size of Palace Lofts. And it is unfortunate

that major remediation has been undertaken, and the problem still has not

be solved. Fortunately, the remaining sources of leaking are, in my opinion,

fairly easy to identify, and fairly straight-forward to remediate. To summa-

rize…

1. Replace the existing metal flashing

a. Confirm that the underlying waterproof membrane has been prop-

erly installed

b. Confirm that membrane wraps around the brick corner and returns

behind the door

2. Remove the French doors, and

install a sill pan flashing

a. Re-install the doors and seal

the joints

30 of 39


This concludes this report on the

Leaking Problems at Palace Lofts

Condominium Unit 3L

3. Closing

The findings and conclusions that appear in this report are based on the in-

formation that has been provided to me (summarized the beginning of this

report). Should additional information, or information about previously con-

cealed or hidden conditions become available, JNX Group, LLC reserves the

right to revise and supplement this report accordingly.

Prepared by:

Larry D. Jenks A I A, C S I

Licensed Architect in the State of Colorado

JNX Group, LLC

31 of 39
