CONSULT DESIGN CONSTRUCT PETERSONS WATERFRONT CONDOMINIUMS 103 Park Street Chelan, Washington Findings Summary Report Prepared for: Petersons Waterfront Condominium Association March 21, 2014 J2 Project #06591
Page 2 of 42 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION... 3 1.1 SCOPE OF WORK... 3 1.2 BUILDING DESCRIPTION... 3 1.3 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED... 3 2.0 VISUAL INSPECTION OBSERVATIONS... 3 2.1 EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY, VENTS AND PENETRATIONS... 3 2.2 EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS... 13 2.3 DECKS AND FRONT BREEZEWAYS... 19 2.4 ROOF ASSEMBLY, PENETRATIONS AND GUTTERS... 30 2.5 FOUNDATION AND GRADING... 36 2.6 MISCELLANEOUS... 39 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS... 40
Page 3 of 42 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SCOPE OF WORK J2 Building Consultants, Inc. (J2) was retained by the Petersons Waterfront Condominium Association to perform a visual and intrusive building envelope inspection of all buildings and areas of made accessible by site personnel. Based on the visual indicators, J2 performed exploratory (invasive) openings in the building envelope. The purpose of the inspection was to identify the construction component sequencing for building performance and to identify the extent of sheathing and framing damage reported by the Board as they consider a siding replacement project. 1.2 BUILDING DESCRIPTION The Petersons Waterfront Condominiums are comprised of four separate buildings. The property was originally developed in the mid 1980 s as phase 1 (building 1) and 2 (building 2). The phase 3(building 3) building was constructed in approximately 1992. In 2000, the fourth phase was constructed over a section of phase 1 to provide a four story structure at the east end of the building. In 2003, the fifth and final phase of development was completed at the southeast portion of the property. The phase 5 building was not part of this property assessment. Phases 1 thru 4 are clad with ship-lap cedar siding installed in a vertical manner. Horizontally installed wood lap siding was added to deck perimeters and exterior wall perimeters of the phase 4 project in early 2000. Phases 1 thru 3 buildings have aluminum framed windows and sliding glass doors throughout. The phase 4 units have vinyl windows and sliding glass doors installed. The upper level roof of phase four is a single ply membrane roof covering. The upper level flat roof of the phase 3 building is a torch down asphaltic membrane roof with UV protective coating. All other roofs are typical asphaltic shingle roof. All upper level residences are accessed via elevated walkways and breezeways at the south building elevation. Residential decks have a combination of vinyl sheet membrane surfaces, elastomeric membranes and concrete walking surfaces. 1.3 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED J2 was provided with two binders containing documentation of previous repairs performed at the phase 1 and phase 2 elevated walkways areas of the south elevations. The documents show extensive damage resulting from water intrusion at the concrete walking surfaces which affected the structural integrity of the elevated walking surfaces. The repairs were performed by two separate contractors between 2000 and 2002. 2.0 VISUAL INSPECTION OBSERVATIONS 2.1 EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY, VENTS AND PENETRATIONS The exterior cladding on the phase 1 thru phase 4 buildings is generally similar. The walls are clad with a combination of horizontal cedar lap siding and ship-lap cedar lap siding. The ship lap siding has been installed in a vertical fashion on the exterior walls. The siding, where inspected, is installed over an asphalt impregnated building paper or weather resistive barrier (WRB). The walls assembly has plywood sheathed exterior walls at all locations except those inspected on phase 4.
Page 4 of 42 The ship-lap siding, as previously identified, has been installed in the vertical orientation on the building walls. This installation is not the typical orientation for similar materials. Ship-lap siding is manufactured to interlock pieces of wood materials in an overlapping fashion to properly shed water. In order for the materials to provide the maximum weather protection, the siding should be installed in the horizontal orientation on the exterior walls. As a result of the vertical installation, the exposed siding joints are most susceptible to water intrusion and have required ongoing maintenance repairs to prevent water intrusion into the wall assembly and deterioration of the siding materials. Over time, the repairs have been performed by removing select components in the exterior walls and applying sealant between the siding joints to prevent water intrusion. Due to the age and improper installation of the ship-lap siding, several sections of the exterior cladding were observed to have stained areas and swelling consistent with prolonged water intrusion. These areas of water damaged siding have a diminished expected useful life and higher maintenance requirements. Additional stained wood siding was observed around unit decks, at the breezeway areas and building penetrations. At deck and breezeway locations, the siding has been installed in contact with the surrounding hardscape (concrete walkways) areas which do not follow Code requirements. Code requires a separation between siding materials and hard surfaces (or landscaping) to prevent damage due to splash or capillary action. The resulting stained siding is due to prolonged water saturation wicking into the siding and deteriorating the siding materials. These areas also have visible corrosion to siding fasteners. Some of these identified areas had high moisture content in the siding materials as documented by A BD 2100 moisture meter. Elevated moisture meter readings indicate saturation of the materials and eminent decay of the wood products. The cladding materials have been installed tight to building penetrations and transitions with perimeter sealant joints and no metal flashings. The window perimeters have a wood block frame perimeter made of 1x2 materials. Building transitions at deck areas, product interfaces and transitions are sealed to the adjoining materials prevent water from draining off the exterior cladding. This allows for water to be directed into the wall assembly in the event of wind driven rain. A horizontal wood lap siding has been installed at deck areas, breezeway areas and select areas of the phase 4 building. The horizontal lap siding was installed in the mid 2000 s following repairs to phase 1 and 2 breezeway areas and during the development of the phase 3 project. The siding has been installed with vertical MDO (medium density overlay) wood trim, according to Petersons Waterfront staff. MDO wood trim is an engineered wood product made of compressed wood products. While the lap siding does not show signs of visible damage, the MDO trim has started to swell from water intrusion. J2 removed the exterior cladding at several areas to inspect the underlying construction components at areas of critical waterproofing; change in plane of cladding materials and field locations where siding shows signs of water damage. Where siding was removed, the materials showed signs of previous water intrusion with stains on the back-side of the lap siding as well as on the WRB. No significant framing damage was observed at locations identified by the Association as having the greatest exposure. These areas were found to have some missing WRB in the field of installation but no significant damage to the plywood wall sheathing. The inspection areas revealed inconsistent application of the WRB at window perimeters, deck transitions, and field locations with additional voids at the roof levels. By Code, WRB is to be installed with a minimum two inch vertical overlap and a four inch horizontal overlap. Some areas of the WRB were found to have no overlap to integrate the
Page 5 of 42 WRB while other areas were found to have a four inch overlap. This observed condition shows an inconsistent installation of the weather resistive barrier. WRB was found at all areas exposed for the inspection, although much of the WRB installation was improperly installed. Areas with missing WRB show signs of previous water intrusion with limited staining on the plywood sheathing. Moisture meter readings of the wall sheathing showed limited saturation of the materials. These areas, however, do show signs of deterioration due to prolonged exposure. The deteriorated areas were generally found to be in proximity to the interface of roofing and cladding materials and at grade transitions. 2.1 Exterior Wall Assembly, Vents and Penetrations Photos 2.1.1 P1120229: Part of the Phase 1 building and Phase 4 building constructed over the existing structure. 2.1.2 P1120230: Phase 1 building overview. 2.1.3 P1120253: Phase 2 building overview. 2.1.4 P1120254: Phase 3 building overview.
Page 6 of 42 2.1 Exterior Wall Assembly, Vents and Penetrations Photos 2.1.5 P1120245: Typical ship-lap siding installation at exterior wall location. Note the stained surfaces and discoloration at siding butt joints. 2.1.6 P1120221: Siding installed in contact with concrete surface showing corroded fasteners due to water saturation. 2.1.7 P1120232: Typical horizontal lap siding installation at deck perimeter. 2.1.8 P1120240: MDO trim installed at horizontal siding transition. Note swelling and separation of materials.
Page 7 of 42 2.1 Exterior Wall Assembly, Vents and Penetrations Photos 2.1.9 P1120336: Decaying cladding interface between siding materials and door trim. 2.1.10 P1120292: Improperly flashed building transition between siding materials and window head trim. 2.1.11 P1120315: Building transition between siding materials. Note lack of space between materials allowing for water collection. 2.1.12 P1120325: Detail of wood transition between cladding materials. Note deteriorating wood.
Page 8 of 42 2.1 Exterior Wall Assembly, Vents and Penetrations Photos 2.1.13 P1120384: High moisture content of wood siding at unit 432. 2.1.14 P1120396: High moisture content of wood transition trim at unit 432. 2.1.15 P1120282: Cladding removal at unit 215. Note areas of missing WRB installation. 2.1.16 P1120286: Detail of missing WRB under shed roof at window.
Page 9 of 42 2.1 Exterior Wall Assembly, Vents and Penetrations Photos 2.1.17 P1120296: WRB mislap at window perimeter. This is not weathertight. 2.1.18 P1120298: Deteriorated plywood sheathing at window perimeter at location of WRB mislap. 2.1.19 P1120438: Inspection at unit 212. 2.1.20 P1120439: Missing and deteriorated WRB exposing underlying plywood sheathing.
Page 10 of 42 2.1 Exterior Wall Assembly, Vents and Penetrations Photos 2.1.21 P1120440: Lack of WRB integration into vent penetration. 2.1.22 P1120300: Visible water drainage from deck wall to building wall interface. Note deteriorated WRB at top of wall. 2.1.23 P1120301: High moisture content of plywood sheathing at inspection location. 2.1.24 P1120444: Void in sheathing/wrb installation at location of water intrusion from deck top wall.
Page 11 of 42 2.1 Exterior Wall Assembly, Vents and Penetrations Photos 2.1.25 P1120466: Cladding removal at fire escape landing of Phase 3 building. 2.1.26 P1120467: Detail of cladding installation tight to landing causing deterioration. 2.1.27 P1120469: Wall opening at location of stained cladding. 2.1.28 P1120471: Exposed base plate framing at base of wall. This is not weathertight.
Page 12 of 42 2.1 Exterior Wall Assembly, Vents and Penetrations Photos 2.1.29 P1120477: Mislapped WRB at wall interface with sloped roofing, improper installation that is not weathertight. 2.1.30 P1120478: Open void at roof to wall transition, not weather tight. 2.1.31 P1120486: Overview of inspection area. Note cladding sealed to concrete walkway preventing proper drainage and sealing moisture behind cladding. 2.1.32 P1120478: Cladding opening at unit 225 breezeway wall area. Note corroded fastener and standing water.
Page 13 of 42 2.1 Exterior Wall Assembly, Vents and Penetrations Photos 2.1.33 P1120493: Cladding removal at exterior wall of unit 225. 2.1.34 P1120494: Mislap in rubber membrane installed under concrete on top of wall WRB, not weathertight. 2.2 EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS The operable and fixed pane windows of the phase 1 thru 3 buildings are typical flanged aluminum window units. The exterior deck doors are typical swing doors. The windows and doors reportedly from original construction. The product manufacturer for all window and door products on these building phases is unknown. The windows and doors installed in phase 4 are vinyl framed units with dual glazing panes. The windows are manufactured by Best Built with a performance class rating of 25. The sliding glass door units are manufactured by Milgard and do not have a designated performance grade. The aluminum framed window units in phases 1 thru 3 are original installation with single pane glazed units. Some of the small windows located in the living room area appear to be operable while all other windows are large fixed units. The window installation on phases 1 and 3 does not incorporate the building WRB into the window rough opening as would currently be required by all manufacturer and standard installation techniques. The windows have been installed with fasteners applied thru the nail fins and WRB installed up to the flanges (in most cases). An unknown clear plastic material has been sealed to the perimeter of the window flanges at the observed locations and WRB has been sealed to the flanges. According to the maintenance staff, window leaks have been reported during heavy rain events. The water intrusion is likely the result of poor waterproof detailing at the window head and rough opening to prevent water from entering the building envelope. The lack of weatherproof detailing was observed at the two window inspection locations. Active water intrusion was observed in unit 222 during our interior inspections. The water intrusion appears to be from water entering the wall assembly from the deck area above and draining to the interior of the window unit in 222. The phase 4 building has a combination of vinyl window products. The cladding was not removed at these window locations during the course of inspection, however, the nail fin was observed at one of the sliding glass door units. At
Page 14 of 42 the location of the exposed nail fin, the fiber cement siding was observed to have water saturation damage. This is likely the result of the typical cladding installation where head flashings and target flashings have been omitted from the installation sequencing. The windows are installed with a perimeter sealant joint at the interface with cladding materials. Several of these sealant joints have failed allowing for water to enter the wall assembly. At one observed location, the window perimeter has an exposed area at the cladding where no weather proofing has been provided. At this locations, deteriorated fiber cement siding was identified (unit 432). Several of the observed IGU s (Insulated Glass Units) in the newer vinyl windows have sealant failures within the glass pane, resulting in failed window panes. The butyl sealant applied between the glass units on the setting block are starting to bubble and separate from the IGU. This condition reduces their thermal function and makes the product less efficient due to the failed IGU. None of the observed window installations meet requirements for building performance or manufacturer standards. The aluminum framed windows appear to have exceeded their anticipated useful life as they are subject to water and air infiltration during storm events. 2.2 Exterior Doors and Windows Photos 4.2.1 P1120233: Typical fixed and operable aluminum framed window unit (Phase 1). 4.2.2 P1120297: Window installation with perimeter 1x2 wood trim (typical). Not weathertight, note damage.
Page 15 of 42 2.2 Exterior Doors and Windows Photos 2.2.3 P1120283: Detail of window installation at sill. Note plastic wrap at sill and lack of WRB integration. 2.2.4 P1120290: Detail of window installation missing sealant and WRB at nail fin rough opening location. 2.2.5 P1120292: Typical window head detail with missing flashing at aluminum window location. 2.2.6 P1120291: Detail of saturated wood trim at window head.
Page 16 of 42 2.2 Exterior Doors and Windows Photos 2.2.7 P1120606: Active water intrusion at unit 222 from deck area located above. 2.2.8 P1120608: High moisture content of gypsum interior window wrap at unit 222. 2.2.9 P1120311: Typical exterior of vinyl window, unit 432. 2.2.10 P1120313: Failed perimeter sealant of vinyl window unit.
Page 17 of 42 2.2 Exterior Doors and Windows Photos 2.2.11 P1120340: Interior view of vinyl window, unit 432. 2.2.12 P1120342: Sealant failure at interior of window IGU. 2.2.13 P1120362: Overview of sliding glass door in unit 432. 2.2.14 P1120371: Deteriorated fiber cement siding in rough opening of SGD, unit 432.
Page 18 of 42 2.2 Exterior Doors and Windows Photos 2.2.15 P1120373: Exposed nailing fin on SGD, unit 432. 2.2.16 P1120369: SGD frame set away from cladding with no weatherproof installation allowing water to enter wall assembly. 2.2.15 P1120368: Typical vinyl window installation detail at window head. Note lack of flashing materials. 2.2.16 P1120531: Vinyl window installation showing WRB lap into rough opening. Note the corroded fastener is a non-compliant installation.
Page 19 of 42 2.3 DECKS AND FRONT BREEZEWAYS The residential deck areas of the phase 1, 2 and 4 buildings have a combination of finishes surfaces. The majority of the phase 1 and 2 decks have vinyl sheet membrane over wood substrate. Some decks have an outdoor carpet surface and others, with repairs performed, have a fluid applied waterproof membrane. The upper level phase 4 decks have a fluid applied membrane with patterned finish. The product applied to the surface is unknown. The phase 3 building has a combination of exposed aggregate concrete topping slab or tiled concrete deck surface. Several of the observed decks have active water intrusion staining the soffit areas located below those decks. According to the management team, there have been several repairs performed on the existing systems with additional repairs required. The vinyl sheet membrane decks are installed up to the exterior cladding areas but do not integrate with the cladding. This allows water draining from the building exterior to be directed below the membrane and into the wall assembly. The majority of these decks provide minimal slope to the single area drain. Of those that slope to drain, the majority of the deck drain assemblies have failed waterproofing at the drain body, allowing water to bypass the drain and enter the deck assembly. These failures are typical of all decks observed on at the phase 1 and 2 buildings, regardless of deck covering materials. The decks areas accessible for phase 3 have a combination of exposed aggregate concrete decking and tiled deck surfaces. The concrete has been placed over a rubber membrane on the wood deck framing. At the observed locations, the decks are not properly sloped to drain, allowing for water and ice build up at low areas of the deck. Build-up of water wicks into the wood cladding and damages the exterior materials. The phase 3 decks are provided with through wall drain bodies that have been set into the concrete decking. The phase 4 decks have a fluid applied deck membrane which is thicker than those observed elsewhere. The membrane materials appear to be performing as intended. However, the deck areas also do not provide sufficient slope to drain and allow for ponding water on the waterproof membrane. Standing water on a deck membrane generally voids any warrantable installation due to lack of compliance with code regulations to provide sufficient slope to drain. The phase 4 decks are constructed with a metal framed perimeter deck rail and glass inserts. The metal railing systems has been installed as a top mounted railing unit. Top mounted railing assemblies are generally more susceptible to water intrusion due to their installation through the membrane which punctures the waterproof coating. In order to prevent water intrusion, these assemblies should be installed over neoprene gaskets and in filled with sealant. Our inspection found several of the railings lifted from the deck surface allowing for a path of water intrusion into the deck assembly. At unit 432, the roof downspout drain travels through the upper level deck assembly. The penetration is sealed with expansive foam at the penetration. It is unknown if any waterproofing materials have been installed in the penetration void. In general, the decks do not provide sufficient slope to drain and lack proper waterproofing components to direct water off the deck surfaces. Standing water and failures in the deck membranes have resulted in water intrusion into the deck assembly that has resulted in three emergency deck repairs. Although some repairs have been made, the repairs have not corrected the issues and water damage has continued. The elevated walkways and breezeways from the parking are at the front elevations of phases 1 thru 3 have a concrete walking surface with perimeter wood clad wall systems and metal top rails. According to the information reviewed, significant rot repairs were performed on phases 1 and 2 in 2000. The rot repairs required existing
Page 20 of 42 walkways and breezeways be removed entirety and replace water damaged structural posts and beams. Those areas were structurally repaired with new framing members and plywood deck sheathing. A rubber waterproof membrane was placed on the plywood sheathing (mislapped with the WRB) and concrete was placed on the walking surfaces. Upon completion of the concrete areas, the cladding was installed at the wall areas. The deck top rails and caps are a combination of wood and metal materials. The top caps have been placed directly on the wood parapet wall framing. No flashings were installed at the time of cladding replacement of the parapet walls at the interface with the buildings. The lack of flashing (saddle flashing) at these locations allows water to enter the wall assembly damaging the underlying construction components. The cladding installed on phases 1 and 2 has been installed tight to the concrete walking surfaces violating code required separation between cladding materials and concrete areas. This condition allows water to wick into the cladding causing premature deterioration. Following identification of these issues, the site staff applied sealant to the vertical transition. The application of sealants has sealed in the water trapping it in the assembly. J2 performed an invasive inspection at a breezeway column where it intersects a section of the parapet wall in the phase 3 building. The area at the lowest level under the inspection location showed signs of water intrusion and structural compression (decay and damage) of the wood framing. Upon removing the column wrap, no flashings were found at the intersection between the top cap and the parapet wall. The lack of flashing materials has allowed water to enter the column area causing water damage to the structural framing. At the second floor inspection area, damaged 2x4 framing materials were found to have compressed (damaged) on to the beam areas. At the first floor level, the trim materials were removed exposing the post to beam connection. The area was found to be heavily saturated with corrosion observed on the post/beam metal connection plate. These conditions are systemic to areas observed at all phases of the buildings. The upper level units are accessed via concrete stair risers on wood stair stringers. According to site staff, several of the concrete treads are to be replaced in the near future. One stair tread was found to be detached from the wood stringer, creating a life safety issue. The concrete treads are delaminating thus exposing the steel reinforcing. All the concrete treads require evaluation for structural integrity, or should be replaced.
Page 21 of 42 2.3 Decks and Front Breezeways Photos 2.3.1 P1120560: Phase 1 deck surface with exterior grade carpet. 2.3.2 P112065: Phase 1 deck showing lack of deck to wall flashing and deteriorated wood materials, not weathertight. 2.3.3 P1120567: Phase 1 vinyl sheet membrane deck with ponding water on surface. 2.3.4 P1120574: Vinyl sheet termination bar showing void at wall interface allowing for water intrusion.
Page 22 of 42 2.3 Decks and Front Breezeways Photos 2.3.5 P1120578: Vinyl sheet membrane failure in unit 132. 2.3.6 P1120596: Vinyl sheet membrane failure at transition to area drain. 2.3.7 P1120613: Carpet surface in phase 2 deck. 2.3.8 P1120616: Level showing reverse slope at location adjacent to deck drain.
Page 23 of 42 2.3 Decks and Front Breezeways Photos 2.3.9 P1120622: Fluid applied membrane coating at repaired deck area, unit 232. 2.3.10 P1120627: Failed membrane application at new deck coating, unit 232. 2.3.11 P1120632: New deck through wall drain at unit 232. 2.3.12 P1120633: Detail at through wall scupper detail of new deck repairs.
Page 24 of 42 2.3 Decks and Front Breezeways Photos 2.3.13 P1120419: Overview of phase 3 deck area with concrete deck surface. 2.3.14 P1120420: Ice build-up at deck area from reverse slope on deck surface. 2.3.15 P1120321: Overview of phase 4 deck membrane. 2.3.16 P1120327: Typical top mounted railing assembly in phase 4. Note the exposed fasteners under the railing mount, not weathertight.
Page 25 of 42 2.3 Decks and Front Breezeways Photos 2.3.17 P1120571: Typical exterior wall to deck wall interface, not weathertight. 2.3.18 P1120572: Ruler showing void at interface between components allowing for water intrusion. 2.3.19 P1120620: Non-0weathertight parapet top cap interface with exterior wall showing void at critical location. 2.3.20 P1120593: Typical railing mounts at deck parapet wall.
Page 26 of 42 2.3 Decks and Front Breezeways Photos 2.3.21 P1120499: Typical walkway area from parking to second floor units. 2.3.22 P1120274: Typical elevated walkway to access third floor units. 2.3.23 P1120275: Typical drain assembly in elevated walkways. Note sealants applied at transitions, not weathertight. 2.3.24 P1120277: Typical intersection between metal top rail assembly at column wrap at walkway areas.
Page 27 of 42 2.3 Decks and Front Breezeways Photos 2.3.25 P1120500: Standing water on walking surface at elevated walkway. 2.3.26 P1120504: Trim removed at post wrap showing lack of waterproofing at intersection, near unit 325. 2.3.27 P1120505: Column wrap removed structural support adjacent to unit 325. 2.3.28 P1120512: Deteriorated framing members exposed at post connection.
Page 28 of 42 2.3 Decks and Front Breezeways Photos 2.3.29 P1120507: High moisture content in wood framing at structural post. 2.3.30 P1120511: Low moisture content in wood framing at top of post location, near unit 325. 2.3.31 P1120516: Cladding materials removed under post water intrusion location. 2.3.32 P1120517: High moisture content in walkway beam.
Page 29 of 42 2.3 Decks and Front Breezeways Photos 2.3.33 P1120518: High moisture content in wood sheathing at beam location. 2.3.34 P1120511: High moisture content in post connection, near unit 325. Note corrosion on concrete from failed fasteners and steel connectors. 2.3.35 P1120267: Typical concrete stair treads. Note exposed steel reinforcing. 2.3.36 P1120268: Detail of exposed steel reinforcing at concrete stair tread.
Page 30 of 42 2.4 ROOF ASSEMBLY, PENETRATIONS AND GUTTERS The roof area of the phase 1 and 2 buildings is a steep slope roof with asphalt shingles. The shingles are installed over roofing felt with a plywood roof sheathing underlayment. According to the information available, the roofs have received recent maintenance repairs to correct flashing issues and replace damaged shingles. These roofs were generally not accessed during our review. J2 did perform a limited inspection at roof terminations to confirm roof assembly sequencing. Shingled roofs have been installed at window locations throughout the property as shed eyebrow roofs. The shingled roof areas appear to be in good condition. Based on our review, the granular surface of the shingles is sound and providing protection as intended. The areas of concern are at transitions to cladding materials or chimney stacks. At these areas, voids were found at the step flashings installed under the cladding that are not wet and will allow for wind driven rain to enter the wall assembly. The phase 3 building has a combination of roofing materials at different locations. The front and rear elevations of the building have a steep slope asphalt shingle roof. The upper portion of the phase 3 building roof is a built up asphaltic membrane on a low slope installation. The roofing material has a UV coating over the surface of the low slope membrane areas. The roof area has a perimeter metal coping with top mounted fasteners. The fasteners driven through the metal coping were observed to have rubber gaskets. The roof drains at through wall scuppers are located at the low points of the roof assembly. A section of the phase 3 building at the north elevation has a single ply membrane over a semi-domed roof area. This roof membrane was not inspected. The roof membrane and coating materials are in good condition. Although areas of previous repair are evident, it does not appear to have identifiable or significant field failures. Minimal ponding water was identified at one area of the through wall scupper. By Code, water is not allowed on a low slope roof membrane for longer the 48 hours. The area with standing water is the result of a reverse slope at the through wall scupper allowing for the collection of water. At the time of roof replacement, the roof assembly will need to be brought up to current code requirements with the addition of new overflow drains and larger through wall scupper drains. The perimeter coping metal is fastened through the top of the coping into wood framing. Generally, this installation style is avoided as it can result in water intrusion through the open voids. Although the fasteners have rubber gaskets, the perimeter coping should be inspected annually to ensure there are not openings in the coping metals. One area of the perimeter coping was found to be partially detached due to a loose fastener. The phase 4 building has a single ply membrane roof. The roof appears to be either a TPO (thermoplastic polyolephin) or PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) membrane material. The roof has a perimeter parapet coping with metal cap and through wall scupper drains. A visual review of the roof membrane and drainage system identified several deficiencies that require correction. Two areas of the membrane have been previously repaired by applying a mastic (asphaltic) material to the roof surface. The installation of this material on a single ply roof membrane is not a proper repair as the products are not compatible. The result of this repair is a separation between the roof membrane and the repair area. The roof through wall scupper at unit 432 deck was inspected following identifiable water intrusion at the exterior wall assembly. Upon removal of siding, it was discovered that the WRB installed under the phase 4 cladding did not properly lap into the roof assembly or the through wall scupper. The void in WRB and missing target flashings allow
Page 31 of 42 for any water that enters the wall system to drain onto the exposed gypsum exterior sheathing. The source of leaks at inspection locations was determined to be from the through wall scupper. This condition is likely the result of improper installation of the scupper assembly with the roofing materials creating a void at the drain location. Previous repairs have been made with the mastic materials but those repairs have been ineffective. 2.4 Roof Assembly, Penetrations and Gutters Photos 2.4.1 P1120434: Shingled roof area at phase 1 building. 2.4.2 P1120224: Typical shingled roof over window. 2.4.3 P1120435: Shingled roof at phase 2 building. 2.4.4 P1120459: Roof to wall detail at step flashing with void at roof location, not weathertight.
Page 32 of 42 2.4 Roof Assembly, Penetrations and Gutters Photos 2.4.5 P1120414: Roof repair area at phase 3 building. 2.4.6 P1120423: Overview of built up asphalt roof membrane, phase 3. 2.4.7 P1120427: Area of previous repair on phase 3 roof. 2.4.8 P1120424: Area of standing water on roof membrane at through wall scupper.
Page 33 of 42 2.4 Roof Assembly, Penetrations and Gutters Photos 2.4.9 P1120433: Phase 3 through wall roof scupper draining ponding water. 2.4.10 P1120429: Parapet coping metal fastener backing out of assembly, not weathertight. 2.4.11 P1120387: Overview of phase 4 single ply roof membrane. 2.4.12 P1120409: Area of improper mastic repair to single ply roof membrane.
Page 34 of 42 2.4 Roof Assembly, Penetrations and Gutters Photos 2.4.13 P1120412: Fastener backing from perimeter metal coping. Note void in coping at sealant location, not weathertight. 2.4.14 P1120389: Through wall scupper with identified water intrusion and previous repair, phase 4 roof. 2.4.15 P1120526: Area of through wall scupper inspection, unit 432. Note missing WRB at coping. 2.4.16 P1120522: Through wall scupper missing WRB and target flashing
Page 35 of 42 2.4 Roof Assembly, Penetrations and Gutters Photos 2.4.17 P1120535: Organic growth on gypsum sheathing under through wall scupper. 2.4.18 P1120538: High moisture content in gypsum sheathing at water stained area. 2.4.19 P1120541: Water stained gypsum at through walls scupper. 2.4.20 P1120542: High moisture content in gypsum sheathing at area under through wall scupper.
Page 36 of 42 2.5 FOUNDATION AND GRADING At the request of the Association representatives, J2 performed a limited review of the asphalt driveway, west retaining walls and north retaining wall. J2 was provided with information that the asphaltic drive areas have been reportedly undermining or eroding over the course of the last several years. The asphalt drive-lane and parking areas have significant cracking that would indicate undermining of the subsurface conditions. The cracking extends from the parking and driving areas into the sports court at the south portion of the property. J2 could not find direct evidence of areas where the erosion is depositing outside of the property but an area of damaged asphalt was identified during the review. This inspection is outside of the Scope of Services J2 is currently providing to the Association. It is our recommendation that additional geotechnical testing be performed with down-scan imaging of the parking and driving areas. This may also require limited excavation of the areas to identify the extent of damage. 2.5 Foundation and Grading Photos 2.5.1 P1120272: Overview of the parking and driving areas at the south portion of the property. 2.5.2 P1120273: Cracking at the perimeter of the catch basin located in the driveway.
Page 37 of 42 2.5 Foundation and Grading Photos 2.5.3 P1120266: Location where asphalt has undermined in parking area. 2.5.4 P1120655: Overview of cracked areas in parking lot. 2.5.5 P1120656: Detail of cracking in parking area. 2.5.6 P1120265: Overview of sports court.
Page 38 of 42 2.5 Foundation and Grading Photos 2.5.7 P1120650: Detail of crack width in sports court area. 2.5.8 P1120648: Cracking in sports court area. 2.5.9 P112028: Rockery retaining wall at lake side of property. 2.5.10 P1120265: Concrete and CMU retaining wall at west elevation of parking area.
Page 39 of 42 2.6 MISCELLANEOUS 2.6 Miscellaneous Photos 2.6.1 P1120261: Conduit installed below water line for hot tub. Conduit is not rated for submersion in water. 2.6.2 P1120262: Conduit running to shut off for hot tub.
Page 40 of 42 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Petersons Waterfront Condominiums consists of multiple buildings, built over an extended period of time (five phases), to develop the property into four buildings. The first 3 phases of the property were developed with similar cladding types and construction materials. These buildings have seen a pattern of systemic issues documented during our investigation. The vertically installed lap siding on the first 3 phases of the property has performed better than anticipated. Generally, this product is installed in the horizontal fashion to allow for the proper waterfall of moisture down the exterior face of the siding. The as built condition relies on fasteners to hold the siding tight to the exterior wall sheathing and paint or sealant at joints to prevent water intrusion. Were butt joints in the cladding were observed, additional sealants have been installed to prevent water intrusion. Although areas of water intrusion were identified, no significant framing damage was discovered in the field of installation. This is partially due to the installation of asphalt impregnated building paper, or weather resistive barrier, under the wood siding. Although the WRB is improperly installed and missing in places, the WRB has generally protected the plywood wall sheathing and wood framing from additional damage in the field of installation. Areas of damaged WRB and wall sheathing were found at intersections with dissimilar products (horizontal to vertical interface) or at locations of penetrations (windows, vents, etc). At these locations, there are no flashing materials to allow for the proper lapping of the WRB in the change of plane detail. Several of these areas are open and are currently sealant dependent to prevent water intrusion. At locations of cladding and grade transitions, the observed installation do not provide the code required separation at the transition. In addition, the areas had sealant applied to the transitions. This was likely done as the siding was showing signs of saturation and corrosion on the fasteners. The saturation is due to the installation being in close proximity to grade and thus allowing water to wick into the end grains of the cedar siding. Although no significant failures were documented in the field of installation, the amount of area missing critical waterproofing details encompasses approximately 75% of the exposed building elevations. In order to correct the failures identified at these intersections, it is probable that the exterior cladding will require a total replacement and installation of new materials in an appropriate detail to protect the exterior framing and wall sheathing from water intrusion. It should be assumed during the course of cladding replacement that approximately 10% of the exterior wall sheathing will require replacement, due to water damage at change of plan details, at areas are not currently protected. The phase 4cladding has been installed with a combination of wood materials and fiber cement materials. They have been installed over a residential grade WRB similar to Tyvek housewrap. The cladding has been installed in a manner similar to phases 1 thru 3, missing flashing details at building penetrations and transitions. In addition, the WRB and target flashings are intermittent at inspection locations of building penetrations. This condition has allowed water intrusion creating water damaged exterior wall sheathing. This condition will result in damaged building framing unless these areas are repaired. The phase 1 thru 3 buildings have aluminum framed fixed and operable windows throughout. The windows have not been installed with any rigid flashing materials at the window head or flexible flashing materials at the window rough
Page 41 of 42 opening. The lack of detailing at the windows has resulted in reported water intrusion at multiple locations. J2 documented water intrusion to the interior of one unit under the location of a deck leak. The water intrusion to the interior of the window is likely causing damage to the exterior wall framing and sheathing at this location. Based on our observations, the windows appear to have performed for their intended useful life. It would be our recommendation that all windows be replaced, in phases 1 thru 3, at the time of cladding replacement. The replacement of aluminum framed window assemblies could result in an energy rebate from the local authorities to meet current energy code requirements. The unit decks and entry breezeways of the phase 1 thru 3 buildings are in poor condition. The residential decks show signs of failure at the majority of the inspection locations. The failures are a combination of tears in the vinyl sheet product, voids in the application of waterproof membrane and failures in the waterproofing assembly. A total deck replacement project, to correct waterproofing deficiencies, will likely require the replacement of siding at those intersections. The replacement of siding materials and installation of flashings, appropriate drainage systems and addition of deck slope will be required in the near term of the private decks. The phase 1 and phase 2 entry landings and breezeways were part of an insurance replacement in early 2000. Based on our observations, there are additional areas of water intrusion at these locations as well as phase 3 locations. Our inspection at the phase 3 breezeway identified water damaged wood framing and structural framing. The water intrusion is the result of poor waterproof detailing at the interface between the railing caps at column details. In addition, the concrete walking surfaces do not provide sufficient slope to the embedded drain assemblies to sufficiently drain surface water. As a result, the water is absorbed into the concrete walkways resulting in potential issues in the framed assemblies. The steep slope asphalt shingle roofs appear to be in good condition. Areas of repair to gutters and downspouts may be required in the near term. Additional monitoring of the phase 3 building roof is also recommended based on the observed standing water on the surface of the roof membrane. In the event that the roof requires major repairs or renovations, provisions should be made to bring the roof to current code requirements by adding additional overflow scuppers in the parapet of the roof assembly. The phase 4 roof membrane, a single ply plastic product, has experienced failures. The failures have been repaired in a manner which does not meet the manufacturer s specifications for product compatibility. The areas of previous repair should be reviewed by a manufacturer approved vendor to ensure any and all repairs provide a warrantable installation. The asphalt drive-lanes and parking areas have been subject to undermining from an unknown source. J2 has recommended to the Association to perform additional geotechnical testing and review available City of Chelan documents regarding shore undermine or sloughing. These conditions appear to be linked. During the course of our inspection, a large civil works project was underway across the lake to improve and stabilize the shoreline opposite the Petersons Waterfront Condominiums. The phases 1 thru 3 buildings appear to have performed as originally intended but the cladding materials, including the windows, are at the end of their useful life and should be replaced. During the time of replacement, the buildings should be designed to perform for weather patterns including detailing to prevent water intrusion at critical
Page 42 of 42 waterproofing areas. The entry breezeways and decks should be repaired as part of a whole project to ensure that all details be properly incorporated into the building envelope. The phase 4 building shows signs of water intrusion and accelerated failures due to the poor detailing of critical elements. The exterior cladding of this building should be addressed at the time of phase 1 building repairs. During the course of these repairs, the Association should retain the services of a qualified Architect and Engineering firm (like J2) to ensure that waterproofing details and construction components are properly detailed for installation. In addition, the property repair will likely need to follow requirements of RCW 64.55 for multi-family construction repairs and renovations. This provision requires that a qualified firm be retained to provide construction details and provide construction oversight with field monitoring of the installed materials. The project will also require window performance testing of any new of existing windows to ensure the products meet the design specifications for the project. Please let us know if we can provide any additional references or assistance in understanding the next steps involved with the described building assessment. Sincerely, J2 Building Consultants, Inc. Jim Kessler