2014 Palace Lofts, Denver- Expert Report

July 16, 2014 Page

1

R E A L A R C H I T E C T U R E L T D D A V I D L . B E R T O N A . I . A

2899 North Speer Blvd Suite 102 Phone: (303)477-5550

Denver, Colorado 80211 Fax: (303)477-5505

www.realarchitecture.com

July 16, 2014

William Rounsborg MDM & C. 5600 S. Quebec Street C-100 Greenwood Village, CO. 80111 RE: EXPERT REPORT OF REALARCHITECTURE LTD.

CASE: PALACE LOFTS CONDOMINIUM ASSOC. V MCDONALD

WATERPROOFING, INC; BRADLEY A. SCHMIDT

VENUE: DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, STATE OF COLORADO Case, 2012 CV3718

Dear Mr. Rounsborg,

Pursuant to your request, Realarchitecture Ltd (“REAL”) has reviewed the

Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosures, Associated provided documents relating to the matter of

PALACE LOFTS CONDOMINIUM ASSOC. V MCDONALD WATERPROOFING,

INC; BRADLEY A. SCHMIDT. This report conveys REAL’s findings and opinions to

date.

EXPERT REPORT OF REALARCHITECTURE LTD.

PALACE LOFTS CONDOMINIUM ASSOC. V MCDONALD WATERPROOFING, INC; BRADLEY A. SCHMIDT DENVER DISTRICT COURT, COLORADO Case number, 2012-CV3718

July 16, 2014 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. OVERVIEW OF ASSIGNMENT page 3

II. DOCUMENTS REVIEW page 4

III. ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT page 5

IV. DETAILS OF CLAIMS AND ANALYSIS page 7

V. FINDINGS AND OPINIONS page 21

VI. BASIS OF COMPENSATION page 28

VII. SIGNATURE PAGE page 29




I. OVERVIEW OF ASSIGNMENT

Realarchitecture Ltd. (REAL) was retained on June 18, 2014 to perform an

independent evaluation regarding certain allegations made against McDonald

Waterproofing Inc, as they relate to the waterproofing of the terrace wall caps and the

replacement of EPDM membrane and insulation on terraces.

A Complaint and Jury Demand Filed June 15, 2012 By the Palace Lofts Homeowners

Association (Palace) indicates 3 causes of action including: Negligence, Negligence per

Se and Breach of Contract for work that McDonald performed at the common areas for

the Palace Loft Condominium project (Project). The defendants in this Claim are Brad

Schmidt who was employed at Bornengineering (Borne) and was the design professional

for the project; and McDonald Waterproofing, Inc, (McDonald) who was hired as the

General Contractor for the Project. Both Borne and McDonald were individually hired by

Palace or their representatives. I have reviewed various items listed herewith including

but not limited to: the contracts between McDonald and Palace for work at the Project,

photographs, emails, depositions and expert reports of the Plaintiff. Additionally I have

conducted an on-site field observation of the current condition of Unit 3L and have

reviewed the elements of the work. The following report details my findings and opinion

for the work performed at the Project.




II. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

1. Plaintiffs Complaint and Jury Demand Filed June 15, 2012

2. McDonald Waterproofing Inc Contract with Palace lofts dated 10-22-2010 for the replacement of 3L and 3M Terrace substrate

3. McDonald Waterproofing Inc Contract with Palace lofts dated 7-28-2010 to seal the top of the terrace walls

4. Plaintiffs Disclosures June 2, 2014 Harris and Cobb, Jenks, Flick 5. Deposition of: Palace Lofts condominium Association, inc. - James Wyse -

June 26, 2014 6. September 24, 1999 Engineering Financial Reserve analysis by Gillans 7. July 1, 2014 Letter from Hadley Plumbing to McDonald Waterproofing 8. Draft of the specifications of the Unit 3M Terrace waterproofing repair dated

August 21, 2012 By Harris 9. Letter to Beth Amore from Harris dated September 20, 2012 10. November 5, 2012 Harris authored Palace Lofts unit 3M Terrace

Waterproofing Repair 11. December 18, 2012 letter from Harris to Amore 12. January 10, 2013 email from Cobb to Wyse and Amore 13. January 10, 2013 email from Wyse to Amore, Harris and Cobb 14. February 1, 2013 letter from Harris to Weigler 15. June 20, 2011 Flick Report (BC&E) Report 16. April 8. 2011 Larry Jenks AIA (Jenks) Report 17. May 28 2008 Borne Exterior Façade report. 18. February 20, 2009 Borne Report to HOA as-constructed analysis 19. May 10, 2010 Borne Report identifying water damage of unit 3L 20. June 10, 2010 letter from Borne to Palace, McDonald Destructive Test

flashing 21. August 5, 2010 letter from Borne to Palace, McDonald Destructive Test

concrete 22. November 17, 2010 letter from Borne to Landry, McDonald repair 90% 23. January 27, 2010 Borne report identifying issues with the exterior masonry

and patios




III. ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

The Complaint has specific allegations of Negligence and Breach of Contract.

Allegation 15 of the complaint “alleges that the work performed by the defendants on the

common elements of the project contain construction defects, including without limitation

defects arising out of the waterproofing of the terrace wall caps, the replacement of

EPDM membrane and insulation on terraces, and the sealant joint replacement and

caulking.”

Additionally, allegation number 18 claims construction deficiencies including but not

limited to:

a. “McDonald installed Emaco R350 repair mortar and Thorocoat

acrylic top coat to the terrace wall caps. Within 90 days of

installation, the applied materials began to de-bond and chip.

Although McDonald removed the materials from many of the terraces

that were experiencing these conditions, the Association was not

reimbursed for the amounts paid.

b. McDonald removed and replaced the existing concrete, protection

board, EPDM membrane and tapered insulation on the terraces of

unit 3L and 3M at the property. McDonald failed to install the EPDM

membrane completely from the concrete to the top of the metal

flashing, causing water to infiltrate into Units 3L and 3M.”

It is my understanding the McDonald was contracted to perform construction at the

Palace Lofts at multiple dates and for multiple repairs to common elements and limited

common elements at the Project.

In 2008 McDonald replaced terrace drains of unit 3L and repaired small areas of

water proof membrane around the drains.




On July 28, 2010 McDonald was contracted to install a cementitious coping to

parapet wall caps. The exhibit in the contract states:

“In accordance with the design and specifications by Bornengineering job #08070-911, dated 6-17-10 and 7-1-10, we will seal the top of all terrace walls with the following process: • Wet the surface of the wall to be coated to a saturated surface dry condition • Parge the top and the sides of the top brick cap with one coat of Thoroseal plaster mix • Slightly build up the inside edge to provide positive drainage • Install one coat of Thorocoat acrylic top coat, colored to match the brick • cut out and re-caulk flashing to brick joint on terrace walls only”

There is an asterisk at the bottom of the agreement that states:

“In Several locations on the terrace walls, the bottom horizontal rail is too low for this application and will need to be removed, and then re-welded after the waterproofing is complete. This work will be done on a time and material basis, and charged as a change order.”

On October 22, 2010, McDonald was contracted to remove and replace the

waterproof membrane and walking surface for the terraces of Unit 3L and 3M. Per the

executed agreement and exhibit between Palace and McDonald the scope of work was:

“In accordance with specifications and recommendations by Brad Schmidt of Bornengineering dated June 14, 2010, on the exterior balconies on units 3L and 3M we will: • Remove existing concrete topping slabs and dispose of the debris off site • Remove existing waterproofing membrane and tapered foam and dispose of off site • Install two new bi-level drains on 3M in current drain locations • Install a new tapered foam system adhered to the structural slab • Install Dens Deck over and adhered to the tapered foam system • Install two coats of HLM5000 urethane waterproofing membrane with mesh between coats • Install drain board· • Pour a new concrete topping”

It should be noted that the work contracted for includes replacing the terrace

assembly for both units 3L and 3M however, the drains to be installed according to the

contract were for unit 3M only.




IV. DETAILS OF CLAIMS, ANALYSIS, AND COMMENTARY

a. GILLANS REPORT

I have reviewed the September 24, 1999 Engineering Financial Reserves Analysis

authored by Gillans. This analysis was performed shortly after the original occupancy of

the building and initiated by the Homeowners Association. In this analysis Gillans

identifies the useful life of materials and systems of the common elements of the building

and the costs associated with replacement of these elements. This type of document is

crucial in establishing Owners Association fees charged to each unit for maintenance of

the building.

Gillans reviews the components of the common areas in a systematic method and

points out areas of specific concern. In Section F of the analysis they are reviewing the

brick parapet walls. They state that:

” The brick parapet walls are in fair condition. There is a substantial amount of

efflorescence on the exterior walls. Efflorescence basically is water soluble salts

leached out of masonry or concrete by capillary action and deposited on a surface by

evaporation. The top of the parapet walls are horizontal bricks. Ponding water on

these surfaces is finding its way down into the wall either thru the mortar joints or the

metal rail anchor system. We recommend installing a prefinished metal flashing over

the top of these walls. This will prevent further water from penetrating the walls.”

Gillan’s analysis also criticized the terraces by stating:

“The terraces are constructed of concrete topping slabs over a protection board. The

protection board is over a single ply roofing membrane system that sits on the roof

insulation. A tapered roof cricket is under the insulation. The concrete topping slabs

are sloped to internal drains. Theses drains shed the water off the concrete correctly

but could have a problem with water that gets under the concrete to the membrane.

Water travels along the membrane to the drains but have no way of discharging into

the drains instead it backs up along the membrane. When this water freezes in the

winter it will damage the concrete above, and over time, the membrane it’s on. We

suggest changing the existing terrace drains to allow water into the drains off of the

membrane.”




Based on this early field observation of the Palace Lofts, the Homeowners’

Association knew that there were defects in the original construction. They were notified

that problems existed specifically having to do with masonry, coping and terrace drains.

The Palace Lofts Homeowners Association Members and board of directors were

informed of these defects and deficiencies in 1999. To the best of my knowledge, no

repairs were performed to these areas for the following 9 years. During that period

moisture was infiltrating to the interior walls and spaces causing unseen damage to

common elements and to individual condominium units.

b. BUILDING CONSULTANTS AND ENGINEERS REPORT

I have been provided a report by Loren D Flick (Flick) of Building Consultants and

Engineers (BC&E) dated June 20, 2011 to review in connection to the masonry at the

Palace Lofts project. At the time of Flick’s report the building had been occupied for

approximately 13 years. Based on his report, Flick visited the building multiple times

between January 2010 and June 2011 to observe brick masonry problems. Flick identifies

and discusses ongoing masonry issues at the project and:

“performed an initial evaluation of the distress and efflorescence that are visible on

some areas of the brick masonry on the exterior walls,”

Flick became familiarized with the original design drawings, repair documents, and

expert reports. They accessed terraces including 3L. They did minor destructive testing at

a location in the building and summarized their opinion and findings by classifying the

masonry walls at the building into 2 general categories: Veneer masonry and Solid brick

masonry. He explains that:

“Veneer is not watertight, and moisture from rain and snow will penetrate thru the

veneer. If properly designed, and built, there is a drainage cavity behind the veneer

and a water management system in this cavity to control the water that gets into the

cavity and directs it back out thru weep holes at the bottom of the cavity.”




He further explains that:

“the parapet walls appear to be solid brick masonry two to three wythe’s thick that

apparently have vertical reinforcing steel in them that is connected to the terrace or

roof slab such that the parapet walls can safely act as cantilevered wall. The interior

portion of the parapet wall bears on the post-tensioned concrete terrace or roof slab,

and the outer portion bears on a steel plate that is welded to the edge of the terrace

or roof slab.”

In both cases Flick surmises that there is an excessive amount of water within the wall

assemblies:

“The water accumulates at the bottom of the parapets because the floor slab and

steel plate do not allow the water to continue to travel downward and the water is

forced to seep and evaporate out thru the outside face of the wall because the

terrace waterproofing and flashing prevent the water from seeping and evaporating

out the inside face. Also, which is of some concern, water that accumulates on the

slab and steel plate could also flow back under the roofing membrane and leak into

the building.”

Flick observes that the:

“steel guardrails have no expansion joints to allow them to expand and contract due

to temperature changes without harming the parapet walls in which they are

embedded.”

Flick also suggests that the tops of the parapet walls should be coped to prevent any

standing water from infiltrating the parapet walls. The penetrations of the guardrails in

the top of these walls provide a direct means of water penetration into the wall. Flick

recommends:

“The parapet walls should have a metal cap added to them.”

I concur with the Flick report’s findings and believe that the lack of metal coping is a

defect of the original design and/or construction: Additionally, it should be noted that the

lack of weeps (further explained in “V. Findings and Opinions > D. Brick Veneer walls”)

to this day at the project will continue to allow the infiltration of water into the units.

Flick provides no analysis or criticism of McDonald’s work.



July 16, 2014 Page 10

c. JENKS REPORT

Larry Jenks AIA (Jenks) has provided a report dated April 8. 2011 which reviews the

conditions of unit 3L at the Palace lofts. Jenks provides a brief history of the leaks,

repairs, and remediation that occurred at this unit from 2007 thru 2011. Jenks was hired

by the individual ownership of Unit 3L as they pursued litigation against the Palace Lofts

Condominium Association and others. The Jenks report was tasked to respond to a report

generated by the defendants in that case against Stefco, who was the defendant in the

previous litigation. Jenks reviews 4 separate repairs to unit 3L.

1. April 2008 Stefco repair including perimeter slab edge caulking

2. September 2008 drain replacement at unit 3L Terrace. At this time McDonald

replaced the original construction single stage drains with 2 stage drains. Jenks

writes in his report:

“It was decided to replace the two terrace drains, as the original drains were

inappropriate for use on a separated deck. By October 18, 2008 both terrace drains

had been replaced and a water test proved successful on October 23.”

3. In February of 2009 Stefco recaulks the perimeter slab edge

4. In 2010 McDonald was hired to replace the entire terrace waterproofing system

for the terrace on unit 3L

Jenks elaborates that the patio door is problematic and difficult to make leak-proof and:

“the elastomeric waterproofing, vertical flashing, and their interphase with the existing

metal flashing and the French door threshold are critical elements of the

waterproofing system”

Jenks suggests the removal and replacement of the French door using sill pan flashing

with proper laps. He acknowledges that there are various locations in the assemblies that

could be causing water leaks to the interior of the units. Jenks writes with regard to the

terrace waterproofing:

“With a reasonable degree of architectural certainty, leaks to the interior spaces

around the terrace are coming from a different source or sources.”



July 16, 2014 Page 11

Jenks has no analysis or negative criticism of McDonald’s work and states that he was

retained only to analyze the work of Stefco: In fact, he noted that the water test of the 3L

terrace drains proved successful.

d. HARRIS CORRESPONDENCE AND REPORTS

J.R. Harris and Company (Harris) are structural engineers that have provided a series

of repair designs, comments, and opinions on the installation of the terrace systems for

units 3L and 3M at the Project. To the best of my knowledge, structural engineers are not

educated or trained on the design and installation of roofing, terraces and or roof drainage

systems. This type of design is generally performed by an Architect or perhaps by an

engineer that is a building envelope specialist.

I have reviewed the “Draft” of the specifications of the Unit 3M Terrace

waterproofing repair dated August 21, 2012 by Harris. In this report, Harris is suggesting

the methodology of a floor test to:

“Demonstrate the vitality of the membrane installed in 2010.”

Harris elaborated on the process of removing sealant and flashing, blocking the drains

and door threshold and flooding the terrace for a period of 24 hours. In a letter to Beth

Amore (Amore) of St. Charles Town Company dated September 20, 2012, Harris

describes and details a proposed terrace repair to unit 3M which identifies the complete

replacement of the terrace waterproofing system and the installation of a new system

utilizing precast pavers. Finally, on November 5, 2012 Harris provides a document to the

Palace Lofts Homeowners Association entitled, Palace Lofts unit 3M Terrace

Waterproofing Repair. Within the title of the document it also states:

“Description of work at 3M to resolve leakage at unit 3L.”

In this document, Harris describes in detail the removal of the McDonald’s 2010

installed system and the replacement with a precast paver system. There is no analysis

performed to determine where any leaks are originating, no consideration of other

possible causes of leaks into the residential units such as the parapet walls, the demising

walls, the windows or doors. Harris simply asserts to remove the terrace system and



July 16, 2014 Page 12

replace it with a paver system based on nothing but photos of the removal of McDonald’s

work on the 3L terrace. It appears that Harris never personally observed McDonald’s

work on 3M or 3L. There are detailed specifications of the proposed system with a plan

and details of the pavers, door threshold and a section showing how to terminate the

rubberized coating to the wall of the building. Harris makes no mention of replacing the

roof drains in any way. In fact, he labels the roof drains on his conceptual plan as (e)

which signifies that they are existing, and should be left in place, not replaced.

On December 18, 2012 Harris writes in a letter to Amore describing what he believed

to be the proper sequence of installation of McDonald’s 2010 work on the terraces of 3L

and 3M. He incorrectly describes the details of the system that he believes McDonald

installed. He indicates that:

“the drains installed by McDonald only capture the water draining from the

surface of the concrete topping. Water penetrating the concrete topping via cracks

and / or through pores in the concrete material was not provided an avenue to exit

other than by evaporation. This water tended to pool on the waterproof membrane

thereby saturating the insulation material and migrating to the low spots in the

structural slab where it often found entry into the living space through leaks in the

membrane.”

Indeed, Harris believed that McDonald installed the waterproof membrane directly to

the un-sloped structural slabs and then placed the inlets single stage drains inches above

at the top of the walking slabs. Based on my knowledge of the reviewed documents and

photographs, this was not the system that Borne designed or McDonald installed. Harris

was additionally critical of the fact that the waterproof membrane installed by McDonald

at this time only extended up on the side brick walls to the height of the top of the

walking surface of the slab. McDonald agreed to extend the system approximately 6”

higher to the bottom of existing counter flashing but Harris advised Palace not to accept

this modification. Further in this letter, Harris indicated that a water test was performed

on the terrace of 3M on May 2, 2012 revealing similar problems previously alleged for

terrace of 3L:



July 16, 2014 Page 13

“in particular water sprayed on the surface of the concrete topping and on the brick

below the window sills was able to migrate thru the masonry wall into the interior of

both 3L and 3M units.”

Harris then states that:

“this infiltration was due primarily to the lack of waterproofing above the concrete

topping as described above.”

I believe that this test revealed how porous the brick is in this building. Water was

sprayed on the brick and, since brick is porous, water can saturate the brick and infiltrate

the wall assembly. Wrapping the waterproof membrane up an additional few inches on

these brick wall would still leave exposed brick, and would do little to protect the

infiltration of water into the wall cavities.

In a January 10, 2013 email from Ken Cobb (Cobb) whom is a representative of

Harris, to James Wyse (Wyse), the president of the Palace Lofts HOA and Amore, Cobb

indicates that the drains that McDonald installed in 3M and 3L are different than the ones

specified by Borne in the approved construction documents.

In an email dated January 10, 2013 from Wyse to Amore, Harris and Cobb, Wyse

identifies that the drains were specified by Borne to be Zurn model number Z154 and the

drains installed in the decks were Zurn model Z415. Wyse suggests that perhaps the

numbers may have been incorrectly transposed or McDonald simply did not follow the

spec.

Further emails Between Mike Smith (Smith), representing McDonald, and Wendy

Weigler (Weigler), representing Palace, clarify that the McDonald installation was based

on the Borne design not the Harris design, that McDonald did install bi-level drains on

the project and that McDonald would extend the membrane up the inside face of the brick

wall to reach the flashing if Palace would have the flashing removed and replaced.

Finally on February 1, 2013 in a letter from Harris to Weigler referring to the terrace

repair of unit 3M, Harris incorrectly restates that the McDonald installation of the terrace



July 16, 2014 Page 14

system is flawed and thus should be removed and replaced. He summarizes his findings

of McDonald’s installation for the terraces in 4 separate commentaries:

1. Harris believes that McDonald installed the membrane directly to the structural

slab. Based on the photograph #3 of this report Harris indicates that based on the

location of the top of the metal flashing is 4 courses above what he believes to be

the structural slab. In photograph #6 in this same report, Harris shows and labels

the cold applied elastomeric membrane as 4 brick courses alleging that McDonald

put the membrane directly on the slab. However, If you look at and measure the

height of the brick in the 2 photos it is clear that in photo 3 there are 6 courses of

brick measured from the top of the metal flashing to the top of the slab and in

photo# 6 there are only 4 courses of brick from the flashing to the membrane. If

these pictures are indeed of the same location then there is likely insulation below

the membrane making up the calculated height of the 2 concealed brick courses.

He further is critical of the McDonald installation based on the mil thickness of

the membrane application not conforming to the specified 125 mil, although no

calculation of actual thickness was provided by Harris.

2. He is critical of the installation of the Zurn 415 drain in lieu of the specified Zurn

154 drain. Harris acknowledges that both are bi-level drains with an upper inlet

and lower seepage openings but again believes that the membrane was installed

on to the flat structural slab which did not provide positive drainage to the

seepage openings. Further he states:

“these seepage openings were indeed covered by the elastometic membrane installed by

McDonald and thereby rendered inoperable.”

If indeed the seepage openings were clogged, they could have simply been

cleaned and reopened. This is a simple maintenance item that must be addressed

from time to time. It did not require complete removal of the system.

3. Harris states that McDonald’s:

“failure to extend the membrane up the sides of the masonry walls was allowing water to

bypass in their waterproofing assembly and gain entry into the units.”



July 16, 2014 Page 15

It is my contention that extending the membrane higher on the masonry walls

would be negligible for preventing the everyday infiltration of water into the unit.

Extending the membrane would, in theory, protect the portion of the brick

exposed to a flood test where water was to be 2” above the highest level of the

sloped walking slab, but there would still be a substantial amount of brick

exposed to elements such as a wind-driven rain. Additionally, McDonald offered

to extend the membrane up the wall to the flashing if Palace would remove and

replace the flashing.

Masonry is porous and water will infiltrate the face of the wall and at

fenestrations such as windows and doors and at penetrations such as hose bibs,

lights, electrical outlets and railings. It is common knowledge that water will get

into the wall assembly; however, it is the standard to provide a continuous

drainage plane at the interior of the cavity of masonry walls and channel the water

to the exterior of the building thru weep mechanisms. In the case of the Palace

Lofts Unit 3L and 3M, there were no weeps observed in the brick exterior cavity

walls and brick parapet wall. Water that gets into the brick walls at these locations

would travel down to the lowest level, which would be the structural slab. This

water would then travel horizontally and be able to enter the building.

Harris further states that:

“We are skeptical that this would be acceptable to the manufacturer of the product, and that

their approval is crucial for warrantee.”

However, I have seen no documentation that the manufacturer would not warranty

the membrane if extended. This type of extension and or repair of this type of

roofing material is routinely performed and may indeed be warrantable by the

manufacturer.

4. Harris continues to contend that removal of a part of the concrete walking surface

slab to extend the membrane up higher on the side walls would result in tearing of

the tapered insulation that he believes is beneath the concrete walking surface and

therefore states that;



July 16, 2014 Page 16

“In summary the waterproofing assembly installed by McDonald does not comply with detail

provided by Borne Engineering….. We believe these shortcomings require the entire

waterproofing assembly installed by McDonald be removed and replaced with a system

similar to that recommended in our earlier report.”

This opinion by Harris was shortsighted and does not reflect a comprehensive look at all

possible avenues of water infiltration. Without a complete analysis of the terrace

assembly, the drain assembly, the masonry, the flashing, the windows and door assembly,

and the integration and connection of all of these components in a holistic manner, the

replacement of the waterproofing assembly installed by McDonald was unnecessary.

e. BORNE CORRESPONDENCE AND OBSERVATIONS

On May 28, 2008, Borne issued a report identifying issues with the exterior masonry at

the Palace Lofts. Further Borne reiterates that:

“As stated in our Engineering Observation Services Report dated May 6, 2005; The Uniform

Building Code pre 2000 section 1402 and the International Building Code post 2000 section

1403 requires that all weather-exposed surfaces shall have a weather-resistive barrier to

protect the interior wall covering. A masonry wall that incorporates 4” brick veneer and a

backup substrate of concrete masonry, wood frame construction or steel stud construction

must be constructed with an air space between the veneer and the substrate with moisture

resistive drainage plain to allow the moisture the travel down the cavity and exit at flashing

and weep holes.

Areas in the wall cavity that are interrupted by penetrations such as doors and windows need

to have flashings and weep holes installed at horizontal surfaces above the opening such as

head jambs. The absence or the improper installation of window and door head jamb

flashings will allow the accumulation of excess moisture in the wall cavity to leak out at door

and window head jambs.”

Borne has identified that the brick veneer and solid brick walls at the building are

missing weep holes. As a result, the moisture that is in the interior cavities of the brick

masonry walls is not provided direct means to exit to the exterior surface. Water at these

locations can get below the terrace waterproofing and possibly enter the interior of the

unit.

There was no criticism of work performed by McDonald.



July 16, 2014 Page 17

On February 20, 2009, Borne wrote an email to the Palace HOA as a follow up to

their previous report highlighting modifications and deviations from their plans and

specifications. They first defined the original scope of the repair and then the actual

repair that took place. The proposed repair for unit 3L was to install new 2 stage drains

that had been previously identified as single stage drains. McDonald was to:

“Remove a 2’x2’ section of the existing topping slab around the promenade deck

drain to the waterproof membrane and the structural concrete deck. Prepare and

prime the surface of the structural concrete slab and apply a fabric reinforced, cold

fluid applied waterproof membrane and a sloped concrete topping slab.”

The actual repair consisted of doing this process at 2 locations:

“new tapered, rigid insulation was required to provide the necessary slope and

elevations to the topping slab to achieve proper drainage of the balcony… The west

drain was specified to be removed and replaced, but it was found that the north drain

required removal and replacement. It is the understanding of this office that it was the

north drain that was leaking and not the specified west drain.”

Additionally, Borne noted that the installation of the cementitious parapet cap and

waterproof coating at unit 5E was installed in general conformance with the construction

documents, with an exception:

“at various locations along the terrace parapet wall, the cementitious sloped topping

along with the waterproofing layer was applied to an elevation that is in contact with

the existing lower horizontal pipe railing section. At the contact locations, moisture will

be allowed to stand an affect the moisture resistance of the coating. As a part of the

sealant, joint, deck, and parapet work to be done as part of the follow up project will

recommend that the lower rail of the deck rail be removed to avoid this situation. It is

our recommendation that McDonald Waterproofing provide a change order to remove

the lower rail and refinish the parapet cap or that the waterproof capping of the

section of terrace parapet wall at unit 5E be refinished with all the other terrace

parapet walls in the next stage of remodel work.”

The problem with Borne’s design for adding a sloped cementitious topping and

waterproof membrane to the parapet walls as a coping cap is first identified here by

Borne. This is not an installation defect, but a design flaw. There are many different



July 16, 2014 Page 18

locations at the Palace Lofts where a railing of some sort penetrates a brick-topped wall.

Based on the situation where a bottom horizontal rail is too close to the top of the brick,

Borne recommends that McDonald offer a change order to Palace. To the best of my

knowledge, no change order to remove the rails was executed between McDonald and

Palace for the removal of any portion of the steel guardrails that were in the way of

proper installation of the applied coping. There was no criticism by Borne of work

performed by McDonald.

On January 27, 2010 Borne issued a report identifying issues with the exterior

masonry and patios at various locations in the building. Borne identified copious amounts

of efflorescence in the brick and planters on the terrace slabs. Borne describes:

“Concerns of water infiltration into the brick wall cavities have been expressed to us

by McDonald Waterproofing who is currently performing the sealant joint replacement

throughout the exterior of the building.”

May 10, 2010 Borne issues a report identifying water damage of unit 3L that was

possibly entering the unit thru the hose bib, or poor sealant around the metal flashing and

that the door threshold was not properly sealed. Borne implies that there are other areas

where water may be entering the interior of the unit. There was no criticism of work

performed by McDonald as they were not contracted for these repairs.

In the letter from Borne to Palace dated June 10, 2010, Borne explains that

McDonald is in the process of removing the original terrace waterproofing that is above

the walking slab. This original waterproofing consisted of EPDM membrane that was

adhered to and up the brick side walls, flashed with metal and counter flashed with a

metal flashing that was let into a joint in the brick. This type of let in flashing is a

preferred method of waterproofing however, Borne notes that the top of the let in metal

flashing is missing sealant and there is a possibility of water intrusion:

“On an earlier visit, we noticed that the sealant joint along the top of the brick wall

where it engages the building was in poor condition and needed to be completely

replaced. Being an open joint, water is currently able to run down the blind end of the

demising wall and enter into the sub-slab area between the membranes located to



July 16, 2014 Page 19

either side of the wall on the two balconies. This would suggest a possibility as to the

location of water intrusion experienced in the bedroom of 3L. “

In the letter from Borne to Palace dated August 5, 2010, Borne visited the Palace

Lofts where a 12 square foot section of the topping slab had been removed for evaluation

of the membrane below. Borne found various defects and stated:

“It is our opinion that the water issues pertaining to units 3M and 3L are directly

attributed to the numerous holes and gaps in the EPDM membrane beneath the slab.

The source of these punctures most likely can be derived from debris laying on the

EPDM, protection board or a combination of both, just prior to the placing of the

topping slabs during original construction.”

In the letter from Borne to Palace dated October 6, 2010, Borne stated that they

visited Palace Lofts to verify the installation of the parapet wall repairs by McDonald:

“On Thursday, September 30, 2010 we visited Palace Lofts Condominiums to do a

follow-up observation of the balcony parapet cap. At the time of our visit, the wall cap

repair had been completed on approximately 80% of the living units to be worked on.

Concerns have been raised by McDonald Waterproofing regarding the limited

workable space afforded by the exiting railing atop each of the walls for the

application, and several complaints from residents have been voiced regarding the

final appearance of the applied products.”

Borne noted that there was not adequate clearance for McDonald to properly

install the specified material as the bottom of railings were in the way. Other masonry

issues were noted at this observation including cracks in the existing brick work. Borne

specified that masonry repairs must be made to various locations prior to completing any

further wall cap waterproofing. The contract exhibit between McDonald and Palace for

this work offered a change order to remove the rail so that the work could properly be

performed. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such change order was executed.

In the letter from Borne to Landry and the Board of Directors dated November

17, 2010, Borne writes:

“Since the last visit, work has progressed on both terraces, 3L and 3M by McDonald

Waterproofing to completely remove the existing slab system and begin the full-depth



July 16, 2014 Page 20

repair consisting of sealing the entire perimeter of the structural slab, adding new

drains and tapered insulation, new protection board, fluid-applied waterproofing, new

drainage mat and finally a new 3” to 4” thick concrete slab with sealed control joints.

At the time of our latest visit, drains, tapered foam and protection board had been

installed to 90% completion…”

Borne elaborated that that the system being implemented matched that of a recent

repair of the exact kind that was performed on another unit in the building. Borne

believed that once these two terraces are complete then a 24 hour water test should be

done to verify the work is properly installed and complete. However, they also noted that

the neighboring terrace could be an issue as well:

“While we believe that the water infiltration issues pertaining directly to units 3L and

3M will be eliminated with this full repair, there still remains a strong likelihood that

water infiltration can occur via the unit 3N terrace. Our concern remains that even

with the repairs on 3L and 3M, water is still able to reach the structural slab at 3N and

wick to areas of decreased pressure.”

Additionally, Borne recommends the installation of a metal coping at the solid brick

demising walls.

“Finally, as a matter of eliminating all potential infiltration at the brick demising walls,

we strongly recommend that a pre-finished metal coping be provided to cover the top

rowlock brick course at each of these walls on the building. Much like the perimeter

brick parapet walls, these demising walls are capable of absorbing water into the

brick cavities due to the nature of the open mortar joints between the rowlock bricks

atop the walls.”

In general, Borne has no concerns with McDonald’s work other than McDonald’s

ability to complete the installation of the cementitious parapet waterproofing. However,

this is not a construction deficiency but a design deficiency based on the existing

condition of the embedded steel guardrail.



July 16, 2014 Page 21

V. FINDINGS AND OPINIONS

I have reviewed the reports, field observations, letters, emails, and repairs

authored and explained by Gillans, Harris, Flick, Jenks, and Borne pertaining to

the terrace repairs and replacements of Palace Lofts unit 3L and 3M and the

parapet cap waterproofing repairs for the Palace Lofts building that were installed

by McDonald Waterproofing. The following are my opinions based on my

experience as an architect and general contractor practicing in Denver.”

A. Terrace replacement

The original terrace system installed in approximately 1996 for Units 3L and 3M

at the Palace lofts was comprised of a sloped substrate insulation, EPDM rubber

membrane roof, single stage roof drains, a topping slab that is the walking surface and

counter-flashing along the interior face of the brick veneer wall. McDonald

Waterproofing was contracted to repair and then replace the terrace systems at unit 3L

and 3M of the project in 2008 and 2010, respectively. Upon the completion of the drain

replacement of unit 3L in 2008, Jenks notes that a water test was successful. Harris is

critical of McDonald’s complete replacement of the system. Harris apparently believed

that McDonald incorrectly installed the components of the system, but Harris failed to

analyze all of the possible avenues for leakage. He merely assumes with no analysis, that

the water infiltration must be the result of McDonald’s installation. Harris persuaded

Palace to completely remove and replace McDonald’s work without a complete analysis

of all possible water infiltration defects in the building. Based on the Reports and Photos

by Borne it appeared that the installation of the terrace system by McDonald was in

conformance with their construction documents and acceptable.

B. Terrace Drains

The roof drains for the Terraces in the original design of the building were called out

on the plans as 2” and 3” drains. I reviewed the original construction plans for the project

including the original second and third floor plumbing plans for the project labeled as

sheet XP1. 02 and XP1.03 and dated 4-4-1996. There was no detail provided on these



July 16, 2014 Page 22

sheets or in any of the information that I reviewed as to the exact specification of these

drains. It appears from photos that these drains were installed at the finished surface level

of the terrace walking slab. The original plumbing drawings simply call out 2” and 3”

drains and the plumbing riser diagram illustrates 2” and 3” pipe below these drains

exposed in the units below. The September 24, 1999 Engineering Financial Reserve

analysis by Gillans informs Palace that single stage drains were used at the terraces. This

is identified as a problem that was disclosed to Palace. The original single stage drain

could allow water to get below the top inlet and below the walking slab with no means of

discharge. Gillans recommended the installation of two-stage drains with an upper inlet

and lower seepage openings.

In the Exhibit for services dated October 22, 2010 (Contract for work), McDonald

agreed to install two new bi-level drains on 3M in current drain locations. I have

reviewed a letter from Hadley Plumbing Inc., the company that installed the drains in

both 3M and 3L, to McDonald Waterproofing dated July 1, 2014 describing the drains

that were installed. Hadley writes:

“the drains that were installed…at the project on or about November of 2012 were

Zurn 415 bodies and tops. My records indicate that we installed 2 drain bodies and

provided 2 tops only. The Z-154 drains that were specified on this project could not

be used for this application. The bodies of the Z-154 drains are too large to install in

an existing post-tensioned deck.”

McDonald did install bi-level drains. The specified drains by Borne would not fit as

they have a large sump that could not be recessed into the structural concrete post-

tensioned slab. The McDonald-installed drains had a larger capacity than the originally

installed drains on the terraces in the building and they were similar bi-level drains that

met the criteria of the Borne design. In my opinion, the Zurn 415 drains were an

appropriate substitution for the Zurn 154 drains that would exceed the volumetric

capacity and function of the original terrace drains.



July 16, 2014 Page 23

C. Parapet caps

One of the most significant deficiencies at the Palace Lofts is the lack of proper coping at

the terrace parapet walls and the terrace demising walls at the building. This defect was

noted in 1999 by Gillans and by Flick, Jenks, and subsequently by Borne.

Borne notes:

“ Excessive moisture from wind driven rain and standing water on level surfaces on

the top of balcony parapet walls has been forced into interior cavities of brick

masonry walls and is not being provided direct means to exit the exterior surface.”

He also states that:

“extreme amounts of water are being held within the masonry” in various places

within the building.

This is evidenced by exterior observations made at the building. The Palace Lofts were

aware that the parapets were a problem for almost a decade and failed to improve the

situation without the onset of previous litigation. These walls were in “fair” shape as

noted in 1999 by Gillans. In 2008, following 9 years of infiltration and numerous reports

and analysis, the Palace Lofts Homeowners Association finally tried to resolve the

problem. Gillans and Flick indicated that a metal coping is the preferred method to repair

the design: however, the building has metal rails penetrating the horizontal brick caps and

it would be very difficult, if not architecturally impossible, to seal this type of

installation.

Palace hired Borne to design a repair. Borne designed a liquid applied repair that was a

fair solution; however, the metal guardrails again foiled this design due to the fact that

there was a horizontal rail very close to the top of the brick. The work entailed the

installation of a thin but sloped cementitious coping that was to be further coated with an

acrylic sealer. In some areas, the top of the wall has embedded railings that have vertical

standoffs that penetrate the wall and horizontal rails above these standoffs. The lower

horizontal rail was too close to the brick and prevented the installation of a troweled-on

cementitious cap. McDonald offered to have the rail removed and reinstalled once the cap

was complete as a change order to his agreement but this change was never agreed to by



July 16, 2014 Page 24

Palace. Borne observed the situation and notified Palace that modifications were needed

based on the existing conditions that their design did not contemplate.

By knowledge and belief, the parapet wall and the unit patio demising walls are

double wythe masonry walls that bear directly on to the post-tensioned structural slab and

on to metal plates that are anchored to the slab. A “solid” masonry wall of this type

utilizes its exterior surface including the sides and top as its primary drainage plane:

However, these materials are porous and will allow moisture to infiltrate the system. This

moisture, based on temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure will condense and

travel by gravity to the lowest portion of the interior of the wall. .Since no weeps were

present, water was able to get below the terrace membrane and infiltrate the building. It is

my opinion that if McDonald was able to access the tops of all parapet walls without the

hindrance of the low metal rail penetrations the parapet waterproofing would have been

successful. This was not a construction defect but rather an overlooked design situation.

D. Brick Veneer walls

The masonry installation at the Palace Lofts has been problematic for a number of years.

I have reviewed numerous emails, reports, photographs and proposed repairs for the

building. Following the review of this information, I personally did a field observation in

preparation of this report to see first-hand the exact situation as it exists currently. I

visited the building on 7-10-14 in clear hot weather and did a cursory exterior field

observation of the Blake Street façade. I made this observation at street level and at the

third level. From the street level at an elevation of approximately 4’ above the sidewalk I

identified a series of weep holes in the brick. There was a regular spacing of

approximately 4’ on center as I walked along this façade. However: I also observed

significant signs of trapped water in the walls of the building as I looked towards the

second floor. There are visible signs of efflorescence at various places of the facade.

Generally this appears to be occurring just above floor lines and at areas above windows

and penetrations. Additionally there are patterned signs of rust exposed at the façade as

well. These issues have been identified over the years by Gillans, Borne, and Flick, and I



July 16, 2014 Page 25

agree with the theories that these occurrences are the evidence of trapped moisture behind

the masonry in the building.

I performed a detailed observation of the exterior balcony of Unit 3L. I observed at the

parapet demising wall separating the terrace of 3L and 3M. I observed both sides of the

parapet wall separating the 3L terrace from the building to the south. I observed the

exterior masonry wall that separates the interior of both bedroom spaces to the Terrace. I

observed the outswing patio doors that exit the bedrooms to the terrace.

In all locations, there are no weep holes present in the brick. There are visible newer

improvements at these locations from the many reconstructions that have occurred on

these terraces following the installed and removed work of McDonald but there remain

unresolved deficiencies to this day.

There are deficient weep mechanisms in the solid masonry terrace parapet walls and

the solid masonry terrace demising walls at the Palace Lofts Building, trapping infiltrated

water in the structure. To the best of my understanding and knowledge, the original

construction lacked the required weeps in these locations. These issues were pointed out

by Gillans in their 1999 Analysis as a problem and further identified in the Flick and

Jenks reports. I concur with these findings. Brick masonry is porous and will absorb

water. Water will accumulate within the solid masonry wall that occurs as the terrace

parapet wall, at the solid masonry wall that demises the terrace of units 3L and 3M, and

at the exterior veneer wall. It will travel vertically with gravity and take the path of least

resistance to a horizontal barrier: In this case, that is the post-tensioned slab. Once water

reached the structural slab it could travel horizontally again along the path of least

resistance. Efflorescence is clearly visible at locations where water is within the wall

assemblies. The design of the building has 2 rows of contrasting-color horizontal bricks

at the location of the floor slabs and trapped water is efflorescing at these locations. All

brick masonry walls require weeps as a means of channeling water that is inside the wall

to the exterior. Weeps need to occur at the lowest possible level of moisture discharge.

There should be weeps in the brick wall at the exterior face at the line of the floor slab to

channel this water to the exterior of the building. I personally examined both sides of the

solid masonry terrace parapet wall and one side of the demising wall at unit 3L and the



July 16, 2014 Page 26

exterior brick veneer wall separating the interior of unit 3L to the terrace of unit 3L.

There are no weep mechanisms visible in these locations. At the veneer wall, weeps

should occur in the brick just above the level of the terrace metal flashing, However, all

cavities below the weeps should be flashed from the drainage plane thru the wall to the

weeps so that water in the cavity is discharged above the terrace waterproofing and

flashing. I concur with the findings of the other experts and believe based on my

observations that there is an excessive amount of water within these walls, and the water

is getting into the interior of the building.

E. Fenestration

There are a few swinging patio doors and windows that lead from the interior of units 3L

and 3M to the terraces. These windows and doors are penetrations in the exterior veneer

masonry wall of the building. The building has a concrete frame structure with steel stud

and masonry exterior walls. In general, this type of wall system is a cavity wall where

the brick acts as the primary drainage plane and a moisture resistive barrier acts as the

secondary drainage plane. Window and door penetrations perforate both drainage planes

and must be properly integrated into the wall system. Jenks notes that the French doors

at the terraces are lacking the proper flashing and recommends that the doors be

removed and reinstalled properly. I concur and have personally observed locations

where there are missing components and gaps at the primary drainage plane at the

bedroom door at Unit 3L, where the door meets the brick, and where the door meets the

deck connection. Improperly executed primary and secondary drainage plane

penetrations will cause leaks to the interior space of the building. These types of leaks

could have occurred prior to and following McDonald’s work as they occur today and

compromised the waterproof integrity of the system.

In conclusion, a building exterior is designed to keep out the elements of weather

including rain, snow, sleet, and hail. It is designed to keep the occupants of the interior

spaces temperate and dry. All of the components of the exterior cladding systems must

work together in harmony, including primary and secondary drainage planes. The walls



July 16, 2014 Page 27

consisting of brick must be properly coped on the top to reduce infiltration, and they

additionally must have a weep mechanism at the bottom to allow absorbed water to

properly escape. Roof terraces at the Palace Lofts must have 2 stage drains in order to

capture primary and secondary moisture from the terraces. Patio doors and windows and

other penetrations in wall assemblies must be properly sealed. These seals are primarily

done with caulk and other sealants and must be inspected and maintained regularly. In

my opinion, there were deficiencies in the original design and/or construction of the

building. Without personally seeing the work that McDonald performed and solely

based on my knowledge and my review of the documents and reports regarding the

Palace Lofts Building, with a reasonable degree of architectural certainty, the work that

McDonald performed, was in general conformance with the designs that Borne provided

and the building code.



July 16, 2014 Page 28

VII. BASIS OF COMPENSATION

Mr. Berton is being compensated at $250.00 per hour for consulting, investigations,

research, analysis, etc. and $500.00 per hour for testimony time.

R E A L A R C H I T E C T U R E L T D U N R E A L C O N S T R U C T I O N L L C 2899 N Speer Blvd #102 Phone: (303) 477-5550 Denver, Colorado 80211 Fax : (303) 477-5505

DAVID LAWRENCE BERTON AIA 9114 Jennings Road, Morrison, Co 80465 303-910-1185

BIOGRAPHY David was born on Long Island, New York. He grew up in Miami, Florida. He was educated at the University of Florida where he received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Architecture. David became a licensed architect and AIA member in 1992. He moved to Denver in 1992 and worked as an architect and construction manager for a local developer. In 1995, he founded the design firm, RealArchitecture Ltd. and the construction firm, UnrealConstruction LLC. He has designed and built and developed residential and commercial projects throughout the region. In 2003, Colorado Construction Magazine listed RealArchitecture/UnrealConstruction as both a top 10 design/build company and residential firm. Past community involvement includes: Director of the West Washington Park Neighborhood Plan steering committee, Member of the AIA Denver Design/Build committee, Chairman of the Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan steering committee to name a few. In 2003, David was honored by the Denver Business Journal, designated as a “40 under forty” business leader. In 2011 Realarchitecture won the Denver Mayor’s Design Award, “Home is where the Art is”. David has taught at the University of Colorado Masters of Architecture program. He currently sits on the Executive Board of directors for the non-profit Colorado Youth for a Change, as well as the Federal BID, a quasi-governmental Business Improvement District. EDUCATION: Masters of Architecture: University of Florida August, 1989 Bachelor of Design in Architecture with Honors: University of Florida May, 1987 Associates of Art in Architecture: University of Florida August, 1985 LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS: Registered Architect: Colorado license no. c-4472 Registered Architect: Florida license no. 14226 Licensed General Contractor: Denver certificate no 20317 (Class B) NCARB Certificate: no. 45097 US Green Building Council LEED AP B & C MEMBERSHIPS: American Institute of Architects 1992-Present International Conference of Building Officials 1998-2012 Home Builders Association 2003 –2012 NCARB 1989-Present US Green Building Council 2008-2011

David L. Berton AIA 2

AWARDS: Denver Mayor’s Design Award, “Home is where the Art is” 2011 The Bar Awards Homebuilders Assoc. of Metro Denver 2006 The Bar Awards Homebuilders Assoc. of Metro Denver 2004 40 under Forty Denver Business Journal 2003 Colorado Construction #23 Colorado’s top Contractor 2003 A & E Quarterly #7 Top Multi-family Architect 2001 A & E Quarterly #6 Top Single family Architect 2001 MAME award “The Glenwood” Best Detached Home 2400-2800 SF 1997 Architecture & Landscape Award Town of Parker “Bourbon Street Plaza” 1996 TEACHING AND PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS: University of Colorado- Graduate Advanced Design/Build Studio 2005, 2006 Chairman of Steering Committee for Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan 2000-2005 Jury Member for the AIA Young Architects Forum Awards April, 2003 Chairman of Steering Committee for Washington Park Neighborhood Plan 1992-1995 University of Florida- Architectural Design 3 1989 University of Florida- Materials and Methods of Construction I 1988 University of Florida- Intro to Architecture History I 1987 GRANTS: Ft. Lauderdale Urban Design Research Grant 1986-1989 BOARDS: Colorado Youth for a Change, Executive Board member 2011-2014 Home Builder’s Foundation, Board member 2011-2012 Federal Business improvement District, Board Member 2012-2014 EXPERT WITNESS: Statement of Opinion NORTHVIEW INVESTMENTS v. RODGER BOGGS , 14CV31188 May, 2014 Statement of Opinion MAISEL v CUNNIFFE. US District Case, 11CV00555 April, 2012 Statement of Opinion VILLAGE LOFTS v. DESIGN EDGE PC. Case 08-CV- 2307 July, 2010 Statement of opinion ARCHSTONE v VTSB Case Number: 08-CV-8351 Nov, 2009 Statement of opinion MASONRY CORP v MAP MANAGEMENT Case: 02-CV-4440 June, 2003 Statement of opinion CUTHBERTSON v CIRBO Case Number: 01-CV-6476 July, 2002 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Realarchitecture and Unrealconstruction 2899 N Speer Blvd. Ste 102, Denver, Co. 80211 Principal and Owner in charge of design, construction drawings, bidding, negotiation, construction management and site supervision. We offer complete full service architectural design, site planning, and general contracting including land development and building construction. The scope of services provided is tailored for the specific client’s project needs. Incorporated March 1995.

David L. Berton AIA 3

Projects: Aurora Retail, Aurora, Co Design 24,000 sf Retail Cente West woods Villas, Arvada, Co Design 92 units condo residential Legacy Villas, Westminster, Co Design 80 units condo residential

Linden Ridge Townhomes, Denver, Co Design 28 town homes Westminster Retail, Westminster, Co Design 30,000 sf Retail Cente

Bryant 25 Townhomes, Denver Co. Design 8 unit Townhome Building Grand Peaks Apartments, Douglas Co Design 152 unit Mixed use Apartments

Clubhouse Lofts, Denver, Co Design 11 unit Mixed Use Building Coral Room, Denver, Co. Design/Build 4,500sf Restaurant Littleton Lofts, Littleton, Co Design, 57 unit, Mixed Use building Sonoma Village, Longmont, Co. Design 180 units, condominiums/residential

Studio 29 Fitness, Denver, Co. Design/Build 2,500 sf commercial renovation Jack N Grill Restaurant, Denver, Co. Design/Build 3,000 sf restaurant add. & renovation Morningside Village, Ft. Collins, Co. Design 360 units, condominiums

West End Lofts, LoDo, Denver, Co. Design 76,000 sf residential/commercial Shoshone Lofts, Denver, Co Design 45,000 sf residential Chateau Ute Creek, Longmont, Co. Design 90 units condo residential

Speer Lofts, Denver, Co Design/Build 35,000 sf. res./commercial Bourbon Street Plaza, Parker, Co. Design/Build 14,000sf retail/restaurant

Realarchitecture studio, Denver, Co. Design/Build 3,200sf office Orchard Valley Retail, Arap County, Co Design 9,000sf retail Prairie Creel Cabana, Arap County, Co. Design 1,500sf clubhouse American Cyanamid office, Co. Design 4,700sf tenant finish Comfort Dental office, Arap County, Co Design 4800sf office

Loup Development Company 44 Inverness Dr. East Building E Englewood, Co. 80112 Registered architect and construction manager responsible for site and architectural design and construction of residential developments. February 1992 - October 1996 Projects: Garfield Residence, Denver, Co. Design/Build Cherry Creek Duplex Camden Park, Arap County, Co. Site plan/Civil const. of residential subdiv. Villas at Valley Country Club, Aurora, Co. Planning/Design/Build 16 duplexes Country Club Estates, Arap County, Co. Site plan/Civil const. of residential subdiv. Loup Residence, Arap County, Colorado Design/Build 4,200sf residence Canon Villas, Greenwood Village, Co. Site plan/Design 42 semi-custom homes M.H. Architects and Planners PC. 6091 South Quebec St., Englewood, Co. 80111 Project architect responsible for residential, commercial planning and architecture September thru December, 1991 Projects: Salem Square shopping center, Aurora, Co. Exterior renovation Hardees Restaurant, various locations Site planning Wall-Mart, Various locations Site Planning REFERENCES: Moonshadows Development . Michael Brody 303-601-0583 Schotten Fenster Vincent Curran 303-356-6610 Adams Development Nathan Adams- 720-255-4101 PORTFOLIO: Available upon request. See our website at www.realarchitecture.com

Documents

2014 Palace Lofts, Denver- Expert Report