STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 89-6934
)
CHARLES F. GEISLER, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A hearing was held in this case in Sarasota, Florida on June 14, 1990, before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For the Petitioner: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire
Department of Professional Regulation
730 S. Sterling St., Suite 201
Tampa, Florida 33609
For the Respondent: Stanley Marabel, Esquire
1800 Second Street, Suite 715
Sarasota, Florida 34236 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issue for consideration herein was whether the Respondent's license as a registered architect in Florida should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On October 26, 1989, Michael A. Mone, for Charles F. Tunnicliff, on behalf of Larry Gonzalez, Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation, signed an Administrative Complaint in this case which, in four Counts alleged the Respondent had violated Section 481.225, Florida Statutes by being negligent in the practice of architecture; by affixing his seal to plans involving matters beyond his competency; by failing to insure his plans met statutory requirements of clarity and accuracy; and by affixing his seal to plans not prepared by him or under his control. Thereafter, by letter dated December 4, 1989, Respondent requested a formal hearing, and on December 18, 1989, the file was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of a Hearing Officer.
After Initial Orders were sent to both parties, and response by Petitioner only on December 29, 1989, by Notice of Hearing dated January 3, 1990, the undersigned set the case for hearing in Sarasota on March 8 and 9, 1990.
Petitioner moved to amend the Administrative Complaint on February 9, 1990, and Respondent filed his answer to the Amended Complaint on February 13, 1990. On February 24, 1990, Respondent's counsel moved to continue the hearing set for March 8 and 9, 1990 and by Order dated February 28, 1990, the undersigned continued the hearing from the date originally scheduled to June 14, and 15, 1990, at which time the case was held as scheduled.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of William H. Hewes, Building Official for the City of Sarasota; the Respondent, Charles F. Geisler; Howard T. Bertram, a licensed architect; Philip v. Scalera, a licensed architect and expert in the field of architecture; and James O. Power, a licensed consulting structural engineer and an expert in engineering architecture as it involves structural design. Petitioner also introduced Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 4.
Respondent testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of William N. Jotham, a salesman cf truss joist products; Mr. Bertram, who testified previously for Petitioner; and Chester Kuttner, the owner of the house in issue. Respondent also introduced Respondent's Exhibit A.
A transcript was provided and both counsel submitted Proposed Findings of Fact which have been ruled upon in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent, Charles F. Geisler, was and is a licensed architect in Florida holding license NO. AR 00006750, and the Petitioner, Board of Architecture, is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of architecture in this state.
Respondent has been engaged in the practice of architecture primarily in the design of residential and commercial structures within Sarasota County continuously since 1976. Over the past several years, he has worked on occasion, with Howard T. Bertram, also an architect, with whom he had worked for several years in an architectural firm in Sarasota. During that period, they worked together on several residential projects.
Mr. Bertram was not registered as an architect at the time the project in question was designed. Under Florida law and the provisions of Sarasota's building code, any individual, not necessarily an architect, may legitimately prepare plans for a single family residence. Mr. Bertram was contacted by Chester Kuttner, a Chicago real estate developer who also has worked in Florida, to design a single family residence for him on Ringling Point in Sarasota. Because this site is located in a coastal high hazard area, and a V-20 zone, Regulations promulgated by the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA), established certain requirements to include the requirement that a residence to be constructed in the V-20 zone must be designed by a registered architect; must have an elevation no less than 16 feet above sea level; and must be designed and build so as to resist a certain wind velocity. All this was explained to Mr. Kuttner by Mr. Bertram. Nonetheless, Mr. Kuttner desired that Mr. Bertram design his home. Bertram agreed and began the development of the design concept, but once the project reached the point where working and construction drawings were necessary, and the involvement or a registered
architect was required, Mr. Bertram proposed to Kuttner that Respondent be employed to work with him to insure that all FEMA and other requirements were met. Mr. Kuttner agreed.
Respondent thereafter submitted a set of plans to the Sarasota building office for review as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit. The initial set of plans submitted in September was rejected because of the failure of the plan to meet requirements regarding fill, slab, and the elevation of the swimming pool. None of the original objections had any relationship to those areas in issue here.
A second set of plans was submitted by Respondent in November, and approved by the city. These plans bore his seal as architect, and it was his responsibility to determine whether the plans were in compliance with FEMA and State requirements. Though the city officials reviewed the plans, they did not do a complete structural analysis to see if the plans complied with FEMA structural requirements. The plans did, however, comply with local elevation and zoning requirements.
According to Mr. Hewes, the building official, the house involved here is similar to many built in coastal areas. It is an elevated house with the bottom portion open, and the living quarters up and over the open parking area below. Because of FEMA criteria, the lower level could not be used for habitation at this location.
Respondent admits to sealing both the original and modified plans for the Kuttner house. With regard to the original plans, he prepared sheets 5-1 and 5-2, the structural plans, but merely reviewed sheets 1 - 7 which had previously been prepared by Mr. Bertram. In that regard, Respondent and Bertram went over the plans together and discussed them, and in light of their review, the matter seemed to be appropriate to Respondent who, admittedly, did no calculations.
As to the second set of plans, again Respondent drafted sheets 5-1 and 5-2, dealing with the structure, which he revised from the September plans to meet the changed conditions. This applies to the other pages as well, which he checked only as to the required changes. Respondent knew these plans were to be used to get a building permit, and he was aware that the building was to be constructed in a V-20 zone, with an elevation of 16 feet.
The original plan for the Kuttner home called for the use of fill to support a concrete slab which would form the floor of the upper habitation area. When, after consultation with governmental authorities, it was decided to remove the fill, Respondent recognized he had to redesign the structure as a wooden frame with truss joists. The use of pilings, as called for in the original plan, remained as a part of the second set.
The structure was built as planned. Respondent was present when the piles were driven to insure they were put in the right place; he was on the scene when the steel beams were put in; and came out again to solve a problem regarding plumbing vents and air conditioning ducts. He indicates there was an upgrade in the steel beam size in the floor beam supporting the master bedroom area as a matter of economic convenience to the supplier. These larger beams were installed at no additional cost as was an additional roof beam.
"Detail" drawings were provided in some areas, especially the footing areas, (detail A on S-I; detail B on S-1; and base plate and anchor bolt on S-2; and frame sections on S-2). There were no details as to stair framing. Wall sections are detailed in the first 7 sheets, and details of the roof tiedowns are show there as well.
Respondent provided for lateral wind loads through a device which called for this load to be transferred to the outer walls. Petitioner's expert claims this was improperly done.
The plans do not show plumbing details, but there is no requirement for plumbing details to be shown in single family residence drawings. The drawings must show the location of the structure on the property foundation, floor plans, elevations, and a typical wall section. Requirements in the electrical area include only the locations of outlets and switches.
Respondent admits to being compensated by Mr. Kuttner for the services rendered in the design and construction of the building. The comment appearing on the first page of the plans regarding the seal being applied at no charge as a political statement was made as a result of the Respondent's philosophical disagreement with the short-lived Florida sales tax on services. He claims his comment was true: that no charge was imposed for the placement of the seal, but he readily admits he was compensated for his architectural services. This seal comment apparently prompted inquiry by the Board and colored the thinking of several Board witnesses who believed Respondent "sold" his seal to an unlicensed architect. This is not true, however. Respondent performed bona fide architectural services and his seal was properly utilized.
Mr. Bertram, who at the time he designed the Kuttner residence, was not registered as an architect in Florida, received his license in January, 1988. His participation in the Kuttner project included development of the design concept, and the accomplishment of the working drawings on which he brought in Respondent as a licensed architect to work with him on the FEMA zone portions. According to Mr. Bertram, he and Respondent met many times on the project. Mr. Bertram's testimony fundamentally supports and confirms in major detail that of the Respondent. He points out that the residence as ultimately constructed, was little changed from the concept design on the September plans. The major difference was the removal of fill and the structural concrete slab as a base for the living area portion of the house, and the substitution of truss joists therefor. What is incontrovertible is that the house, as designed by Bertram and the Respondent, is still on the site where it was constructed, and is occupied by the original owner who is quite satisfied with it. According to both Bertram and Mr. Kuttner, no material changes have been made since it was completed.
The project was not, however, so well thought of by Mr. Philip V. Scalera, an architect licensed in both Florida and Georgia, and a consultant for the Board, whose primary architectural practice deals with commercial structures. He does, however, have some experience in residential design, and in his opinion, the subject building, multistory in design and constructed of steel beams on pilings is no different, structurally, from a commercial building.
Mr. Scalera, at the request of the Board, reviewed the drawings encompassed in both sets of plans submitted to the Sarasota building office. According to the plans, the structure was to be a wood frame structure above a slab. The first set of drawings indicated the property was to be a conventional
slab on grade construction. The structural drawings show no location or information, however, concerning the pilings, and in Mr. Scalera's opinion, it would not be easy to understand the type, location, or load bearing capability of the pilings based on these drawings. He feels this type of structure should be designed for uplift and load bearing. In his opinion, therefore, the first set of drawings regarding the foundation are inadequate. However, the first set of plans were withdrawn and not utilized by the contractor for the construction of the project. It is noted, however, that the first and second set of plans are quite similar, and in that regard, Mr. Scalera points out, as to the second set, his comments regarding the foundation support are not changed. In his opinion, there is insufficient information provided as to the capability of the piling.
Other defects found by Mr. Scalera in the second set of plans included:
The "details" for retaining walls were non existent. Mr. Scalera feels that in this case, such details were required due to the critical nature of the walls, which included the support and retention of the structure.
The "details" for the superstructure were inadequate.
The "columns to footage anchorage" are critical and must be evaluated. This can be done only through the use of "details." Here, there is only one "detail" with no calculations by engineers shown and, in Scalera's opinion, this is insufficient.
The "detail" regarding the "moment connection", drag bracing, or a means to prevent distortion of the structure by horizontal wind force is absent. There is a "diaphragm" method which can be used for this which is a panel to absorb pressure, and an outer wall, (shear wall). Here, however, no shear wall is shown. Only a glass wall is indicated and glass walls are not capable of resisting lateral wind pressure. On a steel building, with a steel frame, as here, steel or masonry would have been the natural material to resist the wind force, and there is no indication that this is provided.
The "details" for stair landings and wall sections are needed but not provided. S-1 on the second set of plans shows joists which bear on the beam which has no support. S-2 shows a stair opening, but the detailing contained in the drawings does not show sufficient detail to allow reviewing officials to oversee construction.
The "tie-down" anchors the roof joist to the wall plate and is used to prevent the wind from lifting the roof off the structure. The instant plans call for an overhang of 9 feet, and the uplift force for such an overhang is such as would cause the hurricane clips called for in Respondent's plans to fail. Scalera believes that the fact that the house is still standing means nothing. The design should be sufficient to meet the requirements of an unusual occurrence, in this case, a 50 to 100 year hurricane, and since the construction of this residence, no such winds have been experienced.
The lateral bracing used by Respondent is insufficient. The only lateral bracing called for in this plan is made of plywood sheeting on one side. More detail should be shown, with specifications which were absent.
Floor beams were, in the opinion of Mr. Scalera, inadequate in size.
The glass type, thickness, and means of support called for in the plans are not detailed. In the absence of appropriate detail, neither Mr. Scalera nor the building officials would be able to determine whether the plans came up to standards.
The plans do not appear to comply with the requirements for buildings in a V-20 zone, (16 feet elevation), in that:
They are on compacted fill contra to the code, (changed in the second plans)
The sewage and waste water control is not designed through the use of plumbing drawings, and
The structural integrity of the building appears to be beyond the architect's responsibility area. Many structural designs for moment connections and joints are improper or uncalculated. In Scalera's opinion,; these designs should have been done by an engineer, not an architect.
Turning to the second, (November) set of plans, Mr. Scalera also believes these are not of a sufficiently high standard to inform the user properly. The documents do not clearly and accurately identify the design of all segments to which they relate. The drawings have lent themselves to a lack of continuity. The plans appear to be detrimental to the client because the project, based on these plans, could not be bid accurately and the actual cost would exceed competitive bidding by a large margin. They are also detrimental to the public at large because the building has the definite potential for failure under stress conditions.
Taken together, in Mr. Scalera's opinion, the Respondent has not conformed to the standards for the practice of architecture in Florida, and has been negligent. He believes the structural components are not incidental to the plans but are of paramount importance, and, in his opinion, Respondent was not competent to design the structural components used herein.
Mr. Geisler and Mr. Bertram both pointed out that they had worked with the contractor selected to build the structure in issue here and he was familiar with their way of doing things which would lead to a better job even if not all detail was contained in the plans. Mr. Scalera discounts that contention, stating that the fact that the architect had worked with a particular contractor previously would not justify his putting less detail in his plans than would be required in plans to be used by a contractor not familiar with the architect. This is accepted and so found.
Many of Mr. Scalera's conclusions were supported by the testimony of Mr. Power, a licensed structural engineer, who described the Kuttner residence as "a very unusual steel skeleton and wood constructed building." Mr. Power examined the property and the drawings and found the latter to be inadequate to make an evaluation of the superstructure. Nonetheless, he felt the plans were inadequate for several reasons. In less detail than that utilized by Mr. Scalera, he opined that:
The details of the superstructure as to wind loads were inadequate.
The column to footing anchorage details were less than as he would wish, but he was unable to form an opinion as to whether they were adequate. He did point out, however, that there were no details available on those areas of the project related to resistance to lateral wind loads, and those details are required because wind exerts pressure in the form of lift on the top of the roof; uplift on the bottom of the roof; uplift from under the building; and pressure on the windward side of the building as well as suction on the leeward side.
Mr. Power points out that the requirements applicable here indicate that the design must provide for the structure to sustain a 10 foot wall of water driven by 110 mile per hour winds, as well as the impact of the wave and debris pileup on the pilings.
Mr. Power also points out that one way of resisting wind load is through duplication, and in his opinion, the detail as to that in these plans is insufficient.
With regard to the tie downs, designed to hold the roof to the structure, the detail provided calls for a particular type of commercially produced joinder. Power's calculations indicate that the type of joinder called for in the plans is inadequate in that the clip called for is inadequate to hold the roof under the conditions possible.
Another of Mr. Power's concerns deals with the indications for lateral bracing on the outside wall of the mezzanine floor, where he felt the bracing was inadequate, and the failure to provide specifications for such is a defect.
Mr. Power also reviewed the plans in regard to the adequacy of the floor beams, and concluded that the floor beam on line 2 from grid line B to D was inadequate under dead and live gravity loads. The beams themselves are not properly braced, and appear grossly inadequate when subjected to lateral wind load. Further, the beam on line B, from 2 to 4, at elevation 26' 3 3/4", and the beam on line B from 6 to 8 at elevation 30" 3 3/4", are inadequate because the are adjacent to openings in the floor.
Mr. Power concluded that the plans do not comply with the FEMA requirements for a zone V-20 location because they fail to provide the required safety called for in the building codes. The steel columns which are 6 x 9 would be insufficient even if details for the moment connection were provided, and they were not. The provision of the other beam, which is much stronger, as was claimed by Mr. Geisler in his testimony, would make it safer. Nonetheless, he believes the design in these plans, as they relate to beams and columns, would be inadequate to withstand the code specified wind loads in either direction.
In substance, Mr. Power is of the opinion that Respondent's initial and revised plans here are not of sufficiently high standard to inform the users of the requirements intended; they do not clearly and accurately indicate the design of all essential parts of the work to which they refer; and, as drawn, may well be detrimental to the client and the public at large.
According to Mr. Power, when the Respondent signed and sealed these plans, he assumed responsibilities for them as submitted, and could not rely on any supplier or contractor to make changes which would rectify an otherwise
unacceptable situation. Here, Mr. Power believes that the standard of practice, as it relates to structural design only, as contained in the plans in issue, was not met by the Respondent.
Admittedly, this analysis is based upon review of the plans only, and if he could see the specifics of the project, it might change his opinion on the adequacy and safety of the superstructure. It would, however, not change his opinion as to the adequacy of the plans.
Respondent points out that his plans had a note requiring shop drawings and the steel joist and concrete reinforcing people submitted them. They were reviewed by Respondent and he feels that they complied with his instructions and with the standards of the practice in Florida. Mr. Power admits that shop drawings are very common and almost all buildings are built through the use of these drawings in addition to the architect's plans. Shop drawings are used to establish dimensions so that prefabricated elements can be constructed, and to indicate to the designer that what is on his drawings was understood. Shop drawings do not bear the seal of the professional, and it must not be overlooked or forgotten that the responsibility in architecture lies with the architect's seal, not the shop drawings. In Mr. Power's opinion, what the Respondent accomplished here was not at all consistent with what Power has seen as acceptable practice in the profession.
In defense of his plans, Respondent pointed out that he has designed several properties for FEMA locations in Florida in both the V zone and the A zone. He has worked with structural steel components on at least two occasions, and in his opinion, his design of the superstructure on the Kuttner house complied with FEMA requirements.
Respondent also claims his plans provided for column to footage anchorage at S-2. All steel joists were to be fully welded to develop maximum moment resistance and to create a rigid frame. The plywall insert panels were designed to carry a wind load sufficient to resist deformation in their plane, and the floor joists were designed to resist wind deformation in the horizontal plane. According to Respondent, an expert in soils analysis did borings of the soil on the site and recommended the type and size of the footings, and here, Respondent called for the use of a 12 inch instead of a 10 inch piling.
Both the Respondent and Mr. Kuttner are of the opinion that the complaint in this case was initiated by one of Mr. Kuttner's neighbors, an architect himself, who wanted to design the Kuttner residence. When Kuttner refused, this neighbor allegedly took umbrage and resisted the project down the line. When Respondent designed the superstructure, he claims to have considered the wind effect as outlined by Mr. Power, but did not specify the thickness of glass to be used since it was not required. Where the plans call for welding steel joints at S-2, this appears to conform to AISE standard practice. The plywood walls were to serve as a diaphragm to counter wind effect. The framing and connections for those is found in the plans at PA-4. Bolts at 48 inches on center at the bottom plane are called for with studdings to be tied in there and plywood attached in accordance with the undetailed standard nailing pattern set out in the building code and known to all certified contractors. He admits that his plans did not specify a nailing pattern at the truss joinders, but he claims they did not have to. This is not necessarily so if the plywood is being used to address lateral wind load.
Admitting that the requirements for nailing patterns is incorporated into the building code which governs all construction and compliance with the code is required by all contractors, Mr. Power nonetheless feels that the nailing pattern is dependent upon the load to be supported and that determination should not be left up to the contractor, but should be specified by the architect in the plans. This would seem to be a logical and supportable position.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
In the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner seeks to discipline Respondent's license as an architect because of several allegations of misconduct in violation of Section 481.225, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has the burden of proof and must establish these offenses by clear and convincing evidence, Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 210 (Fla. 1987).
The standard of architectural practice in Florida is defined in Florida Statutes, (Section 481.221), and in Rule 21B- 12.001, F.A.C., which states in pari material:
(4) An architect or firm may not be,: negligent in the practice of" architecture. The term negligence is defined as the failure, by an architect, to exercise due care to conform to acceptable standards of architectural practice in such a manner as to be detrimental to a client or to the public at large.
Plans, drawings, specifications
and other related documents prepared by an architect shall be of a sufficiently high standard to inform the users thereof of the requirements intended to be illustrated or described by them. Such documents shall clearly and accurately indicate the design of all essential parts of the work to which they refer.
An architect shall meet a standard of practice which demonstrates his knowledge and ability to assure the safety and welfare of his clients and the public.
An architect shall be required to coordinate his activities with other professionals involved in those projects wherein the architect is engaged to provide plans, drawings and specifications which result in the production of working documents which are used or intended to be used for the construction of a structure.
In the instant case, the testimony of Mr. Scalera, a registered architect, and Mr. Power, a licensed structural engineer, outlines numerous particulars wherein each felt the Respondent's work as an architect, as shown in the two sets of plans prepared for Mr. Kuttner, failed to meet the standards of practice in this state as defined by the above-cited rule. This evidence of inappropriate performance was not countered by any independent evidence of quality evaluation by anyone other than Respondent himself or Mr. Bertram who also had an interest in the outcome.
Mr. Bertram's testimony for the most part dealt with his relationship with the Respondent and the Kuttners. Where it dealt with specific actions of construction or preparation therefor, it related primarily to the fill problems involving the September plans which were changed. Where his testimony was concerned with structural concepts, he referred to the shop drawings which were to be prepared for approval of the architect. Mr. Power's comments regarding shop drawings clearly establish that they do not equate to or supplant proper architectural planning.
Nonetheless, review of the testimony tends to establish that while Mr. Scalera might have been somewhat hypercritical in his evaluation details, taken as a whole, the evidence leads to the uncontrovertible conclusion that the plans, as submitted under the seal of Mr. Geisler, omit many of the items required and contain numerous deficiencies in preparation.
While both Scalera and Power might have initially been under the impression that Respondent had "rubber stamped" plans prepared by someone else, it does not appear, notwithstanding Respondent's complaint of bias and prejudice, that either expert's testimony regarding Respondent's performance was colored thereby. Both Scalera and Power identified with particularity specific defects in Respondent's professional performance. Other than Respondent's denial of a few specifics, he tried mainly to explain why it was not necessary to do what the opposing experts claimed was an actionable omission.
Nor can it be legitimately considered that the fact that the house still stands two years after completion according to Respondent's and Bertram's plans is significant evidence of proper architectural performance. There have been no conditions of sufficient severity in that time to test the safety of the structure. Consequently, it must be concluded, based on the matters presented, that some negligence on the part of the Respondent has been shown by clear and convincing evidence.
The evidence also clearly shows that the plans contained a substantial amount of structural engineering and that Respondent, notwithstanding his comments regarding the emphasis on structures at his school, has not had either the formal education or the practical experience sufficient to qualify him to work in that area. He should not have sealed plans containing those elements and is, therefore, guilty of a violation of Section 481.221, Florida Statutes.
Petitioner alleges in Count Three that Respondent's plans did not conform to the quality and clarity standards defined by Section 481.221(5), Florida Statutes, which states:
Plans, drawings, specifications and other related documents prepared by a registered architect as part of his architectural practice shall be of a sufficiently high standard to assure the
users thereof against misunderstanding of the requirements intended to be illustrated or described by them. To be of the required standard, such documents should clearly and accurately indicate the design of the structural elements and of all other essential parts of the work to which they refer.
The evidence which served as the basis for the charge in Count One serves here as well. The expert testimony of Scalera and Power was not overcome by the denials and explanations of the Respondent, and it is concluded that Petitioner has satisfied its burden here as well.
With Regard to Count Four, Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 481.221(4), Florida Statutes, which reads:
No registered architect shall affix his signature or seal to any plans, specifications, or architectural documents which were not prepared by him
or under his responsible supervising control or by another registered architect and reviewed, approved, or modified and adopted by him as his own work with full responsibility as a registered architect for such documents.
Here, the evidence clearly shows that while Mr. Bertram prepared the initial concept design and plans, these were reworked and added to by Respondent to a significant degree. The finished product, for good or for bad, properly bears his imprimatur based on his contribution, and he can not be held to be in violation of this provision.
Petitioner, acting under the provisions of Section 481.225(3), Florida Statute, seeks to suspend Respondent's license for two years and to impose an administrative fine, and to thereafter place him on probation for an additional two years under specific terms and conditions to be prescribed by the Board. Such penalty is lawful and within the provisions of the cited statute and Rule 21B-12.004, F.A.C..
The evidence has shown Respondent to be guilty of negligence if not incompetence, but not of such gross negligence as to support suspension for two years which could well have the effect of ending his career as an architect. He has not been disciplined before, and the nature of his misconduct here justifies no more than probation with conditions, a reprimand, and a modest administrative fine.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore:
RECOMMENDED that by Final Order of the Board of Architecture, the Respondent, Charles F. Geisler, be reprimanded, be assessed a total administrative fine of $1,000.00, and be placed on probation for a period of two years under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Board.
RECOMMENDED this 14th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Aministrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1990.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6934
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.
FOR THE PETITIONER:
1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein.
& 4. Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted and, as appropriate, incorporated herein.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
-11. Accepted and incorporated herein.
12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13.-15. Accepted and incorporated herein.
16. Accepted as it states Mr. Bertram prepared all with the Exception of S-1 and S-2, but rejected as it implies Respondent did not work on the other with Bertram or assume responsibility for his work.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
- 3. Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
- 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8.- 10. Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted and incorporated herein.
Accepted.
Rejected in that the first plans did not comply with stated requirements.
Accepted as to Respondent's contentions without conceding the detail, specifications, and requirements were adequate.
Rejected. Scalera's objections went to the professional quality of Respondent's work. As an expert, his testimony is accorded same weight.
Irrelevant.
& 20. Accepted.
Accepted. Finding for Respondent on this point.
Not a Finding of Fact but merely a statement of the allegation.
Respondent's courses in the area of structural engineering appear to be no more than a normal architectural student takes. This issue was resolved against the Respondent.
Accepted but not controlling in light of the evidence on the effectiveness and weight of shop drawings.
Accepted but irrelevant to the issue of quality of quality of performance.
See 22.
Rejected.
Accepted and treated herein.
Rejected.
30.- 33. Accepted and incorporated herein.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional
Regulation
730 S. Sterling Street, Suite 201
Tampa, Florida 33609
Stanley Marabel, Esquire
1800 Second Street, Suite 715
Sarasota, Florida 34236
Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Patricia Ard Executive Director Board of Architecture
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,
Petitioner,
vs. DPR CASE NO. 0092228
DOAH CASE NO. 89-6934
CHARLES F. GEISLER,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard before the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design (Board) at a regularly scheduled meeting held in Jacksonville, Florida on November 2, 1990.
The Board, having reviewed the complete record in the above- styled cause including the transcript and exhibits, hereby makes the following rulings on the Exceptions filed by Respondent to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order dated August 14, 1990. Respondent's Exceptions were filed on August 23, 1990 and replied to by Petitioner on September 3, 1990.
As to Exception No. 1, the Board agrees that the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact No.- 3 should be modified to state that the sealing of the documents in question were required either by the City of Sarasota or FEMA requirements. The Board agrees with Exception No. 2 to the extent that the plans in question were not rejected, but were in fact withdrawn by Respondent and a second set of plans was submitted. In other words, the plans were not approved by the City of Sarasota, but they were not formerly rejected.
Exception No. 3 rejected. As to Exception No. 4, the Board agrees that the Hearing Officer's Proposed Finding of Fact No, 9 should be amended to include the words "to serve as a form for the" after the word "filled" in the first sentence of the Proposed Finding of Fact, and that the word "decided" should be placed after the word "Respondent" in the second sentence of the Proposed Finding of Fact. The Board rejects the remainder of the exception insofar as it relates to the competency of the expert testimony accepted by the Hearing Officer.
As to Exception No. 5, the Board accepts that the statement in the Hearing Officer's Proposed Finding of Fact No. 11, that there were "no details as to stair framing" is not supported by the record and should be deleted. Exception No. 6 was withdrawn by Respondent. As to Exception No. 7, portion of the Exception, which relates to the frame structure is well taken and the Hearing
Officer's finding that the structure in question was to be a wood frame structure ; modified to state that the structure was to be a steel frame structure. The remainder of Exception No. 7 is rejected for the same reason as that portion of Exception No. 4, which relates to an attack on the credibility of the expert. Further, the Hearing Officer's finding that there was no information regarding the pilings on the design of the structure was incorrect and it is hereby found that there was information on the location of the pilings.
Exception No. 8 is rejected. Exception No. 9 was withdrawn by the Respondent. As to Exception No. 10, the Exception is accepted to the extent that the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact, 18(c) is modified to delete the term "with no calculations by engineers shown." Exception No. 11 is rejected. The Board agrees with Exception No. 12 to the extent that the second sentence of the Hearing Officer's finding in paragraph 18(e) of his Proposed Findings of Fact is not supported by the fact and should be deleted.
The Board rejects Exceptions No. 13, 14 and 15. Exception No. 16 is accepted to the extent that the Hearing Officer's proposed finding in paragraph 18j.1 refers only to the first set of plans, the remainder of the Exception is rejected. Exception No. 17 is rejected.
As to Exception No. 18, which relates to Proposed Finding of Fact 18j.3., the Hearing Officer's finding is modified to state that the structural integrity of the building appears to be beyond this architect's responsibility area. The remainder of Exception No. 18 as to the Proposed Finding of Fact 18j.3. is rejected.
As to Exception No. 19, it is specifically found that the Hearing Officer's finding that the structure in question will fail is inappropriate, but rather that it would be more appropriate to state that the "building" as designed has the - definite potential for failure under stress conditions instead of what is presently in the final sentence of paragraph 19 of the
A Proposed Finding of Fact. Further, the fourth sentence of Proposed Finding of Fact No. 19 is not supported by the evidence, since there was no evidence presented that the actual cost of construction in fact exceeded competitive bidding by a large margin, as was found by the Hearing Officer.
Exception No. 20, is withdrawn, and Exception No. 21 is accepted to the extent that the word "duplication" should be struck in Proposed Finding of Fact No. 24, and the words "use of a diaphragm should be inserted. Exception No. 22 is withdrawn by Respondent and Exception No. 23 is rejected.
Exception No. 24 to Proposed Finding of Fact No. 28 is accepted to the extent that the word "he" in the final sentence of the Proposed Finding of Fact is modified to refer to Mr. Power. The remainder of the exception is rejected. Exception No. 25 is withdrawn by Respondent, as are Exceptions No. 26. and No.
27. Exception No. 28 is rejected.
With the above-mentioned modifications the Board hereby ACCEPTS the Proposed Finding of Fact of the Hearing Officer.
As to those Exceptions relating to the Proposed Conclusions of Law, the Board makes the following rulings. The Board hereby accepts the Exception to the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law relating to the alleged violation of Section 481.221(5), F.S. It is the Board's opinion that while Respondent's
detailing of the documents in question could have been better, that they sufficiently meet architectural standards so as to assure the users thereof against misunderstanding of the requirements intended to be illustrated. In making this finding, the Board does not determine that the underlying information contained on the documents (especially relating to the structural system) is designed correctly. The Board is simply making a finding that there is sufficient detail on the document, which, if designed correctly, would have met the requirement of Section 481.221(5), F.S.
The Board hereby rejects Exceptions No. 29 and 30 relating to the alleged violations of Rule 21B-12.00I, F.A.C., and the Board further agrees with the Hearing Officer's findings that as to the structural design, Respondent, in his performance on the project in question, has not demonstrated sufficient education or experience in the design of structural systems, such as those contained in the instant project, and therefore is likewise in violation of Section 481.221(2), F.S. for a lack of competence in structural design.
With the aforementioned modifications, the Board hereby determines that the Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer be and the same are hereby ACCEPTED and made the Conclusions of Law of the Board of Architecture and Interior Design.
The Board hereby accepts in part the Recommended Penalty of the Hearing Officer and determines that an appropriate penalty in the above-styled cause should be a reprimand and a two-year probation, with the only terms of probation being that Respondent shall not violate any law or rules governing the practice of architecture during the period of probation, and that, with the approval of the owner of the structure in question, Respondent will engage, at his expense, an independent structural design firm (approved by the Board) to review the as built structure for safety and determine whether, in fact, the structure as built is under stress and a hazard. That report will be submitted to the Board and, if the owner approves, to the owner. Finally, Respondent's scope of practice shall be limited in that he shall not practice structural engineering or engage in structural design without the approval of the Board. Respondent will be required to appear before the Board and be prepared to show his ability to design structural systems, in order that the restriction on his structural design practice will be lifted.
DONE AND ORDERED this 21 day of December, 1990 by the Florida State Board of Architecture and Interior Design.
Copies furnished to: Bruce D Lamb, Esquire
Stanley E. Marable, Esquire
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Aug. 14, 1990 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 14, 1990 | Recommended Order | Architect's plans which do not contain required items and have numerous other deficiencies support discipline. |
