Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondent is John W. Hammel, holder at all times pertinent to these proceedings of certified general contractor license number CG-CA16780 issued by the Petitioner. His address of record is Dania, Florida. On or about June 17, 1986, the Respondent entered into a contract with a property owner named Vance Lee. The Respondent agreed to remodel Lee's duplex housing unit for the total sum of $15,200 and, in effect, turn the duplex into a four unit complex. The parties agreed the total sum would be paid in four installments. The owner was originally assured by the Respondent that all construction could be completed within six weeks of contract execution. Shortly after August 4, 1986, and after receipt from the owners of all amounts to be paid under the contract, except the final payment due upon project completion of $1,500, the Respondent left the construction site. At that time, approximately thirty percent of the required construction remained uncompleted. As a result of pressure by the owner and the filing of the administrative complaint in this cause, he has worked there since that time on a "spasmodic" basis. One day of work every two months reflects the average record of the Respondent's efforts to complete construction activities. At the hearing held in this cause, the Respondent admitted he had not completed the construction job in a timely and reasonable manner and that twenty to twenty-five percent of the construction job was still uncompleted. Among the tasks, at time of hearing, yet to be completed were some plumbing installations (including a missing hot water heater), a fire wall between two units, an uncompleted ceiling in one of the units, and certain landscaping requirements related to the front drive of the building. The Respondent's explanation, offered in mitigation of his failure to complete the construction job in a timely and reasonable manner, is that his business partner quit and left Respondent with the sole responsibility for completion of eight other jobs. Due to financial problems, he has been working his way through those jobs in chronological order. The job which is the subject of this proceeding was the last job taken before the partner departed and hence is the last to be completed. As a result of the Respondent's failure to timely complete the project, the building permit expired, resulting in the issuance of a violation citation by the local city government. At hearing, Respondent represented that he would complete the contract at issue, and requested leave to submit a post hearing mitigation exhibit to demonstrate completion of the project. With Petitioner's agreement, Respondent was granted leave until May 2, 1988 to file his exhibit. The exhibit was untimely, mailed approximately three days after the required date for filing, but the Petitioner waived objection to the late filing. The exhibit established that Respondent completed construction on the project to the satisfaction of the property owner after the hearing had in this cause. Further, the exhibit established that a certificate of occupancy for the premises, denoting completion in accordance with local governmental building requirements, had been issued by the City of Fort Lauderdale. As an additional mitigation gesture, the Respondent waived his right to receipt of the remaining payment of $1,500 from the property owners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assessing the Respondent an administrative penalty of $500 in accordance with disciplinary guidelines set forth in section 21E-17.001(19), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 5310 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Included in finding number 2. Included in finding number 3. Included in finding number 4. Included in finding number 4. Included in finding number 7. Included in findings 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Rejected as a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire 517 South West First Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mary E. Hammel, Esquire 501 South East 12 Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent's license as a certified building contractor should be subjected to disciplinary measures because of the allegations and violations of Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint and what, if any, penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified building contractor, holding License No. CBC016364, authorizing building contracting work in the State of Florida. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with regulation of the licensure of certified building contractors and regulation of the practice of building contracting in the State of Florida in accordance with Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent entered into a building contract with Barbara Clifton for the construction of a new home on or about November 1997. The home is located at 9450 Northwest 133rd Lane, Chiefland, Florida. The contract price agreed upon between the parties for the construction of the home was $68,953.00. During the course of the construction, the Respondent accepted $49,714.75 in construction "draws" from the owner. The Respondent engaged in construction of the home from late 1997, until March 1998. In March 1998, after a number of disputes arose between the Respondent and Ms. Clifton, she terminated the contract and ordered the Respondent to stay off the premises of the project. The Respondent had completed approximately 90 percent of the construction on the home at the time the contract was terminated and he was barred from the job site by the owner. The home contained a number of defects and alleged defects at the time construction ceased. Evidence of some of the defects was established by the testimony of Ms. Clifton, the owner, and especially by that of the Petitioner's expert witness, Mr. Abbott. Testimony and exhibits presented by the Respondent showed that in some instances the defects testified to by Mr. Abbott did not actually exist. The anchor bolts securing the bottom or sole plate to the slab/foundation wall, for instance, were shown to be in compliance with the building code by being three feet apart (on centers). Mr. Abbott had opined that they were 72 inches apart. Also, the photographic exhibits presented by the Respondent showed that the metal anchor straps securing the framing wall studs to the slab and foundation were indeed in place, although Mr. Abbott had opined that they were not. In any event, the testimony and evidence presented through Mr. Abbott as a witness established a number of plan deviations and structural defects in the home. The plan defects were as follows: Garage floor elevation: There was a differential between the finished interior floor level of the house and the garage floor. The plans called for a 16-inch differential. The differential between the two floor levels in the house as built, however, was 48 inches. This deviation was made by the Respondent within ten days after the start of construction. It was because of a significant slope on the lot on the site of the house which necessitated, at the garage site, that the floor be some four feet below the floor level of the interior of the house in order to achieve a level floor without the use of fill dirt. The owner maintains this was done without notice to her and that she had not approved the change in the floor level and was not consulted by the Respondent in this regard. The Respondent maintains that indeed he did explain the problem to the owner and that he offered the solution of "flipping" the garage portion of the house and plan to the other end of the house where less slope would be involved and the floor levels would more nearly approach the plan specifications. Alternatively, he recommended the use of fill dirt to raise the level of the garage floor at the specified location of the garage, to overcome the effect of the slope of the lot at that location. He maintains that the owner refused to approve that approach and that therefore he had no choice but make the garage floor level four feet below that of the interior floor level of the house. In any event, the weight of the evidence shows that the owner and the Respondent did discuss the matter, although they may not have agreed as to the solution. There is, however, no record or evidence of an approved written change order with the owner's assent or any notice to the lending institution of the change from the plan's specifications in this regard. Further, in this connection, the stair systems departed from the plan specifications. The stair system in the garage, of necessity, in order for the occupants of the house to be able to egress through the door opening into the garage, down to the garage floor had to use steps going down four feet. The steps and associated landing, constructed with pressure-treated lumber, extended a significant distance out into the floor area of the garage. This was not called for by the plans either. The garage stair thus obstructed the use of the garage and indeed denied access to housing full-sized vehicles in the garage. The Respondent should have foreseen this problem and at the very least, if the four-foot differential and floor height was necessary (which could have been alleviated by filling), should have re-oriented the stairs so that full-sized vehicles would not be barred from the use of the garage. Additionally, there was a variation in stair height at the entry stair to the house which exceeded code tolerances and constituted a "trip step" which was a safety hazard at the top of the stairs, where they were attached to the landing, where entry and egress to the house were to be effected. The attic stair, which was designed to fold up and down inside the garage evidently was constructed and installed according to specifications. This resulted in the attic stair, when folded down for use, being substantially above the lowered floor of the garage and therefore unusable. The Respondent should have foreseen this defect and taken steps to alleviate and accommodate it given his lowering of the garage floor, which was a departure from the plan specifications on the approved plans. In any event, the Respondent certainly should have had a written change order signed by the owner approving a change in the garage floor level or approving the use of fill dirt to raise the floor level to accommodate the 16-inch differential specified in the approved plans. Neither was done. In fact, it is apparent that although the Respondent and the owner discussed the garage floor level problem, that the Respondent proceeded to lower the garage floor-level before the owner actually had knowledge that the Respondent was going to carry out that approach. Ceiling height: The ceiling height was reduced from the nine feet specified in the plans to eight feet. The exterior eave heights established by specific dimensions in the plans were also reduced. The complainant owner indicates that she was not consulted prior to this change and denied approving it. The Respondent maintains that if he had intended constructing ceilings higher than an eight-foot ceiling, that a ten-foot ceiling dimension would have been employed since framing lumber is cut in standard eight, ten, or twelve-foot lengths and that it would be wasteful to cut ten-foot framing studs to construct a nine-foot ceiling. He maintains that the mention of nine feet for ceiling heights in the plans was an oversight or typographical error and that the parties actually intended eight-foot ceilings from the start of their discussions regarding construction of the house. He stated that the owner had never complained to him of the use of eight-foot ceiling heights. The evidence, thus, does not clearly show that the Respondent departed from the owner's actual wishes in this regard. At the very least, however, the Respondent should have secured an approved written change order and provided notice to the lending institution with regard to this change from the plan specifications. Chimney: The "architectural surround" device for the chimney was not installed. This is both a decorative and protective cover designed to surround the chimney flue and, in addition to being a decorative finish item for the roof of the house, to protect the chimney flue from wind forces which it was not designed to resist. This device should have been installed before the metal roofing was installed but that was not the case. The Respondent was forced to quit the job before the architectural surround device for the chimney had been installed. The Respondent maintains that he was at all times ready and willing to install it, even at his own expense, but the owner would not allow him back on the job site to finish this portion of the work. This left the metal chimney flue standing alone, exposed and not itself properly installed since it could be moved with slight pressure from the fingers of one hand some five to eight inches in deviation from the vertical position that it was supposed to occupy. This incorrect installation of the chimney flue could be a hazard to life or property. If the Respondent had installed the architectural surround for the chimney at the proper time, before the installation of the metal roofing, the chimney installation would have been completed before the Respondent was ordered to leave the job site by the owner. Structural Defects: The "stem wall" or foundation wall was specified in the plans to be three courses of eight- inch block, with a No. 5 steel vertical reinforcing bar embedded in the wall at 48-inch intervals (on centers). The Southern Building Code requires the vertical reinforcing bar to be hooked at the top and bottom where it connects to the concrete footing on the bottom of the stem wall or foundation wall and, on the top, where it hooks into the concrete slab. The code also requires that cells in block walls which contain the vertical reinforcing bars have to be filled solidly with poured concrete. The code also requires a horizontal No. 5 steel reinforcing rod or bar around the perimeter of the slab where it joins the top of the stem wall. The stem wall as it was actually built varies from three to six courses of block. The No. 5 vertical steel reinforcing bars were determined to be spaced at 64-inch intervals on center instead of the required 48-inch interval. They were not hooked at the top and it is not clear whether they were hooked at the bottom since Mr. Abbott was unable to view the bottom of the wall because it was already constructed. However, at least one of the cells which was torn into and exposed had a vertical reinforcing rod but was not filled with concrete. This was on a corner of the house where it is perhaps more critical that the reinforcing rod be hooked to attach to the slab and that its cell be filled with poured concrete, which was not done. The required horizontal No. 5 steel reinforcing rod or bar around the perimeter of the slab called for by the code was omitted. Exterior frame walls: Mr. Abbott opined that the building official considered SSTD 10-96 "check list" to be part of the permit package. It is more stringent in its requirements and supercedes the plans governing framing and anchorage requirements for exterior frame walls. The construction plans specified 2 x 4 framing for the walls, with metal connectors joining the studs and the bottom of sole plates together, with anchor bolts at six-foot intervals (on centers), securing the petition or exterior frame wall to the floor slab. Additionally, Mr. Abbott contends in his testimony that the "wind load checklist" requires the basic framing and the walls to be 2" x 6" material instead of 2" x 4" material, along with the framing clips where the studs join the top and bottom wood plates of the exterior wall partitions and that anchor bolts be spaced at 48 inches on center in securing that exterior wall partition to the concrete slab. The walls, as built, were made of 2" x 4" stud material with metal framing clips installed joining the members, as well as anchor bolts approximately three feet apart or better than the specifications and the code required. This is shown by the Respondent's testimony, corroborated by his photographs and evidence showing the location of the anchor bolts and the metal framing clips joining the vertical studs in the wall to the sole plate or bottom plate of the wall. Thus, it would appear that the wall complies with the wind load checklist requirements, except that 2" x 4" material instead of 2" x 6" material was used. It is not clear, however, that there is actually a mandatory requirement that 2" x 6" material be used. Apparently, such is not required by the Southern Building Code. Thus, clear and convincing evidence has not been adduced to establish that wind load requirements have not been met by the wall as built. The exterior siding installed on the walls, however, does not comply with the manufacturer's requirements or with the appropriate construction practice. The "hardie board" siding was called for in the specifications but some of the siding is hardie board artificial wood grain siding and some is Abco siding. The two different brands of siding resulted in two different wood grains or textures being used, which does not comply with the specifications and the owner's wishes. Moreover, the siding was installed in some places with the butt joints of two siding boards joining at a location other than over a wall stud, making for a weak improperly supported joint between siding boards. Because of this the nail pattern for the siding was somewhat incorrect as well. Metal Roofing: The metal roofing system employed on the house is Semco 5-V-Crimp manufactured by Southeastern Metals of Jacksonville, Florida. A complete, detailed manual for the product is part of the permit file. Absent specific standards in the building code, the manufacturer specifications govern the installation of the product and establish guidelines for inspection by the local officials. The cursory visual inspection by Mr. Abbott showed that the eave and valley connections and flashings at various penetrations are not as specified in the plans. Mr. Abbott established that the installation technique employed was shoddy and of poor quality, as evidenced by crowned and warped panels, potentially insecure flashing, and ill-fitted twisted crowned caps. Mr. Abbott opined that the sub-standard installation of the metal roof had not been subjected to a proper inspection and that the roof presented a potential danger to the property as constructed. Finally, the chimney construction also represented a structural defect, as well as a deviation from the plans, as described above, and for the same reasons as described in the above findings of fact also constituted a structural defect. The flue could easily be moved by light-hand pressure and was not braced to resist wind loads that might occur. In summary, the Respondent has evidenced a lack of due care and a failure to act in a manner consistent with a reasonable standard of practice in the above-found defective particulars, although, not all the allegations and related opinions of the Petitioner's expert witnesses were established. Moreover, there is no doubt based on the evidence of record, including the Respondent's testimony, that the Levy County Building Department performed the required inspections up until the time work ceased (hence no final inspection) and either missed or ignored certain of the defects which should have been readily apparent, such as the roof. The construction defects resulted in a home that can not, as built, be an entirely safe structure. It was not constructed in conformity with the applicable building codes, to the extent that it was completed before work was ordered stopped by the owner. Although the Respondent freely offered to correct the defects, if allowed to come on the premises to do so, the fact remains that the above- found defects were established and committed. During the course of this dispute, before the formal hearing, a civil action concerning the dispute, was filed by the owner against the Respondent. That action went to a mediation process, the result of which was, in part, that the Respondent agreed to purchase the home from the owner, the complaining witness Ms. Clifton.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Construction Industry Licensing Board finding the Respondent guilty of violating the above-referenced statutory provisions in the particulars found above; that the Respondent be required to pay investigative costs for this proceeding and an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500; and that the Respondent be placed on probation for a term to be determined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. It is also recommended that the Respondent be required to pay restitution to Ms. Clifton for the cost required to repair the above-found defects or, alternatively, that he be required to repair the defects at his own expense, or thirdly, that he purchase the home from Ms. Clifton within 90 days of the entry of a final order herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202 Joseph Lander, Esquire Post Office Box 2007 Cross City, Florida 32628 Kathleen O'Dowd, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent's license to practice architecture should be suspended or revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21B-12, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated July 22, 1981. The Complaint herein alleges that Respondent William L. Juhn should be disciplined for negligence, misconduct, and failing to perform legal obligations in the practice of architecture in that he prepared deficient architectural drawings and specifications for a condominium building at Cocoa, Florida in 1980 which contained inconsistencies, were not in conformity with provisions of applicable laws, and did not clearly and accurately protect the user against misunderstanding with regard to the structural design and other essential parts of the work. It further alleges that the Respondent failed to review the work of the structural engineer and coordinate the architectural and structural drawings and specifications. These deficiencies are alleged to have constituted violations of various provisions of Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21B-12, Florida Administrative Code. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties submitted a prehearing stipulation (Exhibit 24) wherein Respondent admitted the allegations in paragraphs 1-3 and paragraphs 5-13 of the Administrative Complaint, and agreed that the issues to be tried were those stated in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Complaint. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of 13 witnesses and called Respondent as a witness. Respondent testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of one witness. The parties stipulated to the admission of Exhibits 1-13, and Exhibits 14-25 additionally were received in evidence. Proposed Recommended Orders filed by the parties have been fully considered, and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary or irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact.
Findings Of Fact Respondent William L. Juhn, Cocoa Beach, Florida, received a bachelor's degree in architecture from Ohio State University in 1951, and has been a registered architect in Florida for a period of 19 years. He also holds an inactive general contractor's license in Florida. He received additional design training as a graduate student at the University of Florida for a period of one and one-half years in the early 1960's, and thereafter opened his office in Cocoa Beach. (Testimony of Respondent, Exhibits 1, 24) For the past ten years, the greater portion of Respondent's work has been in the design of apartment and condominium buildings. For the last five years, Respondent has prepared architectural plans for some twelve projects involving about twenty high-rise buildings, for Univel, Inc., a general contractor in Cocoa Beach. All except one of the buildings were constructed with shear or load-bearing walls as opposed to a structural system calling for "flat plate" slabs and supporting columns. (Testimony of Respondent, Alles) Respondent's usual contractual arrangement with Univel, Inc. was to prepare preliminary and final architectural drawings, but not to hire other professionals such as structural engineers, mechanical or electrical subcontractors, or to supervise construction. Univel's practice was to separately hire all of such professionals for more expeditious preparation of plans and to coordinate and provide overall supervision of the final product. Univel had used Respondent as an architect and certain other professionals on a continuing basis for a number of projects, and plans on these prior buildings had been substantially similar. It was Respondent's practice under his contracts to prepare architectural plans and drawings and furnish copies to the structural engineer for preparation of structural drawings. Any changes in the type of construction were made by Univel and this information passed back to Respondent and other professionals concerned. (Testimony of Respondent, Alles) At an undisclosed date, Univel, Inc. was employed by Palm Harbor West to build a condominium project known as "Harbour Cay" in Cocoa Beach. Univel entered into further contractual relations with Dynamic Construction Company headed by Lawrence Stoner in connection with the project. The owner of Palm Harbor West was Towne Realty, and its representative, Jack Bennett, was assigned to the project to deal with contracts, pricing, and schedules. (Testimony of Alles, Bennett, Stoner) On January 11, 1980, Respondent entered into a contract with Univel wherein he agreed to draw the plans for a five-story, 45-unit, apartment building at Harbour Cay for $4,200. The contract specifically excluded various types of work, including structural, electrical or mechanical engineering, inspection of construction or any involvement in the construction phase of the building. It also provided that conferences with persons other than the representatives of Univel, Inc. were to be excluded from the scope of contractual services, but that the architect would "cooperate with the engineers for the building". Although the contract provided that the plans would be submitted to the "undersigned" for approval as work progressed and on or before each payment request is made, the intent of this provision was relative to the architect's submission of plans to Kenneth Alles, Vice-President of Univel, Inc., rather than submission of other plans to the architect. (Testimony of Respondent, Alles, Exhibit 5) Pursuant to his contract, Respondent commenced work and exchanged information with Harold Meeler, the structural engineer hired by Univel, frequently during the preparation of the architectural plans and structural drawings. Preliminary drawings provided to Meeler showed the height of the building, wall openings, general arrangement of apartments, and the size of the building "envelope" or overall dimensions of the structure. Prior projects that Respondent and Meeler had worked on involved load-bearing masonry walls for exterior walls and masonry partitions between the apartments. Respondent therefore assumed that the method of structural support for the Harbour Cay building would be the same as had been the case in prior projects, and drew his plans accordingly. (Testimony of Respondent, Meeler, Exhibit 9) It was the original intent of Univel, Inc. and the owner, Towne Realty, to construct Harbour Cay using a load-bearing masonry structural system. However, soil testing at the site revealed that the ground was not stable enough to support load-bearing walls unless existing soil was removed and fill placed in the area. It was therefore determined by Alles and Bennett that the structural system should consist of a "two-way" flat plate slab and reinforced concrete columns with no shear walls or masonry interior walls. Respondent's drawings had also anticipated that spread footings would be used, but the change in the structural system led to the use of pilings and pile caps as the most suitable foundation method. It was also decided that metal stud unit partition walls would be used to separate the apartments. Meeler was advised of the required changes and he prepared his structural drawings accordingly. The structural drawings were dated August 10, 1980. Meeler submitted them to Respondent for assembly with the architectural plans, and mechanical and electrical drawings. Structural calculations were prepared by A. M. Allen, an engineer hired by Meeler. (Testimony of Respondent, Alles, Meeler, Bennett, Allen, Exhibits 9, 11, 12) Although not within the scope of his agreement with Univel, Inc., Respondent prepared the mechanical drawings in addition to the architectural drawings at the request of the builder. About the time the plans were completed, Respondent became aware that the structural system had been changed. His only concern at this time was whether the columns would fit within party walls and, after being assured by the structural engineer that they would do so, Respondent did not see the need for changing the architectural drawings since there would be no interference with the fire wall separating apartment units, no interference with plumbing, and no need to rearrange rooms, thereby obviating the need for other than minor changes to the architectural drawings. It was Respondent's intention that the structural changes, as well as any subsequent changes to the original plans would be incorporated into "as built" drawings at the end of construction. However, no revised architectural drawings were ever received by the Cocoa Beach building department. It is not unusual for frequent changes to be made in building plans as construction progresses, but major changes in structural design which are known by the architect prior to submission of plans for a building permit should be incorporated into the basic architectural design. (Testimony of Respondent, Straub, Washer, Exhibits 9, 25) Respondent assembled the various plans and drawings and signed and sealed his architectural and mechanical drawings and specifications on September 24, 1980. The structural drawings and calculations were signed and sealed by Meeler on the same day. The building plans were delivered to the building department of Cocoa Beach at an undisclosed date thereafter for preliminary review. The plans were thereafter approved, subject to changes required in a "plan check" issued by the chief building inspector of the department on October 6, 1980. There were eight items listed by the building inspector, three of which related to the architectural drawings, and three relating to the mechanical drawings. Discrepancies on the architectural drawings required recopying of Sheet 8 since dimensions were not clear on that page, and to provide the location of wood and metal external jams which were not shown on the drawings. Also, it was noted that wood storage enclosures on patios must be of fire treated lumber. The noted discrepancies on the mechanical drawings involved plumbing matters and indicated that a "clean out" was required at the base of the waste system on one sheet, that a three-inch waste stack should be changed to a minimum of a four-inch stack as required under the Standard Plumbing Code, Section 1305.1, and that energy cutoff devices on automatically controlled water heaters, as required under Sections 1213.2 and 1209.5 of the Standard Plumbing Code, had not been provided. Respondent's plumbing drawings were unacceptable to the building department unless the noted modifications had been made. However, the plumbing contractor later provided supplemental plumbing drawings which were used for Harbour Cay in lieu of Respondent's plans in that respect. The plumbing contractor had had similar difficulties on past jobs with plumbing drawings prepared by Respondent. The building official of Cocoa Beach described Respondent's plans as similar to others that Respondent had prepared, and that the Harbour Cay drawings were an "average set" from which a building could be constructed, but "you would have to know exactly what you were doing." (Testimony of Straub, Hollifield, Haber, Exhibits 8, 13, 14). On October 28, 1980, Dynamic Construction Company, by Lawrence Stoner, President, applied for a building permit from Cocoa Beach to construct the Harbour Cay condominium. On or about November 1, 1980, Univel, Inc. entered into a contract with Palm Harbor West, Inc., the owner of Harbour Cay, whereby Univel agreed to construct a condominium project to be known as Harbour Cay. On December 5, 1980, the City of Cocoa Beach building department issued Permit No. B5263 authorizing construction of Harbour Cay. At the time the permit was issued, the 1979 edition of the Standard Building Code was in effect in Cocoa Beach, having been adopted by the City on October 18, 1979. (Testimony of Straub, Alles, Exhibits 4, 6, 7, 24). Construction commenced on the project thereafter and the basic structure had been substantially completed when, on March 27, 1981, the building collapsed, killing eleven persons and injuring approximately twenty-three persons. (Exhibits 10, 24) Respondent's drawings and specifications for the Harbour Cay building were reviewed in the summer of 1981 by Norman Washer, an architectural consultant employed by Petitioner. He determined that the plans and specifications were deficient and substandard in a number of respects under the requirements of Subsection 481.221(5), Florida Statutes. He further expressed the view that Respondent had provided little more than drafting services since he did not assume the leadership role in the coordination of architectural design, and that such failure was inconsistent with certain terms of his contract with Univel. Thereafter, on July 22, 1981 Petitioner filed its Administrative Complaint against Respondent, alleging various deficiencies and inconsistencies between the architectural drawings and structural drawings, and specifications. However, the specific inconsistencies and deficiencies were not set forth in the Complaint. (Testimony of Washer, Exhibit 17). The following findings relate to the various deficiencies and inconsistencies which Petitioner sought to establish at the hearing: Structural System - As heretofore found, major changes were made in the structural system after the architectural drawings had been prepared. Although it is not necessary that architectural drawings reflect minor structural detail, the basic type of framing system should be reflected in such drawings to ensure that the physical dimensions of the structural elements are shown for clarity to users of the plans, that the proper dimensions of structural elements are shown, and that the various parts of the building will fit together. In the case of Harbour Cay, Respondent, once apprised of the structural change, did not modify his architectural drawings to conform with the revised structural design. As a consequence, the plans submitted for permit depicted two different framing systems. Respondent did not show columns on his architectural drawings even though they were a part of the structural framing system. Columns should have been shown in order to make clear whether they would interfere with other elements in the building. His drawings further created confusion by the fact that he had used "shading" to depict masonry exterior and unit separation walls since this method had been used in prior designs for Univel, and was understood by the contractor. However, since Harbour Cay was not finally designed structurally to include load-bearing masonry walls, the use of masonry could have overloaded the structure and created a safety hazard. The structural calculations assumed that all interior walls would be constructed of dry wall on metal studs rather than masonry. In fact, the building contractor used columns in construction of the building and their location did not cause any particular difficulties resulting from their presence and location. The building contractors did not have any difficulty in using the plans and drawings because the structural drawings reflected the use of columns, and therefore it was recognized that interior walls would not be of the load-bearing type. The contractors rely on structural drawings to construct the building and when the frame, or skeleton, of the building is completed, they then find the architectural drawings to be important. The contractors had always used metal studs for buildings with columns because they were of lighter material than masonry. Respondent's architectural drawings reflected a note which disclaimed an intent to show structural information therein, and referred the user to the structural drawings. However, such a disclaimer cannot relieve an architect of his basic obligations to prepare accurate drawings. (Testimony of Power, Washer, Olson, Alles, Bennett, Stoner, Respondent, Exhibits 9, 12, 16) Roof Slope - A roof slope was shown on the architectural drawings, but there was no information as to the method of creating such a slope. Although the structural drawings also did not show such method, it could have been accomplished by sloping the concrete roof slab, or by means of urethane foam. The contractor originally planned to use concrete, but this was later changed to the use of foam by means of a foam machine of the contractor which had been used on prior occasions. To be complete, building plans should reflect the manner in which the roof slope is to be created because if accomplished by sloping of the concrete slab, the structural drawings should so reflect this fact. (Testimony of Bennett, Stoner, Olson, Washer, Power, Exhibit 12) Roof Hatch - Although the architectural drawings showed a detailed sketch of a roof hatch, they gave no information as to its location. Respondent was of the opinion that it could be located in the corridor, but the problem later became moot when field changes eliminated the necessity of a roof hatch and provided for a stairway to the roof. However, since such a roof opening would be made in the concrete slab, its location has structural significance and should have been shown in the architectural drawings. (Testimony of Stoner, Respondent, Power, Washer, Olson, Zeller, Exhibits 9, 12, 20) Roof Parapet - Respondent's architectural drawings show the size of an intended roof parapet, but do not show necessary details for support of the parapet, such as anchorage and reinforcement, or the material to be used in its construction. This is necessary information in order that the structural engineer can design the required support. (Testimony of Washer, Stoner, Wagner, Zeller, Power, Exhibit 12) Lintels - Respondent detailed only mailbox lintels in the architectural drawings, and not the lintels over windows and sliding glass doors. It is important to show the size of such openings in a load-bearing wall structure on the architectural drawings, but is not necessarily required to be on the structural plan if the walls are not load-bearing. The Harbour Cay contractor found no need for this type of detail on the plans in view of the fact that there was a standard practice of using precast "off-the- shelf" concrete lintels in Univel's projects. (Testimony of Meeler, Olson, Stoner, Wagner, Zeller, Washer, Respondent, Exhibits 9, 12) Miscellaneous Discrepancies Stairway and Balcony - Stairway and balcony details, to include handrail construction and attachment, were not shown on the architectural drawings. Respondent believed that since the stairs were shown on the structural drawings as made of reinforced concrete, this properly was a matter to be left to the structural engineer. However, in the opinion of experts, these are safety matters which properly should be shown in architectural drawings. (Testimony of Respondent, Wagner, Olson, Washer, Exhibits 9, 12, 21) Window Sizes - There was a variation in window sizes in the architectural drawings. This was due to a subsequent change by the builder from sliding glass windows to single hung windows, and it was contemplated that the changes would be reflected on "as built" drawings. (Testimony of Washer, Zeller, Stoner, Exhibit 12). Door Schedule and Location - Although Respondent showed details for both metal and wood doors in the architectural drawings, he did not include a door schedule to show the location and particular type of door to be utilized. Respondent left this up to the contractor who, based on prior experience, determined where and what kind of doors should be used at various locations. Although location of jam detail was not shown, Respondent intended that his door jam detail be applicable whether metal studs or wood studs were used. The lack of specificity in this regard was the subject of inquiry by the city building department on its "plan check". (Testimony of Washer, Wagner, Respondent, Burke, Olson, Exhibits 8, 9, 12) Incomplete Index of Drawings, Lack of Fixture, Finish, and Allowances Schedules, Closet Shelves - Respondent conceded that he had failed to provide a complete drawing index by omitting structural drawings due to the fact that tracing for the structural work was not given to him until the builder was requesting completed plans for submission to the building department. Omission of detail information concerning fixtures, shelves, cabinets, floor covering and appliances, was due to past practice between the architect and the builder whereby the cost and types of these items would vary depending upon desires of potential condominium purchasers and current economic conditions. This is not an unusual practice in the condominium building industry, in order to ensure profitability of sales. (Testimony of Washer, Respondent, Stoner, Zeller, Bennett, Exhibits 9, 12) Screen Supports - Types of screen supports were not shown in the architectural drawings because these were to be proprietary items predesigned by the manufacturer. In such a situation, it is preferable to show the type required for safety purposes, particularly with regard to handrails. (Testimony of Washer, Wagner, Zeller, Respondent, Exhibit 12) Roof Coating and Insulation - Respondent's plans called for a "tar and gravel roof". Although tar is infrequently used today, the term is generally acknowledged to include an option for either a tar or asphalt roofing system. Respondent noted two inches of roof insulation on his drawings, but did not specify the "R" value or type of material. The computations for such values were to be included under Respondent's contract, and he assumed that since Univel owned its own polyurethane foam insulation spray machine, that such material would be used on this project as it had in the past. (Testimony of Washer, Zeller, Stoner, Exhibits 9, 12) Specifications - Although Respondent's specifications, as his drawings, were prepared with a load-bearing structure in mind as originally contemplated, no revision was made to take cognizance of the changed framing system. Specifically, with regard to concrete strength and masonry wall reinforcing, they were not in strict accord with the structural drawings. However, the specifications stated that they were to be used only if there was no other indication of concrete strength. The structural drawings indicated vertical reinforcement of masonry while the specifications called for additional horizontal reinforcement. (Testimony of Washer, Respondent, Power, Exhibits 9, 12) Ordinarily, tradition and practice in the architectural profession provides that the designing architect of a particular building or project is to serve as the design coordinator among various other professionals who contribute to the overall design, including structural, mechanical and electrical engineers. The normal practice in such instances is for the architect to either employ the other professionals or to oversee their work and supervise construction to its conclusion. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the primary design professional who has specified the basic requirements for the building in question, and is therefore in the best position to ensure compliance with the basic design, can reconcile any conflicts or discrepancies among the various disciplines. The practice also ensures compliance with various local laws and building codes for the safety and welfare of the public. It is ordinarily necessary that all work be coordinated so that the various parts of the building are compatible and achieve an integrated and harmonious result. However, the extent of an architect's services properly can be limited by his contract with the owner or builder, particularly in the case of condominium projects. In a competitive economy, owners are desirous of controlling their own projects to the greatest extent possible in order to ensure expeditious design and construction, and to conserve costs. It is not uncommon in this field for an architect to provide only architectural drawings, with the builder providing for the procurement of engineering services and coordination of the overall result. In such instances, the engineering professionals are not subject to direct oversight by the architect. In fact, attempted control by an architect over other licensed professionals without contractual duties imposed for same can create friction and hamper successful completion of the project. In the final analysis, the building contractor is immediately responsible to the owner for proper construction, and the owner has ultimate control over all phases of the project. The arrangements for construction of Harbour Cay involved a somewhat unusual situation, whereby Respondent contracted with the contractor rather than the owner, and limited his services primarily to preparation of architectural drawings with the provision that he would "cooperate" with the engineers. The other professionals were hired directly by Univel who, together with the other contractor, Stoner, and the owner's representative, Bennett, coordinated the overall project. This arrangement was deliberately chosen in order to provide increased efficiency and speed in accomplishing the project. Although they considered that Respondent had some responsibility in the coordination of the original plans for Harbour Cay, a number of changes were made without always consulting him first. It is found that, although Respondent fulfilled his contractual obligation in "cooperating" with the various engineers in the preparation of design plans, he did not fulfill his basic responsibility to conform his architectural drawings to known changes in the building's structural system when it had been brought to his attention prior to submission of the plans to city officials for a building permit. (Testimony of Wagner, Washer, Burke, Zeller, Power, Olson, Alles, Bennett, Stoner, Respondent, Exhibit 15)
Recommendation That the Board of Architecture suspend the license of Respondent William L. Juhn as a registered architect for a period of six months. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Wings Slocum Benton, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert R. Kanning, Esquire 1500 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Herbert Coons, Jr. Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a certified building contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. CB CO24584. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Southern Construction Technologies, Inc. In March, 1988, Alfred and Martha Entrekin entered into a contract with Southern Construction Technologies, Inc., whereby they agreed to pay the sum of $178,000 for construction of a custom-built home. Since the Entrekins were unable to qualify for the financing needed for construction, Southern Construction obtained a construction loan on their behalf. Despite delays, construction commenced in May of 1988 and continued through October, when, the closing on the residence took place, subsequent to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Town of Davie. Just prior to the closing, a "punchlist" was prepared by Respondent and the Entrekins. That punchlist, which became part of the closing, contains 24 numbered items. (Due to misnumbering, the punchlist says 25.) Thirteen 0of those items on the copy of the punchlist offered in evidence by the Petitioner have been crossed off that list. Of the remaining 11 items, the evidence at final hearing reveals that some were corrected and some items were not the subject of any evidence offered by either party at the final hearing. Although additional items appear to have been added to the punchlist by the Entrekins sometime after the closing, those items will not be considered in this cause since no evidence was offered to indicate that those items were agreed to by the Respondent at the time of closing and no evidence was presented as to when those items were added to the original punchlist by the Entrekins. At the time of closing, the sum of $1,500 was placed in escrow to ensure completion of the punchlist by Respondent. Respondent performed some of the punchlist work on the day of the closing and continued working on the punchlist items for the next three weeks. On January 11, 1989, the Entrekins' attorney sent a demand letter seeking the release of the funds placed in escrow at the closing. Attached to that demand letter was a list of 16 items allegedly remaining on the punchlist. Some of the items on the new "punchlist" submitted by the Entrekins did not appear on the punchlist agreed to by the parties at the closing. Others did appear on the closing punchlist but had been struck through and initialed by Mrs. Entrekin, assumedly as having been completed, on the copy of the closing punchlist offered by Petitioner as an exhibit in this cause. In response to the demand letter, Respondent authorized the release of the $1,500 in escrow to the Entrekins. Respondent admits that at the time that the money was released to the Entrekins, there were still some repairs needed to the rake tiles on the roof and he had not seeded the backyard. Respondent testified that four rake tiles on the eaves were missing, some were misaligned, and some had not been "mudded" in with mortar, but no broken tiles remained on the roof. He also testified that he had not seeded the backyard because the Entrekins had not yet placed fill in the backyard, an item which Mr. Entrekin admits was his responsibility as provided in the contract between the Entrekins and Southern Construction Technologies, Inc. The only evidence submitted in corroboration of the complaints of the Entrekins consists of several invoices. In March, 1989, the Entrekins obtained an estimate for roof repairs from Warren Roofing, Inc., in the amount of $1,200. That invoice indicates the need to replace 80 broken tiles on the roof, the need to remove and replace approximately 130 rake tiles to be secured with mortar tinted to match (although Donald Warren testified that the tile used is nail-on tile which does not require mortar), and the need to "repair defects" in two rear valley areas. Warren Roofing was never hired to effectuate the repairs for which it had submitted its $1,200 estimate. The extensive work set forth in the estimate in March of 1989 is inconsistent with the roofing inspection which would have taken place prior to the certificate of occupancy issued prior to the closing in October of 1988. The only roofing repair effectuated to the Entrekin house by anyone other than Respondent was work performed by Warren Roofing in July of 1989 repairing a leak around the skylight. Petitioner also offered in evidence two invoices from pool services dated March of 1989. One invoice in the amount of $275 represents the cost of acid washing the pool, and the other invoice is for $230 to "filter pool water." Due to electrical problems, the water in the pool was not filtered for two days during the period of construction of the Entrekin house. No evidence was offered to show that the absence of filtering a pool for two days would require it to be acid washed, and no evidence was offered in support of the services performed or the need for the services represented by the second invoice. Another invoice represents the cost of 20 loads of muck for the backyard at a cost of $600, and $150 to rent a bulldozer. Since the muck for the backyard was the responsibility of the Entrekins, the bulldozer charge accompanying the 20 loads of muck is, in all probability, also the responsibility of the Entrekins. The last invoice submitted in evidence also bears the date of March of 1989 and represents 50 pounds of grass seed, in the amount of $110.50, a cost item which Respondent admits was his responsibility at the time that the escrowed monies were released to the Entrekins.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of January, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative 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 25th day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles N. Tetunic, Esquire Becker, Poliakoff & Streitfeld, P.A. Post Office Box 9057 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310-9057 Joseph Stephen Sharrow, Esquire Post Office Box 8995 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Raymond E. Hirst, Jr., professional engineer, was licensed as such by the State of Florida under license number PE 0017307. Prior to March 22, 1983, the Respondent, for Mech-Mar Engineering Company, Inc., designed a storage bay and mini- warehouse project to be built by Ruth Stein Construction for William M. Kwasniki, to be located on South Babcock Street in Palm Bay, Florida. Petitioner designed the facility and signed the plans for construction on March 22, 1983. A note clearly marked on the sheet index on the upper right hand corner of the first page of the plan set reflects, "The engineer's services do not include supervision of the construction of this project." The plans consist of three sheets of drawings, each of which is sealed and signed by the Respondent. The first sheet reflects the foundation plan. The second shows the electrical riser and firewall detail, and the third reflects the elevations. On or about April 3, 1983, the contractor, Ruth Stein, submitted these plans to the City of Palm Bay building department. The plans were approved for construction by the office of the chief building official, Paul Olsen, and formed the basis for the issuance of the construction permit. Neither the engineer's specifications nor calculations were submitted and filed with the plans. However, calculations were not required by the City of Palm Bay at that time. Two amendments to the plans were filed by the Respondent on May 31, and August 10, 1983. No revised drawings were submitted, however. The drawings that were submitted by Ms. Stein, but drawn by Respondent, were used to insure that the plans conformed to standard building codes, zoning codes, etc., but were not reviewed by the city for compliance with engineering standards and no engineering analysis was done by the city on these or any other plans at that time. The need to do so was apparently recognized later, however, as such analyses are now done on a routine basis. The plans were also to be used by the city's inspection staff to compare work being done by the contractor with the plans to insure that the work conforms to them. During construction, the building being erected according to Respondent's plans, a concrete block structure, collapsed. This collapse occurred sometime prior to May 20, 1983. After the structure collapsed, the city building office again approved the plans drawn by Respondent for reconstruction. The contractor was told to clean up the site and was then allowed to rebuild. Not only the original plans but the amendments referred to above, including that dated August 10, 1983, called for partitions within the building. After rebuilding, the structure was inspected by the city and a certificate of occupancy was issued in August, 1983. No complaints have been filed regarding this construction since that time. After the collapse, an inspection of the collapse site revealed that in some areas on the west part of the structure, cells of the concrete blocks being used to form the walls had not been filled with concrete as was required by the design submitted by Respondent. In the opinion of Mr. Olsen, this defect was a fault not of the Respondent but of the contractor. No determination was made by the city as to: whether the block walls as designed by Respondent met Standard Building Code (SBC) requirements; whether the walls were supported laterally as required; whether anchorage of the roof trusses to the walls was accomplished; whether Respondent properly, or at all, designed a roof diaphragm for this project; whether the walls were adequate to meet the wind load requirements (the SBC suggests that maximum wind velocity standard is 90 mph.); whether the lentils were adequate; and whether the truss anchorage limits were satisfactory. (According to Mr. Olsen, this decision is left up to the engineer who designs the structure.) The city found, however, that a part of the reason for the collapse of this structure was that the trusses for the roof were set too soon, were not adequately braced, contained questionable materials, and wore questionably fabricated. Though the city was not critical in its analysis of Respondent's performance, the experts retained by Petitioner to evaluate his drawings were. Mr. James O. Power, who has been a registered structural engineer since 1947 did not examine the building site but is aware of the project in question. He reviewed the drawings prepared by Respondent, photos taken of the site, the investigative report, letters and correspondence from Respondent with calculations contained therein, and the Respondent's amendments to the original drawings. On the basis of this evidence, he formed an opinion as to Respondent's performance as an engineer on this project and prepared several letters on the subject dated July 6 and October 21, 1983, and January 30 and September 7, 1984, all of which constitute his opinion as to Respondent's performance. In substance he concluded that Respondent's engineering performance on this project was unsatisfactory showing basic negligence and lack of due care as well as a lack of understanding of the basic engineering requirements for the job. In his opinion, overall, the drawings lack sufficient detail. For example, they, (a) show no interior partitions (partitions were defined in an amendment to the drawing filed after the collapse); (b) show that while the southern wall has few openings, the north wall has many, (this is significant in that because of the lack of partitions, the walls must resist the winds playing upon them as vertical cantilevers); (c) show that the number 5 vertical bars in the fill cells are 12 feet apart, (to serve as reinforced masonry, they should be 4 but no more than 8 feet apart depending on the circumstances); (d) reflect a ceiling height of 14 feet whereas later drawings show a difference in elevation; (e) show that the tie beam is to be constituted of inverted masonry U-beam 16 inches deep filled with concrete and reinforcing steel without providing for any obvious way to insert the concrete within the beam; (f) failed to show with detail the strap makeup or method of connection for the hurricane straps to be used to hold down the roof trusses to the walls, (the drawings show that the strap is to loop over the truss and if the straps do not do so, the connection is weak); (g) reflect that the door height at the openings on the north and south side doors are different than the tie beam height but there is no showing of how the weight of the roof is to be distributed over the door head only 8 inches below the tie-beam (this could contribute to the collapse of the building); and (h) failed to show drawings of trusses by the Respondent. In this regard, the truss company's drawings and specifications are insufficient. Since the Respondent's drawings do not define with particularity how the trusses are to be constructed, the truss fabricator must make assumptions as to the stress and load to be applied. With regard to the pre-engineered and pre-manufactured roof trusses, Mr. Power is of the opinion that the designer, Respondent, should have: (1) stated his criteria for the design of the truss (Respondent did not do this); (2) stated the qualifications of the designer (Respondent did not do this); (3) submitted clear instructions regarding his design (Respondent's are unclear and unsatisfactory). Mr. Power also indicates that in his experience, bracing for the trusses is installed at the building site and that only the basic truss is constructed at the truss company's plant. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the practice in Brevard County is for the building designer, as here, to give the basic specifications needed for the truss, and thereafter, the truss designer, working for the truss company, designs and builds the complete truss for delivery to the site. If Mr. Power's position is to be believed, personal supervision of the designer would be required at the site once the basic truss was delivered. Here, however, Mr. Power operates out of Miami and Petitioner has failed to show that he is familiar with the trade practice in the area involved in this dispute. Respondent's position is somewhat supported by the fact that his plans contain a disclaimer of supervision and no issue was made that this is a forbidden or unaccepted practice. Consequently, it cannot be said that Respondent's design of the trusses in this case was faulty. Mr. Power also identified several "design deficiencies" in Respondent's work. Among these were that there was no requirement for the use of reinforced masonry which is different from concrete and that Respondent's drawings provided no details or standards for the mortar or grout, the substance used to fill the holes in concrete blocks which should have a minimum slump of 8 inches. (If one tried to fill these cells from the top of a 14 foot wall, it is most likely that the cell, the hole within the blocks, would not be filled.) Further, the formulae used by Respondent in his calculations are for solid materials in the walls -- not for cinder block which was the material called for here. On the basis of the above discrepancies, it appeared to Mr. Power that Respondent did not understand the difference between the requirements for construction with concrete block and those for construction with reinforced masonry. In addition, according to Mr. Power, the reinforcing walls inserted in the design by the Respondent after the collapse of the building are of materials not permitted by the SBC. Also the SBC requires that the ratio of length to width of roof diaphragm should be no more than 4. The purpose of this is to provide support to the top of the wall so as to resist loads placed upon it by the force of wind. Here, Respondent's design has not adequately provided this reinforcement, in Mr. Power's judgment, and the design does not meet the SBC requirement. The SBC also requires designs of buildings to be constructed in the Palm Bay area to be able to withstand 90 mph winds. Mr. Power's calculations based on Respondent's plans and drawings show it is questionable that a building built pursuant to Respondent's plans would sustain 90 mph winds. The fact that the chances are only one in fifty that in any given year winds of this speed would be reached is immaterial. As to the filling of the holes (cells) in the concrete block, Mr. Power contends that it is a good practice to show in the drawing a breakout in the block at the bottom of the wall so that the builder can see that the concrete has in fact gone all the way down to the bottom as it should. Here, however, the building code does not require this to be done. Again, considering the Respondent's use of cement instead of grout to fill the cells, the Respondent followed county practice and the SBC does not specifically require the use of grout. Nonetheless, Mr. Power is of the opinion that even though Respondent's drawings indicated that he would not inspect at the site, it was unreasonable for Respondent to expect the cells to be filled since it is well known that many contractors do not inspect to insure that the cells are filled as called for. Mr. Power is also of the opinion that the lintels as described in one of the amendments to the basic drawings, though permissible for use, are inadequate to handle the indicated roof load and the drawings prepared by Respondent did not show the lintel capacity. Mr. Power contends that the SBC requires drawings to show sufficient detail to indicate the intent of the designer to allow the contractor using the drawings to conform to code standards. Admittedly, this is subjective criteria, not an objective one, as to what constitutes sufficient detail. The amendments added to the original designs helped somewhat to correct the deficiencies, but do not make them adequate. Taken as a whole, the drawings are not adequate, in the opinion of Mr. Power, to comply with the SBC. They are not adequate to pass on the designer's intent to the contractor and they are not adequate to show the designer's understanding of design elements. These errors and deficiencies described above are, in the opinion of Mr. Power, significant and not minor. Based on his analysis of the overall drawings and situation, he concluded that Respondent has not demonstrated his capability to handle this particular task which, in the opinion of Mr. power, is relatively simple. Respondent's drawings and the other documents pertinent to the project in issue here including calculations, correspondence, photos, and the investigative report, were also reviewed by Ernest C. Driver, a Florida licensed consultant engineer operating in Cairo, Georgia. Mr. Driver also reviewed Mr. Power's reports and is in complete agreement with his conclusions. He did some calculations on his own and on the basis of them, formed an opinion of Respondent's performance as an engineer on this project. He found that the reinforcing of the cinder block cells on the walls were too widely spaced at 12 foot centers instead of 4 to 8 foot centers. In addition, he did not agree with the engineering conclusions drawn by the Respondent. The calculations performed by Respondent were, in his opinion, improper and as a result, the design is over-stressed by approximately 215 percent. This came about, apparently, because Respondent designed a wall as though there were no doors in it. In addition, the way the tie beam is designed, it is impossible to get the reinforcing concrete into the "U." Further, the hurricane straps required to affix the roof trusses to the tie beam cannot be attached to the beam itself. Also, the design called for concrete block to be installed above the doors. This procedure placed as much as four times the load the lintel should carry. Mr. Driver also found that the diaphragm used by Respondent was of gypsum board which, in his opinion, is not a proper material for diaphragms. Also, according to Mr. Driver's interpretation of Respondent's plan, there is no way that the wind shear force applied to the diaphragm can be transmitted to the side wall and thence down to the earth. This is a definite deficiency and Respondent's drawings and notes are not complete enough to allow a clear determination of what is required as to materials to be used and how the work should be accomplished. Other deficiencies are seen in that the drawings show a 230 foot long building without an expansion joint. In Mr. Driver's opinion, this is far too long for construction without such a joint. In addition, the 26 foot high end wall is not addressed in the design which has no indication of how the roof is to be attached to it. Mr. Driver concurs with Mr. Power's opinion regarding the insufficiency of the plans and specifications offered by Respondent for the roof trusses in that there is no framing plan nor are there specifications identified for the trusses. Shop drawings should have been provided instead of only a cut sheet. While this witness does not know what the current Brevard County practice regarding the design and construction of trusses is, he is convinced that it is as Respondent says it is, to wit: that they are completely fabricated at the shop and delivered completed for installation to the job site, this is a poor practice. Connected to the issue of roof trusses is that regarding the metal hurricane straps which Respondent indicated his plans called for. These metal straps, which can easily be bent by hand are, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, a poor method of affixing the trusses to the tie beam. There are too many things that can go wrong such as hinging, the lack of a firm seating for the strap in the concrete, the bending of the metal, and the pulling of the affixing nails through the holes in the strap thereby resulting in no grip. In addition to his dissatisfaction with the use of concrete to fill the cells in the cinder blocks, Mr. Driver also feels that the use of concrete to fill a continuous 14 foot cell is improper. In his opinion, the drawings should call for a solid block every 4 feet and for weep holes through which compaction can be noted periodically throughout that distance. All of this should be in the engineer's notes. The notes by Respondent do not identify these areas. Even though Respondent's notes called for the 14 feet to be filled, his plans failed to provide methods to insure that complete filling was accomplished. Examination of the pictures of the wall after the collapse reveals that complete filling was not accomplished and this failure on the part of Respondent to provide a reasonably foolproof method of insuring complete compaction cannot be excused and responsibility shifted to the contractor by the mere statement by Respondent on the plans that he would not inspect. Engineering practice is made up of judgment as well as the specific formulae which can be obtained from engineering textbooks. There are assumptions which may be made -- some good and some bad. In the opinion of Mr. Driver, the defects described above indicate that Respondent's assumptions were bad. As a result, his judgment was bad. He feels that, in light of all the evidence, Respondent was negligent, failed to use due care, failed to conform to accepted engineering principles, failed to accomplish drawings sufficiently detailed to instruct the contractor as to exactly what needed to he done, and failed to provide drawings which, if followed exactly as presented, would by themselves, enable a builder to construct a safe structure. Here, based on the drawings prepared and submitted by Respondent, a builder would have to demonstrate a high and exceptional degree of expertise in order to fill in the omitted details required to make the building safe. Acceptable drawing standards are not defined with specificity in the SBC. Much is subjective rather than objective. For example, nothing in the SBC prohibits the use of gypsum board as a horizontal diaphragm, but, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, it is not common practice to use it for such. This goes to the question of judgment. In any event, the code may be erroneous in some particulars and not all answers are contained in it. It is for this reason that the law requires the use of a licensed engineer whose judgment fills in the gaps left by the code. Here all the defects identified in Respondent's drawings are within the province of an engineer. These are the items an engineer is needed for to accomplish. Here, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, there are too many defects and Respondent's work does not conform to any of the standards used in the engineering community as to schooling, information gained from working with other engineers, or the witness's personal experience. In rebuttal to the above, Respondent presented no experts of his own, but testified as to his disagreement with the analyses of Petitioner's experts. The testimony by Mr. Power and Mr. Driver is found to be accurate and descriptive of the defects in Respondent's performance. There are a few exceptions such as where local Brevard County practice differs from the experience of these experts, however, taken as a whole, the evidence clearly indicates Respondent's shortcomings for the most part. The testimony of the experts has established a series of defects in Respondent's performance which he has failed to satisfactorily rebut.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, RAYMOND HIRST, be placed on probation for one year, that he be reprimanded, and that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol L. Gregg, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Raymond Hirst 379 Franklyn Avenue Indiatlantic, Florida 32903 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Board of professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
Recommendation 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 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On March 9, 1973 Peterson, an architect registered in Florida, submitted a proposal "for preparation of design and construction drawings" for remodeling an existing residence to a new law office (Exhibit P-5). This was assigned on March 13, 1978 by attorney Anderson, who also remitted the required $200 retainer fee. Pertinent to this case, the contract provided for services to be rendered as: "Contract documents for permits and construction to include architectural plans (site floor plan, elevations and sections) and engineered structural and electrical drawings; "fee was $1,000 payable $200 on signing and $800 upon completed contract documents for permits." Any other services were at $20 per hour, including design changes after approval of preliminary drawings. The plans Peterson prepared showed the removal of a load bearing wall, without comment or provision for structural additions required by the demolition of the wall. Although the plans were not sealed, Anderson paid the $800 balance and bids were requested. The one bid (Exhibit R-4) was considerably more than budgeted, therefore the project was delayed. After a time, Anderson got interested in the project again but Peterson was unavailable so another architect was used and the project was completed. Thereafter, Anderson's requested reimbursement from Peterson was refused and this complaint was filed. Two registered Florida architects testified as experts for the Petitioner. Peterson's plans did not meet minimum architectural standards, particularly as to omission of substitute structural members for the removal of the load bearing wall. Although, structural changes could have been added by addendum, plans must be complete prior to obtaining permits and bids, and the acceptance of the full amount of the fee. In mitigation, Respondent agreed that he misinterpreted Anderson's understanding and desires but thought the standard procedure was followed; he indicated that this is the first time he has been in this type of situation. More particularly, Peterson intended to exercise his right to prepare an addendum that would have provided an appropriate structural substitution for the load bearing wall, after the ceiling was opened up; he considered the original plans for the wall as schematic only. He assumed the project was not going forward and the bidding process was merely to get prices.
