Florida Prototype Building Program

Summary of Project Activities: May 2003 through June 2007

William H. York and Frank M. Lavelle

Applied Research Associates, Inc.

June 11, 2006

Based on written proposals and oral presentations, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) awarded a contract in May 2003 to Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) to administer the Florida Prototype Building Program (FPBP). The FPBP was a new concept for reviewing and approving building plans under the Florida Building Code for designers, builders, and owners who build the same building multiple times in the same jurisdiction or in multiple jurisdictions within Florida.

Once plans are approved by the FPBP Administrator, they are exempt from local technical amendments and plan review by the local jurisdiction. Plans are submitted through the State’s Building Code Information System (BCIS) website, www.floridabuilding.org. The FPBP administrator charges the applicant a one-time plan review fee and a per use fee each time the approved plans are printed and sent out for use. The purpose of the program is to eliminate the need to review the same set of plans multiple times. The first use of the plans is considered to be the “Prototype Building.” A related goal of the programs is to reduce the time it takes to issue building permits. It should be noted that the Plan Review is only one step required to secure a building permit; there are generally four steps to be completed and the FPBP does not impact the other three steps. Only with special arrangements and planning do the other steps get simplified and/or accelerated.

Because the FPBP was a new concept, ARA and its consultants worked for several months with DCA staff and consultants to develop the processes and procedures for the FPBP. This involved many hours of meetings and travel to finalize the initial procedures and get the BCIS working. In 2003, we were able to attract Mercedes Homes to the FPBP, and they acted as the “test” organization to get the system operational. Mercedes encountered resistance and difficulty with the first building department where they submitted “FPBP Approved Plans” and eventually built only two Prototype Homes. While ARA and our consultants met with building department personnel around the State, skepticism from the building department’s plans examiners, inspectors and building officials presented a significant impediment to the Program. As a result, we decided to visit building departments where users planned to submit “Prototype Approved Plans” to review the system with all interested parties including the builder/developer who would be submitting the plans.

In 2004, we were able to attract Publix Supermarkets to the Prototype Program. Publix was very interested in any system that would allow them to build and open their stores faster. They build what they call Prototype Stores and the FPBP seemed a natural fit for them.

In the same time frame, we also met with designers who work with customers who build what appeared to be the same building in many different locations to assess their interest in the FPBP. While initial interest was very high, we quickly learned of numerous obstacles to submitting “Approved Plans”:

1. Frequently the “Same” building is not the “Same” due to local site conditions such as grade, access points etc.

2. Many of the more active areas of the State have specific “Architectural Standards” that must be met with regards to the exterior of the building. Standards for exterior finishes, roof coverings, colors, roof shape and other “Non-Prototype” features vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Because the “Architectural Standards” are placed into the Zoning Codes, not the Building Code, the Prototype Plans are not exempt and must comply.

3. Frequently changes are made due to needs to “Update” the Prototype Design. At the time we worked with Publix, the local building department had to approve changes to submitted “Prototype Approved” plans. The building departments again were reluctant to approve changes to plans that they had not reviewed in the first place. As a result, ARA worked with the Florida Home Builders Association to submit an amendment to the Florida Statute to allow the Prototype Administrator to approve changes to permitted plans.

4. During the time the Publix plans were being reviewed by ARA’s team, Publix made approximately 150 changes to their plans. Ultimately, Publix decided the FPBP would not work for them because they needed the flexibility to make many changes to their plans to accommodate local site conditions, local demographics, stand-alone vs. part of a shopping center, drive-through pharmacy, loading dock locations, etc.

In an effort to promote the FPBP, ARA had displays at the Southeast Building Conference SEBC for several years and worked with DCA to encourage use and educate builders, designers and building department personnel. We met with architects who sell plans for people to use and initially some seemed interested in the idea of having “Pre-Approved Plans” to sell, but none of them actually submitted plans to the FPBP, even after repeated attempts to get them involved. One difficulty noted by potential users was the wide range of design wind speeds in Florida. Why design for 140 or 146 MPH when the design wind speeds in many areas is 110 or 120 mph?

We wrote and published articles on the Prototype Program several times. Stories were published by the Florida Home Builders and the Building Officials Association of Florida. With the help of DCA, we mailed letters to the top builders and developers in Florida and received some response but not enough to make a significant difference in interest. We had an exhibit booth at the 2005 Building Officials Association of Florida (BOAF) convention in St. Petersburg and made a presentation to all of the attendees on the FPBP. During that meeting we were able to talk directly to a number of building officials and explain the Program. The result was better understanding and acceptance overall.

2006 was a very active year for construction and building departments were overloaded with work. As a result, DiVosta Homes (division of Pulte Homes) entered the FPBP to help speed permit issue for a planned 1500 unit development in Indian River County. They planned to build only 4 different houses with limited options. We had developed a system to allow us to review plans with options and that helped in this case. With a significant amount of work on the part of DiVosta’s management, they were able to develop a process of having the necessary approvals for site development, engineering and zoning prior to submitting “Prototype Approved” plans for permitting. The building department worked closely with DiVosta, and ARA to perfect a process that allowed DiVosta to submit up to 10 “Approved” plans and pick up the building permits the next business day. We developed and distributed news stories and articles that were published in the FHBA and BOAF newsletters. All was going well and 109 use requests were processed for DiVosta when the new housing market began a major slowdown. DiVosta eventually moved their operations to another project, and no further homes have been built using the FPBP.

Further efforts to interest Architects, Engineers, project managers and builders/developers have failed to generate any serious interest in the program. Some shed manufacturers have expressed interest in the program and one builder that plans to build 1,000 homes around the State “over the next few years” has requested information on the FPBP, but no plan submittals or use requests are imminent.

After investing four years of effort to make the FPBP functional and marketing the program to a variety of potential users in the residential and commercial construction sectors, ARA has sustained a net loss in excess of $90,000. Given the current weak housing market, limited interest, and continuing difficulties in implementing the program, ARA has decided to end our role as the FPBP Administrator when our current contract year expires on June 30, 2007. We appreciate the opportunity to administer this innovative program, and we sincerely hope that the next administrators of the program are able to make the FPBP a long-term success.