The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2432 French Ave (NO PERMIT #)i r FORM 8 OOC- 86 ! FLORIDA MODEL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SECTION ;, 8 -- SIMPLIFIED ANNUAL ENERGY METHOD ADMINISTERED SY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS C STAT-ISTICS NON - RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS PROJECT NAME - / PERMITTING OFFICE: Od ADORES! JURISDICTION NO. CITY, ZIP'.CODE : S4NF:Ekb PERMIT NO.1 331I BUILDER',: ZONE+ OWNER BUILDING CLASSIFICATIONIS) BUILDINO` VALUE 3 SYSTEMS AIR CONDITIONING UNIT NUMBER TYPE EER SEER COP TONS Yok DICE o4P O U oR al 5 JrC U - UNITARY C - CENTRIFUGAL P - POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT ENVELOPE Net Area U Z(oWALLN0. NO. a 0.13 R 0 0 I (A'nort 1 D33 RAISED FLR / INT WALL GLASS V,4 IfCLCAPSIN LE I TOTAL COND. FLOOR AREA= w,oUS.F. LIGHTING TOTAL KW = /Z, Saz) Compliance with Section 8 was demonstrated by a Prescrip- tive Measures methodology or by Dual Calculation. C 807.2 Supermarkets E 809.2 Basic Features i 807.3 Restaurants E 809.3 Dual Calculation 807.4 Kitchens Budget 01 HEATING UNIT NUMBER TYPE COP STUN RfL f 3' cc-.O LC3 ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE HP - HEAT PUMP G - GAS 0 - OIL CP COMPLIANCE SECTION 8 BUDGE T 8UILDING MBTU/SF SECTION 4 BUILDING MBTU/SF CALCULATION METHODr hl 8-65 In accordance with Section 553.907 F.S.. I hereby certify that the plans and specifications cover this calculation are in con . iance with the Florida Energy Code. -- Q.G7,/ OWNER/AGENT: p-------_. . DATE: ---- Review of the plans and specifications covered by this calculation indi- cate compliance with the Florida Energy Code. Before construction is completed. this building wig be inspected for compliance in a .cord nee. with Section 553.908 F BUILDING OFFICIAL: vvu — DATE-- FOF k 8 GOA - 86 FLORIDA MODEL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SECTION 8 -- SIMPLIFIED ANNUAL ENERGY METHOD ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT -OF COMMUNITY AFFAIR°S- ENERGY CONSUMING WINTER SPRING AND FA SUMMER ELEMENTS TABLE U• _AREA MTR - MBTU U• AREA = MTR MBTU U• *AREA MTR MBTU WALLS Aw WWMAw WWM 0./20. 1321L. 7• 3 Jkx:> 9 1 -lzcl Aw JWSFMfUwD.lzc Y, 5. Co 13 z 39 Uw Aw = WSM o. 7 2 • Co I2 0.13Z LoUb C CROOF Ur Ar RWM- Ur Ar xRSFM Ur Ar ti RSM B„I'! "rz r; "-I 33 crtra -1, -Z ( n.o>3 3/.0 // (pl'7 1 C RAISED FLOOR S Uf A F W M e — Uf A =FSFM _ Uf Al TFSM a INTERIOR WALLS 4. + + GLASS SOLAR OR. 14'' SING N D GLASS CONDUCTION E Sit-J(f, L C- =j OUTSIDE AIR F GI PEOPLE-'HEAT f CH LIGHTING HEAT HVA^ MOTOR HEAT IML C0.ID IPACE r h 1CLUDEC IR C.O.P. SC As =SWMI 95 _o I lzr7z o. 9 51 z- 5. 4 717Pc-:, Us , As $ CWM= CFM 'VWMi- 1 Us ', As CSFM I.l o 45*L- Af = PWM+ WATTS,,, LWM 2 Scram 3 /off BHP =MWM CFM =VSFM— zco Af 4PSFM+ WATTSiLSFM I SHP *MSFM; 1 1 As = CSM L CFM * VSM At x P2±3 c-rno WATTSLSM — z 3• i 7 -o BHP " MSM t _ i 1 I i I I I K I WINTER SUBTOTAL + START-UP HEAT Af 50 0 M I SUBTOTALS ( or CNt HEAT/COOL SYS. MTR P SEASONAL SUBTOTALS ENERGY SUMMARY LIGHTING RAW ENERGY I rn Q WATER HEATING HVAC MOTOR RAW ENERGY DEVICE COOLING -T`f-R PuMPs ANUS - VAV ANUS - cv OTHER Heat SUH H x HSM C U choose Cool C =JCo JgS Hi Ci tG"'!'r5 x x x CS .HSM C S H CC4a/ %Z add add LRE z WATTS : MBTU W OR BUHW* Ar MRE * BHP TOTAL MBTU MBTU RTOTAL MBTU (SIFLOOR AREA At ENERGY ZS 671 — = LTIDESIGN5 HEATING 1 7.._ add ose er x CSM 0,{ O J2Z 19(o ( COOLING R1 TOTAL MBTU 1 252(U7 U ALLOWABLE ENERGY BUDGET -Table 87 2,c Michael D. Sims & Associates, Inc. T' Consulting Engineers in the Earth Sciences,.,Geotechnology, Hydrogeology and Construction Materials Testing December 15, 19.88 Cauble and Company 1315 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Attention: Mr. William F. Law, Jr. 407) 297-0292 SUBJECT: ADDENDUM, FOUNDATION SOIL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED ROSE AUTO STORE, SANFORD, FLORIDA (PN 88-443.1A) Dear Mr. Law: As requested by Mr. David Wilson Inc., and with your authorization, 3) additional test borings within following report presents the test our evaluations and conclusions. borings were also verbalized and Wilson on November 23 and December 3, BACKGROUND of Ferris Constructors, we have performed three the subject site. The boring results as well as The results of these later facsimiled to Mr. 1988, respectively. As you are aware, the foundation soils within the proposed Rose Auto Store building area were previously investigated by Michael D. Sims & Associates, Inc. The results of that study was presented in our report to you entitled "Foundation Soil Investigation, Proposed Rose Auto Store, Sanford, Florida (PN 88-443.1)11, dated August 24, 1988. The results of our auger borings and Standard Penetration Test borings performed as part of our August study are included on Sheet 1, attached. The purpose of the additional field investigation was to provide input to your contractor's economic evaluation of foundation alternatives presented in our August report. The field investigation consisted of performing three (3) Standard Penetration Test borings to a depth of 20.0 feet. The test boring locations are presented on the Location Plan on Sheet 1 and are labeled as TB-3 through TB-5. SUBSOIL AND GROUNDWATER LEVEL CONDITIONS SOIL STRATIGRAPHY The subsoils encountered within test borings TB-3 through TB-5 consisted of light and dark colored fine sand (fill) to depths varying from 2.5 feet within test borings TB-4 and TB-5, and to a depth of 5.5 feet within test boring TB-3. 4780 North Orange Blossom Trail • Orlando • FL 32810 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 6 • Winter Park • FL 32790 DECEIVED DEC191988 cl Cauble and Company PN 88-443.1A Page 2 Below the fine sand fill, dark reddish brown peat was encountered to depths varying from 4.0 to 9.7 feet below the present ground surface. The deepest peat layer was encountered at the location of test boring TB-3, performed near the existing building. Below the dark reddish brown peat, alternating layers of dark reddish brown and reddish brown slightly silty to silty fine sand were encountered to the boring termination depth of 20 feet. Based upon our evaluation of the Standard Penetration Test results, the fill soils exist in a very loose to loose condition, the dark reddish brown peat exist in a very soft to stiff condition, and the underlying silty fine sands exist in medium dense to dense condition. The Standard Penetration Test results in the form of blow counts per foot are presented adjacent to the boring profiles on Sheet 1. GROUNDWATER TABLE CONDITIONS The shallow groundwater table was measured at the time the borings were performed and a minimum of 24 hours later. The depth measured to the groundwater table varied from 1.0 to 5.3 feet below the present ground surface. The depth measured to the shallow groundwater table during this study and our previous study (performed in August) are presented adjacent to the boring profiles. EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The subsoil conditions encountered within test borings TB-3 through TB-5 were generally consistent to test borings performed for our August investigation. Therefore, our opinion with respect to foundation support and foundation related site work is unchanged. Based upon discussions with Mr. Wilson, the first foundation support alternative presented in our August report (which consists of removing the unsuitable organic soils and replacing these materials with clean, compacted sand) is the most economical and, therefore, has been selected. r Cauble and Company PN 88-443.1A Page 3 We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to provide our engineering services for you once again on the Rose Auto Store. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, or as we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, MICHA`El',D.., SIMS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Caro i ,4i Do u it X vaish, P.E. Pr eeer Florida - Registration No. 39685 Enclosure: DJY/ ah