The URL can be used to link to this page

1102 Rinehart Rd - BC04-002746 (ROOFING - NEW CONSTRUCTION) DOCUMENTSMOX b6cs tN AlCN116 BP301I01 CITY OF SANFORD 1/17/06 Structure Inquiry :26 Parcel Number . . . . . . . 32.19.30.300-009A-0000 Property address . . . . . 1151 RINEHART RD SANFORD, FL 32771 Appl, structure nbr . . . . 04 00002746 000 000 Struc status, date, CO'd C.O. ISSUED 8/08/05 8/08/05 Structure description . . . Description Alphabetic Entry Numeric Entry CONSTRUCTION TYPE CONCRETE BLK WITH FRM EXT OCCUPANCY TYPE COMMERCIAL ROOF TYPE BUILT UP FENCE TYPE NONE SIGN TYPE NOT APPLICABLE ELEVATOR FLAG NO ELEVATOR STANDPIPES FLAG NONE FLOOD ZONE NONE POWER ON FLAG POWER OFF + Press Enter to continue. F3=Exit F5=Land inquiry F12=Cancel CITY OF SANFORD PERMIT APPLICATION Permit # : L� ` ;�-7 ' 1 K Date: 2/10/05 ,Job Address: —.-��inehart Road, Sanford, FL t 1 Description of Work: Roofing new construction building Historic District: Zoning: Value of Work: $ 114, 800.00 00 Permit Type: Building Electrical Mechanical Plumbing Fire Sprinkler/Alarm Pool Electrical: New Service — # of AMPS Mechanical: Residential Non -Residential Plumbing/ New Commercial: # of Fixtures Plumbing/New Residential: # of Water Closets Occupancy Type: Residential Commercial Construction Type: # of Stories: Addition/Alteration Change of Service Temporary Pole — Replacement New (Duct Layout & Energy Calc. Required) # of Water & Sewer Lines # of Gas Lines Plumbing Repair — Residential or Commercial Industrial Total Square Footage: # of Dwelling Units: Flood Zone: (FEMA form required for other than X) Parcel #: 32-19-30-502-000-0020 (Attach Proof of Ownership & Legal Description) Owners Name & Address: Deno Dikeou, 502 North Hwy_ 17-92 Suite 200, Longwood FL 32750 Phone: Contractor Name & Address: CEI FLORIDA, INC., 90T:. S.US Hwy. 17-92, State License Number: y, FL 32713 CCC1326039 Phone & Fax: 386-668-0154 386-668-1947 Contact Person: Georgia Boring Phone: 386-668-0154 Bonding Company: Address: Mortgage Lender: Address: Architect/Engineer: Address: Phone: Fax: Application is hereby made to obtain a permit to do the work and installations as indicated. I certify that no work or installation has commenced prior to the issuance of a permit and that all work will be performed to meet standards of all laws regulating construction in this jurisdiction. I understand that a separate permit must be secured for ELECTRICAL WORK, PLUMBING, SIGNS, WELLS, POOLS, FURNACES, BOILERS, HEATERS, TANKS, and AIR CONDITIONERS, etc. OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT: I certify that all of the foregoing information is accurate and that all work will be done in compliance with all applicable laws regulating construction and zoning. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. NOTICE: In addition to the requirements of this permit, there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county, and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts, state agencies, or federal agencies. Acceptance of permit is verification that I will notify the owner of the property of the requiremy& of Florida. Li i Law, FS 713. Signature of Owner/Agent Date Signature of Contract/Agent Date Print Owner/Agent's Name Signature of Notary -State of Florida Date Owner/Agent is _ Personally Known to Me or Produced ID APPLICATION APPROVED BY: Bldg: Zoning: ( 'tial & Da e Special Conditions: Russ Lynn, President Printcontractor/Agent's Name igp�(it NotaryG 6MAl. R9RING Date ?°, Notary Public - State of Florida `o, My Commksion E)ires Jan 4, 2009 Ic oA Comml ion #a D 67 or rson n. Utilities: FD: (Initial & Date) (Initial & Date) (Initial & Date) CPH ENGINEERS Permit No. State of Florida County of Seminole Fax:4073300639 Jan 25 2005 13;15 a v i A%,A., WE %, VXVUVM1V k -r V=,N k P. 02 Tax Folio N032-19-30-502-0000-0020 The undersigned hereby gives notice that improvement will be made to certain zeal property, and in accordance with Chapter 713, Florida Statutes, the following information is provided in this Notice of Commencement 1. Description of property: (legal description of the property and street address if available) 1102 Rinehart Road, Sanford, FL 2 General description of improvement Steel construction retall bulldf-n—g 3. Owner information a. Name and address Deno P. Dikeou (407-830-4888) 502 North Hwy. 17-92 Ste.. 200, Longwood, FL 32750 b. Interest in property Owner C. Name and address of fee simple titleholder (if other than Owner) 4. Contractor a. Name and address CPH Constructors, LLC. b. Phone number 407-322-6841 Faxnualber 407-330-0639 5. Surety a. Name and address N/A 1lit tilling lilil1101311HIM11DOE MW b. Phone number Fox n c. Amount of bond 8K 05412 FAGS 1787-1788 6. Lender CLERK' S 0 ;28241542,76 a Name and address N /A REi31RM IWK/2884 11109116 PA MMMIG FEE! bL Phone number H s! Fax nuns er 7. Persons within the State of Florida designated by Owner upon whom notices or other documents may be served as provided by Section T13.13(1)(a)7., Florida Statutes: �a. Name and address _ CPH ConFetrtIf-tnrFa, I.I.C.. 50 4. Fultoll Street Sanford FL 32771 b. Phonenunber 407-3.22-6841 Faxnumber 407-330-0639 B. In addition to himself or herself, Owner designates Am, R ti _ pp,,; r; of QP QnStr ators, LLC. to receive a copy of the Lienor's Notice as provided in Section 713.13(1)(b), Florida Statutes. a. Phone number 407-322-6841 Fax number 407-330-0639 9. Expiration date of notice of commencement (the expiration date is 1 year fro th date of unless a differentdate is specified) Signature of Owner Deno P.-Dikeou Swom to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 5th day of October , 2004 by Deno P. Dikeou Personally Known 6� OR Produced Identification Type of Identification Produced THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED P1 ' NAME Yy1 Si a e of otaryPublic, to of Florida . .a`;�':;"�, Commission Expires: WWCyS EDFtBD ADDR, tt My ST, , COMMISSION 1 DD WWIEXP hern,Pxu M'` L_ aj, Z 77� 1v"T8;1W#d 1Md�d Thro 1►�d NMsry BtKiea CITY OF SANFORD PERMIT APPLICATION Permit # : 04-2746 Date: 07/05/2005 Job Address: 1151 Rinehart Road Description of work: A/C equipment, ductwork, condensate piping, grills to make operational systems Historic District: Zoning: Value of Work: $ 87,558.00 Permit Type: Building Electrical Mechanical X Plumbing Fire Sprinkler/Alarm Pool Electrical: New Service – # of AMPS Addition/Alteration Change of Service Temporary Pole _ Mechanical: Residential Non -Residential X Replacement New (Duct Layout & Energy Calc. Required) Plumbing/ New Commercial: # of Fixtures # of Water & Sewer Lines # of Gas Lines Plumbing/New Residential: # of Water Closets Plumbing Repair – Residential or Commercial _ Occupancy Type: Residential Commercial X Industrial Total Square Footage: Construction Type: # of Stories: # of Dwelling Units: Flood Zone: (FEMA form required for other than X) Parcel #: Owners Name & Address: (Attach Proof of Ownership & Legal Description) Phone: Contractor Name&Address: Certified Mechanical Co., Inc., 2502 Vulcan Road, Apopka, FL 32703 State License Number: CMC012816 Phone & Fax: 407-294-6324 / 407-294-0952 contact Person: Ron Edenf i el d Phone: 407-293-6324 Bonding Company: Address: Mortgage Lender: Address: Architect/Engineer: Address: Phone: Fax: Application is hereby made to obtain a permit to do the work and installations as indicated. I certify that no work or installation has commenced prior to the issuance of a permit and that all work will be performed to meet standards of all laws regulating construction in this jurisdiction. I understand that a separate permit must be secured for ELECTRICAL WORK, PLUMBING, SIGNS, WELLS, POOLS, FURNACES, BOILERS, HEATERS, TANKS, and AIR CONDITIONERS, etc. OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT: I certify that all of the foregoing information is accurate and that all work will be done in compliance with all applicable laws regulating construction and zoning. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. NOTICE: In addition to the requirements of this permit, there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county, and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts, state agencies, or federal agencies. Acceptance of permit is verification that I will notify the owner of the property of the requirements lorida Li S713. 07/05/2005 Signature of Owner/Agent Date Signature of Contractor/A Date Print Owner/Agent's Name Signature of Notary -State of Florida Date Owner/Agent is _ Personally Known to Me or Produced ID APPLICATION APPROVED BY: Bldg: (Initial & Date) Special Conditions: Zoning: Ronald H. Edenfield rm ontractor/Age am 11SIo5 Signature of NotaryState of Florida Date -a Rebecca Batdwln aT My Commission DDI 06396 •07 2006 Contractor/Agent is Personally Known to� �� Produced ID Utilities: FD: (Initial & Date) (Initial & Date) (Initial & Date) DIKEOU REALTY LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER LIBERTY NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SUITE 200 502 N. HIGHWAY 17-92 LONGWOOD, FLORIDA 32750 (407) 830-4888 (407) 830-4502 FAX DENO P. DIKEOU, BROKER July 5, 2005 City of Sanford Dan Florian, Building Official P.O. Box 1788 Sanford, FL 32772-1788 RE: Prepower Inspection Request for 1151 Rinehart Road Building Permit # 04-2746 To Whom It May Concern: SPECIALIZING IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SHOPPING CENTERS This letter is written to request a prepower inspection for the address referenced above. Please be advised that such building will not be occupied until the Certificate of Occupancy has been released. Sincerely, Michael J. Thibos Owner Representative This letter has been sworn to and subscribed before me this 6th day of July, 2005 by Michael J. Thibos, Owner Representative, who is personally known to me and who did not take an oath. girn6ecle-Li S. M I+on NOTARY PU43LIC (Printed Name) NOTARY POBLIC (Si ature) �n Kimberley S Melton :F My commission D oeml Expires February 04, 2006 I CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REQUEST FOR FINAL INSPECTION SHELL ****New Commercial Building"" DATE: 07/15/05 PERMIT #. 04-2746 ADDRESS: 1151 Rinehart Rd CONTRACTOR: PHONE #: CPH Constructors Brad 407-303-6393 The building division has prepared a Certificate of Occupancy for the above location and is requesting final inspection 'by your department. After your inspection, please sign off and date the C.. O. or submit addendum if it has been denied or approved with conditions. Your prompt attention ill appreciated.' D �--- °� �22 n ineerin ❑ Fire g g _ ❑Public Works ❑ �ning ❑Utilities ❑Licensing CONDITIONS: (TO BE COMPLETED ONLY IF APPROVAL IS CONDITIONAL) CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REQUEST FOR FINAL INSPECTION SHELL ****New Commercial Building**** DATE: PERMIT #: ADDRESS: CONTRACTOR: PHONE #: 07/1,-9/05 04-2746 1151 Rinehart Rd CPH Constructors Brad 407-303-6393 The building division has prepared a Certificate of Occupancy for the above location and is requesting final inspection by your department. After your inspection, please sign off and date the C. O. or submit addendum if it has been denied or approved with conditions. Your prompt attention will be appreciated. OEngineering ❑Fire Public Works ❑ Zoning _ ❑Utilities ❑Licensing CONDITIONS: (TO BE COMPLETED ONLY IF APPROVAL IS CONDITIONAL) f'r�, ..,- L L r:?.,V l D 3 M t C,/1% L I� 1 /, The building division has prepared a Certificate of Occupancy for the above location and is requesting final inspection by your department. After your inspection, please sign off and date the C. O. or submit addendum if it has been denied or approved with conditions. Your prompt attention will be appreciated. ❑Engineering ❑ Fire ❑Public Works ❑Zoning 1. tiliti ❑ Licensing CONDITIONS: (TO BE COMPLETED ONLY IF APPROVAL IS CONDITIONAL) 1 1 1 j 1 1 1 1 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANC,-,,Y 1 d; 11 1 1 1 REQUEST FOR FINAL INSPECUON ► SHELL w I New Commercial Building"" I I I I I I I ► I 1 I I DATE: 07/15/05Cj PERMIT #: 04-2746 '? co W w a ADDRESS: 1151 Rinehart Rd a C 2: CONTRACTOR: d CPH Constructorsor 11 4 tJ fr ; o�u.0 o PHONE #: Brad 407-303-6393 The building division has prepared a Certificate of Occupancy for the above location and is requesting final inspection by your department. After your inspection, please sign off and date the C. O. or submit addendum if it has been denied or approved with conditions. Your prompt attention will be appreciated. ❑Engineering ❑ Fire ❑Public Works ❑Zoning 1. tiliti ❑ Licensing CONDITIONS: (TO BE COMPLETED ONLY IF APPROVAL IS CONDITIONAL) LMBC10,01 CITY OF SANFORD Address Misc. Information Inquiry Location ID . . . . . . . Parcel Number . . . . . . Alternate location ID . . Location address . . . . . Primary related party . . Type options, press Enter. 5=View detail Opt Description 244145 32.19.30.300-009A-0000 1151 RINEHART RD _ PLANNING & ZONING COMMENT _ CUSTOMER SERVICE NOTES _ CUSTOMER SERVICE NOTES _ CUSTOMER SERVICE NOTES _ CUSTOMER SERVICE NOTES _ CUSTOMER SERVICE NOTES _ CUSTOMER SERVICE NOTES _ CUSTOMER SERVICE NOTES CUSTOMER SERVICE NOTES 7/20/05 08:58:29 Free -form information DENO DIKEOU PD (SAMS) OUTPARCEL - LOT 2 SW DEV FEE $11050.00 WA DEV FEE $4225.00 BP04-2746 PD 10-18-04 SEE REC#7431 THIS IS THE MAIN PROJECT ADDRESS FOR FOR SAM'S OUTPARCEL ADDRESS (SEE SUZANS (FOLDER FOR ADDRESSES) EACH INDIVIDUAL ADDRESS WILL HAVE A SEPERATE WA METER ** CUST WILL NEED TO PAY FOR METER SET 1 1'2"RC METER SET FEE $215.00 RC TAP F2=Address F3=Exit F5=Special Notes F12=Cancel F9=Parcel Notes Permit # Job Addre Description o Historic District: CIT f OF SANFORD PERMIT APPLICATION 4Y0 Date: Zoning: Value of Work: $ 1, �, t. • OO Permit Type: Building X Electrical Mechanical K Plumbing X Fire Sprinkler/Alarm Pool _ Electrical: New Service - # of AMPS Z2 Addition/Alteration Change of Service Temporary Pole _ Mechanical: Residential Non -Residential t— Replacement New X (Duct Layout & Energy Calc. Required) Plumbing/ New Commercial: # of Fixtures 1V8 # of Water & Sewer Lines� b # of Gas Lines ' Plumbing/New Residential: # of Water Closets Plumbing Repair - Residential or Commercial Occupancy Type: Reside 00 /ntial Commercial _� Industrial Total Square Footage: Z 4i iV Construction Type: I V # of Stories: I # OUIPMOWUnitsi Y Flood Zone: (FEMA form required for other than X) Parcel #: 32-19-30-300-009A-0000 Lot 2 (Sam's Club) (Attach Proof of Ownership & Legal Description) Owners Name & Address: Deno P. Dikeou, 502 N. Highway 17-92, Suite 200, Longwood, FL 32750 - IL _ — Phone: 407-830-4888 Bonding Company: t - Address zi7+.�== FF'R i A r Mortgage Lender: Address: Cuhaci &Pette Alchit 407-228-4220 Architect/Engineer: s Phone: Address: 1220 Alden Road. OrlaW.FL 3. 6 - Fax; 407-228-4219 Application is hereby made to obtain a permit to do the work and installations as indicated. I certifyt no work or installation has commenced prior to the issuance of a permit and that all work will be performed to meet standards of all laws regulating construction in this jurisdiction. I understand that a separate permit must be secured for ELECTRICAL WORK, PLUMBING, SIGNS, WELLS, POOLS, FURNACES, BOILERS, HEATERS, TANKS, and AIR CONDITIONERS, etc. OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT: I certify that all of the foregoing,information is accurate and that all work will be done in compliance with all applicable laws regulating construction and zoning. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. NOTICE: In addition to the requirements of this permit, there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county, and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts, state agencies, or federal agencies. Acceptance f pe \ it is verification t I will notify the7ownjerofotheprerty of the requirements of Florida Lien Law, FS 713. '- ntre of Contractor/Agent DatcSignature of Owner/Agent fy\ - S e � 1 e �p ��1 , () (_O N S'T PU C„�[Q�+f j� � Tl G 9 c _ r -Pe N o /-� - 7 / 1,&,ouPrint Contractor/Agent's Name Pri caner/Agent's Name A"V�. pi �7 Q ignaturc of Notary -S a of Florida Datc r S gnature of otary %ate o ort KhTdW li S Atµa '4No DIANAGREENE : . cwdrb 100082731 ubilc of �•stft Florida Contractor. 94,2or r EvreSAtp 16.2006 Produce Owner/Agen is•. ` 'altrj9411MIGS)deo$ DD125522 Produce ID to... ` SOnded By NStional NotaryASSn. APPLICATION APPROVED BY: Bldg: Jq0 Zoning. :1 Otl elk 1- Utilities: FD: (Initial & Date) (Initial & Date) (Initial & Date) (Initial & Date) Special Conditions: ( lbl t t 165, 11 %2, 1171, 1(7-7r (1,V1 1") J i V /dk,.p.J LG✓1 i7 ad PIS -1 1129 It73, 1137 IIYII ?I�JS //y111s3 �/57 H0.X MLtwt LAn;45 51"- 'fa 6c C, do ( lbl t t 165, 11 %2, 1171, 1(7-7r (1,V1 1") J i V /dk,.p.J LG✓1 i7 ad PIS -1 1129 It73, 1137 IIYII ?I�JS //y111s3 �/57 DEVELOPMENT FEE WORKSHEET CI I'Y OF SANFORD UTILITY - ADMIN P.O. BOX 1788 SANFORD, FL 32772-1788 Project Name: Date -7 �c; �z Owner/Contact Person: s�,�,C-, Kc0;J Phone: C`f0-7 830 yYgr Address:— Type ddress:_ Type of Development: 1) RESIDENTIAL Type of Units -(single family or multi -family): Total Number of Units: Type of Utility Connection (individual connections or central water meter & common sewer tap): Water Meter Size (3/4", 1", 2", etc.): REMARKS: 2) NON -,RESIDENTIAL Type of Units (commercial, Industrial, etc.): Total Number of Buildings: Number of Fixture Units (each building): Type of Utility Connection (individual connections or central water meter & common sewer tap): Water Meter Size (3/4",It c 1", 211, etc.) � REMARKS: CONNF.CTIO.V FEE CALCULAHOV.• W, _Pe� 141 n 4-e 4 41 �s Tort A 11`l P/� cl 1 S 7 S Name - Signature - Date •G'J"Clrn 11/42 .2) 1) Water 6vstem impact tees Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC) -300 Gallons Per Day (GPD) Residential S650/Unit - Single family structure, or multi -family unit MINIMUM SIZE OF TRAP INCHES containing three (3) bedrooms or more. S487.50✓Unit - Multi -family unit or Mobile Home unit containing Automatic clothes washers, residential less than three (3) bedrooms. (This category is 2 based on judgment/assumption, estimation that 6 such family units on average require 750/r,-225 GPD Bathtub (b) (with or without overhead shower or whirlpool attachments) of the water and sewer service of an average single 1 '/2 family unit). Commercial 1 '/4 S650/ERU - Fixtures unit schedule from Southern Plumbing Code 1 '/2 will be used. One ERU will be charged for connection 1 and up to twenty (20) fixtures units. Dental unit or cuspidor For projects having more that twenty (20) fixture unit 1 '/4 base for the first ERU. (Example: twenty-five (25) 2 fixtures units will be rated as 125 eru: twenty-six (26) Drinking fountain fixture units will be rated as 1.5 ERU.) Sewer Systems Impact Fees Equivalent Residential Connections -270 Gallons Per Day (GPD) Residential - $1,700 Unit - Single Family structure, or multi -family unit Containing three (3) bedrooms or more. $1,275/Unit - Multi -family unit or Mobile Home unit containing less than three (3) bedrooms. (This category is based on judgment/assumption, estimation that such family units on average require 75% of water and sewer service of an average single family unit). Commercial- Industrial- Institutional S 1,700/ERU Fixtures unit schedule from Southern Plumbing Code will be used. One ERU will be charged for connection and up to twenty (20) fixtures units. For projects having more than twenty (20) units the Impact fee will be increments of 25% based on multiples of five (5) fixture units above the twenty (20) fixture unit base for the first ERU. (Example: twenty five (25) fixture units will be rated as 1.25 ERU: twenty six (26) fixture units will be rated as 1.5 ERU). L✓I:�C� +c) t' I e_') i-6 V i FIXTURES TYPE DRAINAGE FIXrURES UNIT VALVE AS LOAD FACTORS MINIMUM SIZE OF TRAP INCHES Automatic clothes washers, commercial (a) 3 2 Automatic clothes washers, residential 2 2 Bathroom group consisting of water closets, lavatory, bidet and bathtub or showers 6 - Bathtub (b) (with or without overhead shower or whirlpool attachments) 2 _ 1 '/2 Bidet 2 _ 1 '/4 Combination sink and tray 2 1 '/2 Dental lavatory 1 1 '/4 Dental unit or cuspidor 1 _ 1 '/4 Dishwashing machine, (e )domestic 2 11/2 Drinking fountain '/2 _ 1 '/4 Floor drains 2 2 Kitchen sink domestic 2 _ 11/2 Kitchen sink, domestic with food waste grinder and/or Dishwasher 2 _ 1 '/2 Laundry tray (1 or 2 compartments) 2 _ 1 '/2 Lavatory 1 1 '/4 Shower compartments, domestic 2 _ 2. Sink 2 11/2 Urinal 4 Footnote d Urinal, 1 gallon per flush or less 2e Footnote d Wash sink (circular or multiple) each ser of faucets 2 11/2 Water closets, flushometer tank, public or private 4e Footnote d Water closets, private: installation 4 _ Footnote d Water closets, public installation 6 Footnote d -3Z 1t For SI:1 Inch --25.4 mm, I gallon --3.785 L. a For traps larger than 3 inches, use Table 709.2 b A showerhead over a bathtub or whirlpool bathtub attachments does not increase the drainage fixtures unit valve C See sections 709.2 thought 709.4 for methods of computing unit valve of fixtures not listed in Table 709.1 or fn rating of devices with intermittent flows. d Trap size shall be consistent with the fixtures outlet size. e For the purpose of computing loads on building drains and sewers, water closets or urinals shall na. be rated at a lower drainage first fixture unit unless the lower values are confirmed by testing. TABLE 709.2 DRAINAGE FIXTURES UNrtS FOR FIXTURES DRAINS OR TRAPS i Z$ vtit,J-5 1� U, X CSL) - L1LZ5 Fixture Drain or Trap Size (inches) I'"inage Fixtures Uiilt Value 1I 1 11/2 2 2 3 2 %2 4 3 �� 5 4 6 Standard Plumbing codes ®1997 l v PA -e, C l -se * St✓ , 5 )c 17 UU - l l o'sU 46 l e 6 i 5� r - �tcS.�T"-4^c`i grcc�cx c ii Y2 < < <t ctct.•<t,+:t:•< _ ,..,.,.. -...,,.........,...,c..c-,cmnnnr�c�ez-ax�ncrcr>nr. z�onn<a:retanz>c>xscerrnz�rsr.:>cm�ra.,:-�r!tr'.s..akar'�zX�{?t4^,.'reSt4z5.74:?RQ i233YFNSi'k^>ktx:'fhlia'.Yiit�:kkT,.+2L.L�it'.\�iilice.2.sRl?'.++:3:'i#Fi:'3�'iT�§C`lS,tl$Yitkti',:is#;�.�`i`.�i :+�t..c.we..2>.- i. �.............. ..., .:... ' SANFORD FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION 300 N. Park Ave., Sanford, Fl. 32771 / P. O. Box 1788, Sanford Fl. 32772 Office (407) 302-2520 /FAX (407) 302-2526 Pager (407) 918-0395 Plans Review Sheet Date: March 4, 2004 Business Address: 1101 Rinehart Road Occur. Ch. Mercantile (Shell only) Business Name: Deon P. Dike Ph. (407) 830-4888 Contractor: Not on Application Ph. () Fax. O Architect/Engineer: Chaco & Peterson Architects Ph (407) 228-4220 Fax (407) 228-4219 Reviewed with Comment: (X) Reviewed By: T. L. Robles Fire Inspector/Plans Examiner `0 Comments: Plans reviewed as a shell only. Building can not be ever occupied without afire department CIO on shell, and additional permit for interior renovations. Interior renovations blueprints will be required prior to CIO or any occupancy of shell. Fire Department requires additional permits for all underground fire line work. 1.1 Application — New Building, Type VI Const., 24,600 sq. ft., (shell only) 1.2 Mixed — N/A 1.3 Special Definitions — N/N 1.4 Classification of Occupancy — Unknown (shell only) 1.5 Classification of Hazard of Contents — Unknown 1.6 Minimum Construction — SEE SANFORD BUILDING DEPTS. REQUIRMENTS SANFORD FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION 300 N. Park Ave., Sanford, Fl. 32771 / P. O. Box 1788, Sanford FI. 32772 t Office (407) 302-2520/FAX (407) 302-2526 Pager (407) 918-0395 2.2 Means of Egress Components — 2.3 Capacity of Egress — . 2.4 Number of Exits — Six —teen separate (16) future tenant space 2.5 Arrangement of Egress — two separate exits per tenant space 2.6 Travel Distance — Less than 75' as shell 2.7 Discharge from Exits — 2.8 Lumination of Means of Egress — Required over each EXIT illuminated with battery back up 2.8 Emergency Lighting — required 2.9 Marking of Means of Egress — required 2.10 Special Features - Interior build out permit will be required 3.1 Protection of Vertical Openings — Interior build out permit will be required 3.2 Protection from Hazards — Interior build out permit will be required 3.3 Interior Finish - Interior build out permit will be required 3.4 Detection, Alarm, and Communications — Interior build out permit will be required monitorinjof fire sprinkler system 3.5 Extinguishing Requirements —each tenant required to have One (1) 3A10 BC Fire extinguisher 3.6 Corridors — 4 Special Provisions — 5 Building Services 5.1 Utilities — 5.2 HVAC — 5.3 Elevators, Escalators, Conveyors (4A-47) — N/A 5.4 Rubbish Chutes, Incinerators, and Laundry Chutes — N/A SANFORD CITY CODE — CHAPTER 9 Fire Sprinklers — Required, Ordinary Group Two #2, no storage over 12' ft per design criteria Monitoring — Required, on fire sprinkler system OTHER — NFPA 1 SANFORD FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION 300 N. Park Ave., Sanford, Fl. 32771 / P. O. Box 1788, Sanford Fl. 32772 Office (40 7) 302-2520/FAX (40 7) 302-2526 Pager (407) 918-0395 3-5.1 Fire Lanes — Required if building is more than 150' from street, exception: building has a fire sprinkler system, F.D.C. required to be 25' (ft) from building not allowed on building 3-6.1 Key Box —Required, see application attached 3-7.1 Bldg. Address Number Posted & Legible — Required, will field verify, numbers of a contrasting color to background 1. Two (2) boundary and building location surveys showing setbacks from all structures to property lines. 2. Two (2) complete sets of construction design drawings drawn to scale. Complete sets to include: a. Approved site plan by Planning & Zoning Commission b. Foundation plan indicating footer sizes for all bearing walls. Provide side view details of these footers with reinforcement bar replacement. b. Floor plan indicating interior wall partitions and room identification, room dimensions, door, window, and/or opening sizes, and tenant separation and fire resistant walls. Need complete UL design noted. C. An elevation of all exterior walls - east, west, north, and south, including finish floor elevations. d. Structure details signed and sealed by engineer. e. Architectural drawings signed and sealed by architect. f. Electrical drawings signed and sealed by engineer, if over 600 AMPS. g. Mechanical drawings signed and sealed if 15 tons or more and/or $5,000.00 h. Plumbing drawings signed and sealed and shall comply with Florida Accessibility Code. i. Plans shall also show: 1. square footage 2. type of construction 3. occupancy classification (group) 4. occupant load 5. sprinklers, standpipes and alarm systems 6. fire protection requirements and NFPA requirements 7. Life Safety Code 101 3. Three (3) sets of completed Florida Energy Code Forms - signed and sealed by architect or engineer. (Z A-1c,C�a J -Z) 9I&g5 t I EiT/CA 4. Soil analysis and/or soil compaction report. If soils appear to be unstable or if structure is to be built on fill, a report may be requested by the Building Official or his representative. 5. Other submittal documents: a. Utility letter or approval when public water supply and/or sewer system connection to be made. b. Septic tank permit issued by Seminole County Health Dept. C. Arbor permit when trees to be removed from property. Contact the Engineering Dept. for details regarding the arbor ordinance and permit. d. Seminole County Road Impact fee statement. e. Property ownership verification. 6. Application to be completed thoroughly and signatures provided by a licensed and insured contractor and property owner. If electrical, mechanical, or plumbing permits have not been issued, inspections will not be scheduled or made and subcontractors will be subject to penalty under city ordinances. Date Owner/Agent Signature CUHACI & PETERSON, ARCHITECTS, L.L.C. 1220 Alden Road Orlando, Florida 32803-2546 407/228-4220 407/228-4219 FAX TO: City Of Sanford Building Department 300 N. Park Ave Sanford, FL 32771 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Copy of Letter LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: 2/24/2004 1JOB NO.: 202241 ATTENTION: Permitting Services RE: Permit Sets Rinehart Road Retail ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via _ ® Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Change Order ❑ 2 Construction Plans (Site and Building) 3 Energy Calculations 1 Soils Engineering Analysis 1 Permitting Form the following items: ❑ Specifications THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ® For Approval ❑ Approved as Submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For Your Use ❑ Approved as Noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As Requested ❑ Returned for Corrections ❑ Return corrects prints ® For Review & Comments ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US Remarks: COPY TO: File te SIGNED `b?- ZZS • 11276 CITY OF SANFORD FIRE DEPARTMENT FEES FOR SERVICES P ONE # 407-302-1091 * FAX #: 407-330-5677 ()C� ��O+ DATE: L" O PERMIT #: 3 1 f C)-J�\ �" BUSINESS NAME /PROJECT: Dig C9� n L I I R ADDRESS: PHONE NO.:66-7-)—�011) —L� FAX NO.��%D7 I v�oZ F1'-- � CONST. INSP. [ ] C / 0 INSP.:[ ] REINSPECTION [ J PLANS REVIEW F. A. [ ] F. S. [ ] HOOD [ ] PAINT BOOTH [) BURN PERMIT [ ] TENT PERMIT - J TANK PERMIT [ ] OTHER y TOTAL FEES: $ 1160 � �� (PER UNIT SEE BELOW) Address / Bldg. # / Unit # Square Footage Fees per Bldg. / Unit 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Fees must be paid to Sanford Building Department, 300 N. Park Ave., Sanford, FI. 32771 Phone # -407- 330-5656. Proof of Payment must be made to Fire Prevention division before any further services can take place. I certify that the above is true and correct and that I will comply with all applicable codes and ordinances of the City of Sanford, Florida. Sanford Fire P evention Division Applicant' ignature Ll COUNTY OF SEMINOLE IMPACT:-F'EE` STATEMENT -- , , STATEMENT NUMBER: 04100013 DATE: October 07, 2014 BUILDING APPLICATION #: 04-10001349 , OCT 1 8 2004 BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: 04-10001349 UNIT ADDRESS: RINEHART ROAD 1102 32-19-30-502-0+ TRAFFIC ZONE:022 JURISDICTION: SEC: TWP: RNG: SUF: PARCEL: SUBDIVISION: TRACT: PLAT BOOK: PLAT BOOK PAGE: BLOCK: LOT: OWNER NAME: ADDRESS: APPLICANT NAME: DENO P. DIKEOU ADDRESS: 502_ N. HWY 17 & 92 SUITE 200 LONGWOOD FL 32750 LAND USE: RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER TYPE USE: WORK DESCRIPTION: CITY-SANFORD SPECIAL NOTES: Lot #2 Sam's Wholesale Club ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEE BENEFIT RATE UNIT CALC UNIT TOTAL DUE TYPE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DIST SCHED RATE UNITS TYPE ROADS-ARTERIALS CO -WIDE ORD Retail < 50K Square Feet* 2,963.00 24.600 1000gsft 72,889.80 ROADS -COLLECTORS NORTH ORD Retail < 50K Square Feet* 600.00 24.600 1000gsft 14,760.00 FIRE RESCUE N/A .00 LIBRARY N/A .00 SCHOOLS N/A .00 PARKS N/A .00 LAW ENFORCE N/A '00 DRAINAGE N/A .00 AMOUNT DUE 87,649.80 STATEMENT II� n 1 RECEIVED BY: 16YLD�' � C_1!_ SIGNATURE: �D_ ( PLEASE PRINT NAME) DATE: C DI Dr� lo `- NOTE TO RECEIVING SIGNATORY/APPLICANT: FAILURE TO NOTIFY OWNER AND ENSURE TIMELY PAYMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR LIABILITY FOR THE FEE. *** DISTRIBUTION: 1 -BLDG DEPT 3 -APPLICANT 2 -FINANCE 4 -LAND MANAGEMENT **NOTE** PERSONS ARE ADVISED THAT THIS IS A STATEMENT OF FEES DUE UNDER THE SEMINOLE COUNTY ROAD, FIRE/RESCUE, LIBRARY AND/OR EDUCATIONAL ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PE IT. PERSONS ARE ALSO ADVISED THAT ANY RIGHTS OF THE APPLICANT, OR OWNER, TO APPEAL THE CALCULATION OF ANY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED IMPACT FEES MUST BE EXERCISED BY FILING A WRITTEN REQUEST WITHIN 45 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE RECEIVING SIGNATURE DATE ABOVE, BUT NOT LATER THAN CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR OCCUPANCY. THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE: COPIES OF RULES GOVERNING APPEALS MAY BE PICKED UP, OR REQUESTED, FROM THE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION OFFICE: 1101 EAST FIRST STREET, SANFORD FL, 32771; 407-665-7356. PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE TO: SEMINOLE COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1101 EAST FIRST STREET SANFORD, FL 32771 OR CITY OF SANFORD PAYMENT SHOULD BE BY CHECK OR MONEY ORDER, AND SHOULD REFE$ENCE THE COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER AT THE TOP LEFT OF THIS STATEMENT. ***THIS STATEMENT IS NO LONGER VALID IF A BUILDING PERMIT IS NOT*** ISSUED WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE RECEIVING SIGNATURE DATE ABOVE * DETAIL OF CALCULATION AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. CALL 407-665-7356. VO(), 00C) Sen' inole County Property Appraiser Get Information by Parcel Number Page 1 of 1 PARCEL DETAIL t CJ Back [> C Seminole Couniv D w Q i %*operiva-Appraiser - � ..' rjerrurs > x ., I lei K. Hirst St. m cA i 407.,h5-75416 2004 WORKING VALUE SUMMARY Value Method: Market GENERAL Number of Buildings: 0 Parcel Id: 32-19-30-502-0000-0020 Tax District: S1 -SAN FORD Depreciated Bldg Value: $0 Owner: DIKEOU DENO P Exemptions: Depreciated EXFT Value: $0 Address: 502 N HWY 17-92 STE 200 Land Value (Market): $648,012 City,State,ZipCode: LONGWOOD FL 32750 Land Value Ag: $0 Property Address: RINEHART RD Just/Market Value: $648,012 Facility Name: Assessed Value (SOH): $648,012 Dor: 10 -VAC GENERAL-COMMERCI Exempt Value: $0 Taxable Value: $648,012 SALES 2003 VALUE SUMMARY Deed Date Book Page Amount Vac/Imp SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED 08/2001 04183 0635 $669,600 Vacant 2003 Tax Bill Amount: $11,830 WARRANTY DEED 06/1993 02600 1644 $78,000 Vacant 2003 Taxable Value: $567,011 WARRANTY DEED 12/1979 01265 1570 $133,300 Vacant DOES NOT INCLUDE NON -AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS Find Comparable Sales within this DOR Code LAND Land Assess Land Unit Land LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLAT Frontae De Method gpth Units Price Value LOT 2 SANFORD SAMS CLUB PB 62 PGS 18 & 19 SQUARE FEET 0 0 108,002 6.00 $648,012 NOTE: Assessed values shown are NOT certified values and therefore are subject to change before being finalized for ad valorem tax purposes. '*' If you recently purchased a homesteaded property your next ear's property tax will be based on Just/Market value. http://www. sepafl.org/pls/web/re_web. seminole_county_title?PARCEL=321930502000000... 8/5/2004 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION WAL'MART - SANFORD WEST STORE NO. 3207-00 NEWSC-KELLY SITE SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROJECT NO. 70080-010-01 REPORT NO. 163635v3 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION WAL*MART - SANFORD WEST STORE NO. 3207-00 NEWSC-KELLY SITE SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROJECT NO. 70080-010-01 REPORT NO. 163635v3 Prepared For: CPH Engineers Post Office Box 2808 Sanford, Florida 32772-2808 (407) 322-6841 Prepared By: Universal Engineering Sciences 3532 Maggie Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32811 (407) 423-0504 April 12, 2001 Revised November 2, 2001 Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspections Offices in: Orlando • Gainesville • Riviera Beach • Rockledge 9 Daytona Beach • Punta Gorda • St. Augustine • Jacksonville • Ocala • Tampa Offices in UNIVERSAL •Orlando ENGINEERING SCIENCES •Gainesville • Fort Myers Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Threshold Inspection • Rockledge Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing • St. Augustine • Daytona Beach • West Palm Beach April 12, 2001 •Jacksonville •Ocala • Tampa • Debary CPH Engineers Post Office Box 2808 -" Sanford, Florida 32772-2808 Attention: Mr. Larry Wray, Project Manager Reference: Geotechnical Exploration Wal*Mart - Sanford West Store No. 3207-00 NewSC-Kelly Site Seminole County, Florida Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 Revised 11/02/01 Dear Mr. Wray: Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (UES) has completed the subsurface investigation of the site for the proposed new Wal*Mart store No. 3207-00 NewSC-Kelly Site in Sanford West, Florida. The scope of our investigation was planned in conjunction with and authorized by Mr. Kamran Khosravani, Executive Vice President of CPH Engineers, Inc. This report contains the results of our investigations, an engineering interpretation of these with respect to the project characteristics described to us, and recommendations for foundation design, pavement design, site preparation, and other geotechnical concerns. We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed. Respectfully submitted, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC. Guy . abens, S., E.I. Geotechnical Project Engineer Bruce H. Woloshin, P.E. P.E.. No. 36734 Manager - Geotechnical Engineering GHR/BHW:si cc: Client (6) 3532 Maggie Blvd. 9 Orlando, FI 32811 • (407) 423-0504 • Fax (407) 423-3106 Project No Report No, TABLE OF CONTENTS 70080-010-01 163635v3 Section Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................... 2 2.1 GENERAL ..................................................... 2 3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................ 2 3.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................ 2 3.2 PURPOSE ..................................................... 3 3.3 FIELD INVESTIGATION .......................................... 3 3.4 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ................................... 4 4.0 FINDINGS ......................... 6 4.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................... 6 4.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................... 6 4.2.1 General Soil Profile - Parking and Driveway Areas ............... 7 4.2.2 General Soil Profile - Stormwater Management Areas ............. 8 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 9 5.1 GENERAL ..................................................... 9 5.2 GROUNDWATER CONTROL ...................................... 9 5.3 WEATHER CONSIDERATIONS ................................... 12 5.4 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS ....................................... 13 5.4.1 General ............................................... 13 5.4.2 Bearing Pressure ........................................ 13 5.4.3 Foundation Size ......................................... 13 5.4.4 Bearing Depth .......................................... 13 5.4.5 Bearing Material ......................................... 14 5.4.6 Settlement Estimates ..................................... 14 5.5 SUBGRADE MODULUS, FLOOR SLABS, AND SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ............................................14 5.5.1 Subgrade Modulus ....................................... 14 5.5.2 Vapor Barrier .......................................... 15 5.5.3 Seismic Considerations ................................... 15 5.6 TLE SERVICE PIT STRUCTURE .................................. 15 5.6.1 Lateral Earth Pressure .................................... 16 5.6.2 Groundwater Concerns ................................... 17 5.7 LABORATORY TESTING -NATIVE SUBGRADE SOILS ................ 17 5.7.1 Test Results ............................................ 17 - 5.7.2 Soil pH and Resistivity Discussion ........................... 18 5.8 ON-SITE PAVEMENTS .......................................... 19 5.8.1 Flexible Pavements ...................................... 19 Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED... 5.8.1.1 General ........................................ 19 5.8.1.2 Layer Components ............................... 19 5.8.1.3 Stabilized Subgrade ............................... 21 5.8.1.4 Base Course .................................... 21 5.8.1.5 Surface Course .... 22 5.8.1.6 Effects of Groundwater ............................ 23 5.8.1.7 Curbing ........................................ 23 5.8.1.8 Construction Traffic .. .... ..................... 23 5.8.2 Rigid Pavements ........................................ 23 5.9 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS ............................ 25 5.9.1 General ............................................... 25 5.9.2 Groundwater Levels ...................................... 26 5.9.3 Site Soil Fill Suitability .................................... 28 5.10 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................... 29 5.10.1 Muck Probe Evaluations ................................. 29 5.10.2 Alternative Base Course Material ........................... 30 5.11 SITE PREPARATION .......................................... 31 5.12 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES ........................... 33 6.0 LIMITATIONS ... .............. ... 34 iv LIST OF APPENDICES 91 F4► FBI Wim Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 SITE LOCATION MAP ............................................. A-1 BORING LOCATION PLAN ......................................... B-1 BORING LOGS .................................................. B-2 SOILS CLASSIFICATION CHART ................................... B-3 DESCRIPTION OF LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES ................. B-4 APPENDIX C LIMEROCK BEARING RATIO (LBR).................................. C-1 MODIFIED PROCTOR CURVES ....... ........ .................. C-2 APPENDIX D PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS ............................... D-1 DATASHEETS .................................................. D-2 FDOT NOMOGRAPHS ............................................ D-3 APPENDIX E WAL*MART "GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SPECIFICATION AND REPORT REQUIREMENTS FOR FLORIDA PROJECTS" ...... E-1 APPENDIX F IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ............................. F-1 CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS ................................ F-2 UT 'u/ Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In summary, we understand you propose to construct a new Wal*Mart Super Center store on this site. We have performed field and laboratory investigations to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation design, pavement design, site preparation, and other geotechnical concerns. The soils encountered consisted primarily of loose to medium dense sands with low silt contents in the upper 3 to 4 feet, underlain by a layer of silty and clayey sand ranqinq from 3 to 5 feet in depth. Sand with silt to silty sands followed to the lower portions of the soil profiles. The estimated seasonal high groundwater level could be on the order of +2 feet above to 5 feet below the existing grades at the boring locations. We have recommended that the proposed structure be supported on conventional, shallow spread foundations with allowable soil bearing pressures of 3,000 psf. Pavements should be designed as a function of the anticipated traffic loadings. We recommend using a three -layer pavement section consisting of stabilized subgrade, base course, and a surface course. All pavement designs should incorporate the effects of groundwater, irrigated landscape areas, and construction traffic. We have provided site specific recommendations regarding site preparation procedures for the proposed construction; please refer to Foundation and Site Preparation sections of this report for a more detailed discussion of our recommendations. A summary of the pertinent geotechnical parameters and recommendations appears in Appendix E which includes the Wal*Mart Geotechnical Investigation Fact Sheets. We hope this report meets your needs and discusses the problems associated with the proposed development. We would be pleased to meet with you and discuss any geotechnical engineering aspects of the project. Page 1 of 34 Pages 02 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 GENERAL Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 In this report, we present the results of the subsurface investigation of the site for the proposed new Wal*Mart store No. 3207-00 planned for the Kelly site in Sanford West, Florida. We have divided this report into the following sections: • SCOPE OF SERVICES - Defines what we did • FINDINGS - Describes what we encountered • RECOMMENDATIONS - Describes what we encourage you to do • LIMITATIONS - Describes the restrictions inherent in this report • SUMMARY - Reviews the material in this report • APPENDICES - Presents support materials referenced in this report. 3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 3.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand you propose to construct an approximately 208,000 square foot Wal*Mart Super Center store with a TLE facility (automobile service pit), as well as associated parking and stormwater management areas on this site. We were provided with a preliminary site plan and digital file prepared by CPH Engineers, Inc., dated February 2001 indicating the proposed site configuration. Additionally, we were provided with a boring location and site topography plan prepared by Lochrane Consulting Engineers indicating the locations and ground surface elevations of the borings staked by Lochrane for the field investigation. Further, we were provided with a copy of the Wal*Mart "Geotechnical Investigation Specification and Report Requirements for Florida Projects" document outlining the project requirements. We used the plans and information provided in preparing our investigation and performing our evaluations. Based on the loading information supplied, we understand that the anticipated maximum column foundation loads are expected to be on the order of 50 and 150 kips for exterior and - interior columns, respectively, with the interior column subject to typical gravity loads on the order of 65 kips. The maximum wall loads are 4 to 6 kips per lineal foot for the load-bearing exterior block walls, and 1.5 to 2 kips per lineal foot for non -load bearing wall. The preliminary information provided by CPH Engineers, indicates that the proposed finished. floor elevation of the Wal*Mart structure will be on the order of 40.0, with pavement area grades ranging from 33 to 40 feet and that the project will include two wet detention stormwater management areas. Page 2 of 34 Pages Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 Our recommendations are based upon the above considerations. If any of this information is incorrect or if you anticipate any changes, inform Universal Engineering Sciences so that we may review our recommendations. The site is located east of the existing Seminole Town Center at the southeastern corner of the proposed St. Johns Parkway and Rinehart Road in Seminole County, Florida. Further, the site lies in Section 28, Township 19 South, Range 30 East. A general location map of the project area appears in Appendix A: Site Location Map. 3.2 PURPOSE The purposes of this investigation were: • to investigate the general subsurface conditions at the site; • to interpret and review the subsurface conditions with respect to the proposed construction; and • to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for groundwater control, foundation design, pavement design, site preparation, and other geotechnical considerations. This report presents an evaluation of site conditions on the basis of traditional geotechnical procedures for site characterization. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. } Our investigation was confined to the zone of soil likely to be stressed by the proposed construction. Our work did not address the potential for surface expression of deep geological conditions, such as sinkhole development related to karst activity. This evaluation requires a more extensive range of field services than performed in this study. We will be pleased to conduct an investigation to evaluate the probable effect of the regional geology upon the proposed construction, if you desire. 3.3 FIELD INVESTIGATION The subsurface conditions were evaluated with 15 test borings advanced to a depth of 20 feet below existing grade, while performing the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). We performed the Standard Penetration Test according to the procedures of ASTM D-1586; however, we used continuous sampling to detect slight variations in the soil profile at shallow depths. The basic procedure for the Standard Penetration Test is as follows: A standard split -barrel sampler is driven into the soil by a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 1 -foot, after seating 6 inches, is designated the penetration resistance, or N -value; this value is an index to soil strength and consistency. Page 3 of 34 Pages go Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 Additionally, we completed 45 flight auger borings to a depth of 10 feet below the existing grades according to the procedures of ASTM D-1452. We performed the auger probe borings by advancing a slender, solid -stem auger into the soil to the required depth. We evaluated the soil type by visually inspecting the cuttings recovered from the auger flights. The borings performed were allocated to the project development areas as listed below: Wal*Mart store structure: 15 SPT borings to 20 feet Wal*Mart parking lot and driveways: 25 auger borings to 10 feet Stormwater management areas: 20 auger borings to 10 feet The boring locations were staked in the field by surveyors of Lochrane Consulting Engineers at locations selected by Universal Engineering Sciences. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were obtained by the survey crews of Lochrane. The boring locations were selected based on the plan provided. Following the completion of the initial field investigation, we performed a muck survey to determine the areal extent and depth of surficial organic soil deposits on site within the cow pond and stormwater retention ponds. The muck probes were performed by manually advancing a slender, segmented steel rod through the soft surficial organic soils to evaluate, subjectively, the depth of transition to firm underlying sand. Random manual auger borings were performed to verify and evaluate the soil type and depths. No survey control was available for our muck probe investigation. Consider the indicated muck probe locations and depths to be approximate. Our field crew located the nearest staked and surveyed boring locations in areas to be probed and performed probes based upon estimated distances and relationships to these surveyed boring locations. Jar samples of the soils encountered will be held in our laboratory for your inspection for 6 months as required by Wal*Mart requirements, and then discarded unless we are notified otherwise. 3.4 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION The soil samples recovered from the soil test borings were returned to our laboratory where an engineer visually examined and reviewed the field descriptions. We selected representative soil samples for laboratory testing consisting of 29 wash No. 200 sieve analyses, 3 organic content determinations, and 32 moisture content determinations. Additionally, we performed corrosion series testing consisting of 2 pH determinations and 2 resistivity tests on representative samples recovered from the site. Further testing performed on samples recovered from the site included 2 Modified Proctors and 1 Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) test on representative parking area and building area subgrade soils. Page 4 of 34 Pages r.. Project No. 70080-010-01 {; Report No. 163635v3 We performed these tests to aid in classifying the soils and to help to evaluate the general engineering characteristics of the site soils. The laboratory test results are included on the boring logs included in Appendix B. A further discussion of the pH, resistivity, Proctor and LBR test results are included in a later section of this report. Also, see Appendix B: Boring Logs and Description of Testing Procedures, for further data and explanations. Page 5 of 34 Pages go 4.0 FINDINGS 4.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 Site specific topographic information has been provided in the form of ground surface elevations at the boring locations. The site topography includes a significant slope down to the west, and we understand that significant grading cuts and fill sections are anticipated. The site is currently undeveloped with the vegetation on the site consisting primarily of grasses, pine, palmetto, bay and scrub oak trees. Review of the topographic contours depicted on the aerial photograph provided indicates that the site displays little relief with elevations ranging from 30 to 35 feet. The USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for Seminole County (March 1990) identified four soil types on the project site, including Astatula/Apopka, Basinger/Samsula/Hontoon, Basinger/Smyrna and Myakka/EauGallie. The Astatula/Apopka series consists of soils that are nearly level to strongly sloping and excessively drained. These soils are formed in thick deposits of marine sand and are found on ridges and hillsides of the uplands. The water table is at a depth of more than 60 inches. These soils are found in the southern portion of the site. Basinger/Samsula/Hontoon and Basinger/Smyrna soils are of poorly drained and are commonly related to low lying depressions or swamps. Further, muck formations are common in this area. The slopes are less than 2 percent. These soils can be found in the eastern portion of the site. Myakka/EauGallie series consist of soils that are poorly drained and are formed from marine sediment. These soils are generally associated with broad plains on the flatwoods. These soils can be found in the majority of the site. 4.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The boring locations and detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated in Appendix B: Boring Location Plan and Boring Logs. The classifications and descriptions shown on the logs are generally based upon visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples and a limited number of laboratory tests. Also, see Appendix B: Soils Classification Chart, for further explanation of the symbols and placement of data on the Boring Logs. Table 1: General Soil Profile — Building Areas, summarizes the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations performed in the proposed Wal*Mart and retail building areas. The soil conditions encountered at the boring locations performed in the proposed parking lots and stormwater management area is discussed in the paragraphs following Table 1. The soil profiles encountered in our borings are generally consistent with those described in the SCS Soil Survey for Seminole County, Florida. Page 6 of 34 Pages - Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 TABLE 1: General Soil Profile - Building Area Typiycal Depth (ftpr��a RZ �Typ1cal5S�oil Desc�iptton . su, 0 - 2 Loose to medium dense, gray and brown fine SAND to fine SAND with silt [SP, SP -SM] 2 - 5 Loose to medium dense, gray -brown silty clayey SAND to clayey SAND [SC - SM, SC] 5-13.5 Medium dense to dense, gray -brown fine SAND to fine SAND with silt [SP, SP -SM] 13.5 - 20* Very loose to loose, greenish -gray to gray -brown, silty SAND [SM] Termination of Deepest Boring [ ] Bracketed Text Indicates: Unified Soil Classification We encountered the groundwater level at the boring locations performed in the building area between the depths of 1.3 and 8 feet below the existing grades, ranging in elevation from 25.8 to 32.0 feet. A notable exception to the profile described above was the presence of layers of surficial organic material in borings B-2 and B-3 ranging in depth from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 1 foot below current grade. The organic soils encountered, and our recommendations regarding their removal and replacement with compacted structural fill, are discussed in more detail in Section 5.10 following later in this report. 4.2.1 General Soil Profile - Parking and Driveway Areas The soils encountered at the majority of the auger boring locations performed in the proposed parking and driveway areas were similar to those found in the upper portion of the soil profile encountered in the building area, with the soil profile typically consisting of several shades of gray and brown fine sand with varying amounts of silt [SP, SP -SM, SM]. A notable exception to the profile described above was the presence of layers of silty clayey sand, clayey sand, and clay in borings R-2, R-12, R-13, R-14, R-16, R-17, and R-23 occurring at varying depths and thicknesses. These materials appeared to have a random stratification. Additionally, we encountered a layer of surficial organic material in borings R-8, R-9, R-10, R- 11, R-15, and R-23 ranging in depth from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 1 foot below current grade. The groundwater level was encountered at the boring locations performed in the parking and roadway areas between the depths of approximately 1 and 8.9 feet below the existing grades during the period of our field investigation, with the groundwater levels ranging in elevation from 31.6 to 42.9 feet. Page 7 of 34 Pages Ea Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 4.2.2 General Soil Profile - Stormwater Management Areas The soil conditions in the proposed stormwater management ponds were evaluated with 20 auger borings advanced to a depth of 10 feet below the existing grades. Ten borings were performed in the pond located in the northwestern corner of the property in the parking area (locations P-1 through P-10) and ten borings were performed in the pond in the southeastern corner of the property behind the proposed building (locations P-10 through P-20). The typical soil profile encountered in the pond located in the northwestern corner of the property in the parking area (locations P-1 through P-10) consisted of a light gray -brown fine sand to fine sand with a trace of silt [SP, SP -SM] from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 4 feet. From 4 to 10 feet, the boring termination depth, was a gray -brown silty and clayey fine sand [SM, SC -SM, SC]. An exception to this typical profile was the presence of organic material in borings P-1, P-2, and P-3 ranging in depth from 0 to 3.5 feet below current grade. The groundwater level was encountered between the depths of approximately 3 and 7 feet below the existing grades. The typical soil profile encountered in the pond located in the southeastern corner of the property behind the proposed building (locations P-11 through P-20) didn't appear to have a consistent stratification. The soil profiles ranged from gray and brown fine sand with traces of silt [SP, SP -SM] from the ground surface to a depth of 10 feet to gray and brown fine sand with layers of silty and clayey sand occurring at different depths and thicknesses. Additionally, organic materials were encountered in borings P-12, P-13, and P-19 ranging in depth from 0 to 4 feet below current grade. The groundwater level was encountered between the depths of approximately 2 and 10 feet below the existing grades. A more detailed discussion of the suitability of the soils encountered for use as structural fill material follows in the later section of this report, Section 5.9.3 Site Soil Fill Suitability. Page 8 of 34 Pages so 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 GENERAL Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 The following recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached soil test data, our understanding of the proposed construction, and experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions. If the structural loadings, building locations, or grading plans change from those discussed previously, we request the opportunity to review and possibly amend our recommendations with respect to those changes. Additionally, if subsurface conditions are encountered during construction which were not encountered in the borings, report those conditions immediately to us for observation and recommendations. In this section of the report, we present our detailed recommendations for groundwater control, weather considerations, building foundations, subgrade modulus, TLE service pit structure, pavements, site preparation, and construction related services. 5.2 GROUNDWATER CONTROL The groundwater table will fluctuate seasonally depending upon local rainfall. The rainy season in Central Florida normally occurs between June and September. Based upon our review of the soil and groundwater conditions encountered during the field investigation, U.S.G.S. data, Seminole County Soils Survey, and regional hydrogeology, we estimate that the seasonal high groundwater levels could range from +2 feet above to 5 feet below the existing grade at the test boring locations. The elevations of our estimated seasonal high groundwater levels range from 30.8 at boring location B-1 in the proposed building area to 42.9 at boring location R-7 performed in the south western entrance road off of Rinehart Road. The following table, Table 2, summarizes the encountered and estimated seasonal high groundwater levels at the boring locations in the building, parking, and driveway areas of the site. A similar table of the water levels for the borings performed in the stormwater management area is presented in a later section of this report concerning stormwater, Section 5.9 Stormwater Management Area Soils. The existing and estimated seasonal high groundwater table at each location also appears on the boring logs included in Appendix B. Page 9 of 34 Pages Project No Report No, TABLE 2: GROUNDWATER LEVELS 70080-010-01 163635v3 Boring Number Elevation Encountered GWT ft. 24 HR Stabilized GWT ft. Stabilized GWT Elevation'' Estimated SHGWft: SHGW •. Elevation WAL*MART BUILDING B-1 31.8 6.0 6.0 25.8 1.0 30.8 - B-2 33.5 1.3 1.5 32.0 +2.0 35.5 B-3 32.9 1.3 1.3 31.6 +2.0 34.9 B-4 35.0 5.4 5.6 29.4 1.0 34.0 B-5 35.1 5.3 4.3 30.8 0.0 35.1 B-6 35.7 3.8 4.0 31.7 0.0 35.7 B-7 37.1 5.6 7.0 30.1 1.0 36.1 - B-8 36.5 6.0 6.9 29.6 1.0 35.5 - B-9 34.6 5.3 6.7 27.9 1.0 33.6 B-10 34.8 5.3 6.3 28.5 1.0 33.8 B-11 35.7 5.8 6.9 28.8 1.0 34.7 B-12 39.6 9.4 8.0 31.6 1.0 38.6 B-13 35.3 6.8 7.0 28.3 1.0 34.3 - B-14 37.6 5.3 6.2 31.4 1.0 36.6 B-15 32.3 4.1 4.8 27.5 0.5 31.8 PAVEMENT AREAS R-1 37.4 8.3 8.3 29.1 1.0 36.4 R-2 39.4 9.0 8.9 30.5 1.0 38.4 R-3 37.6 5.3 5.3 32.3 0.5 37.1 R-4 41.6 8.5 8.5 33.1 1.0 40.6 R-5 38.7 5.0 5.2 33.5 0.5 38.2 R-6 42.2 7.4 7.5 34.7 1.0 41.2 R-7 43.9 8.2 8.3 35.6 1.0 42.9 R-8 32.9 1.0 1.0 31.9 +2.0 34.9 R-9 34.1 2.5 2.3 31.8 +2.0 36.1 R-10 33.4 3.0 3.2 30.2 +1.0 34.4 Page 10 of 34 Pages 4 o Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 Boring Number Elevation Encountered GWT ft.) 24'HR Stabilized MT (ft.) Stabilized' x'' GWT Elevation Estimated SHGW' ft.) SHGW Elevation R-11 33.9 2.8 2.9 31.0 +2.0 35.9 R-12 33.8 5.8 5.5 28.3 0.5 33.3 R-13 33.7 6.3 6.4 27.3 1.0 32.7 R-14 32.5 4.8 4.9 27.6 0.5 32.0 R-15 31.8 1.9 1.9 29.9 +2.0 33.8 R-16 31.0 3.6 3.7 27.3 +1.0 32.0 R-17 32.6 7.3 7.2 25.4 1.0 31.6 R-18 33.9 6.2 7.0 26.9 1.0 32.9 R-19 33.3 6.1 6.2 27.1 1.0 32.3 R-20 32.9 7.2 7.3 25.6 1.0 31.9 R-21 32.9 6.8 7.3 25.6 1.0 31.9 R-22 33.3 6.0 6.2 27.1 1.0 32.3 R-23 31.6 5.2 3.2 28.4 1.0 32.6 R-24 32.6 5.7 5.8 26.8 0.5 32.1 R-25 33.4 7.3 7.8 25.6 1.0 32.4 NOTE: Ground surface elevations provided by Lochrane Engineers, Inc. (+) indicates above the ground surface Elevations rounded to nearest tenth GWT denoted groundwater level SHGW denoted seasonal high groundwater level It should be noted that the estimated seasonal high groundwater levels do not provide any assurance that groundwater levels will not exceed these estimated levels during any given year in the future. Should impediments to surface water drainage exist on the site, or should rainfall intensity and duration, or total rainfall quantities, exceed the normally anticipated rainfall quantities, groundwater levels may exceed our seasonal high estimates. We recommend positive drainage be established and maintained on the site during construction. We further recommend permanent measures be constructed to maintain positive drainage from the site throughout the life of the project. Additionally, we recommend all foundation designs, pavement designs, and stormwater retention analyses incorporate consideration of the seasonal high groundwater conditions. Temporary dewatering will likely be required at this site if construction proceeds during the wet season, particularly during the installation of underground utility structures and below grade Page 11 of 34 Pages Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 structures such as the truck dock and automobile lubrication pit. Where structures such as these are included in the final project design, we recommend that the contract documents provide for determining the depth to groundwaterjust prior to construction, and for any remedial dewatering which may be required. Further, we recommend that the groundwater table be maintained at least 24 inches below all earthwork and compaction surfaces during construction. From our review of the estimated seasonal high groundwater levels, we anticipate that the seasonal high groundwater level may pose a constraint if construction proceeds during the rainy season. As discussed above, the underlying silty and clayey sand strata encountered in some areas of the site may contribute to temporary perched groundwater conditions following prolonged and/or heavy rainfall, resulting in saturated surface soils. In the event that heavy rainfall during construction activities resulted in temporary perched groundwater conditions, saturated soils should be windrowed and aerated to reduce the moisture contents .prior to further earthwork operations. Additionally, please note that temporary dewatering measures may be required to achieve compaction of soils in areas such as truck docks and service pits where the foundations extend below the groundwater level. Also, please refer to the Pavement section included later in this report for an additional discussion regarding our recommendations on groundwater control in the pavement areas of the site. 5.3 WEATHER CONSIDERATIONS As noted in the previous section, the rainy season in Central Florida normally occurs between the months of June through September with the potential for additional heavy rainfall continuing through the end of the hurricane season in November. During this period, frequent afternoon thunderstorms are likely, with short periods of intense rainfall. The groundwater level typically rises to the estimated seasonal high level during the latter part of the rainy season and earthwork extending below the seasonal high groundwater levels may require temporary dewatering measures. Further, the short periods of intense rainfall can saturate surface soils, leading to instability during compaction and placement. To minimize the potential for moisture related instability during compaction, we recommend that fill material .imported for use on the site contain less than 5 percent soil fines passing a No. 200 sieve. Imported fill soils and excess native soils generated during earthwork operations with fines contents between 5 and 12 percent may also be used; however, these soils may require stricter moisture control measures to minimize the potential for moisture -related instability during stockpiling, placement, and compaction. If native soils with higher fines contents excavated from the stormwater management ponds are to be used as structural fill, they should be handled in accordance with the recommendations presented in the "Site Soil Fill Suitability" section following later in this report. Page 12 of 34 Pages go Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 As discussed in previous sections of this report, the seasonal high groundwater level is expected to be relatively shallow over much of the site, with scattered areas of perched groundwater at or near the ground surface where near -surface restrictive layers are present that tend to retard infiltration and contribute to perched groundwater levels during periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. Where the subgrade soils become saturated and unstable due to rainfall, the contractor should be prepared to windrow and aerate the soils to promote drying. In cases of extreme saturation, temporary dewatering or over -excavation, and replacement of saturated soils may be required. If construction proceeds during the drier portions of the year (December through May), additional applications of water may be required to maintain soil moisture contents in the optimum range during compaction activities. The contractor should be prepared with sufficient equipment (water trucks, tankers, and hydrant meters) to provide water to adequately wet the subgrade soils and maintain the appropriate moisture contents. 5.4 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS 5.4.1 General Provided the soils are compacted in accordance with the site preparation recommendations outlined in Section 5.11 of this report, we recommend that the proposed structures be supported on conventional, shallow spread foundations. The following parameters may be used for foundation design. 5.4.2 Bearing Pressure The maximum allowable net soil bearing pressure for shallow foundations should not exceed 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Net bearing pressure is defined as the soil bearing pressure at the base of the foundation in excess of the natural overburden pressure. The foundations should be designed based upon the maximum load that could be imposed by all loading conditions. 5.4.3 Foundation Size The minimum widths recommended for any isolated column footing and continuous wall footing are 24 inches and 18 inches, respectively. Even though the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure may not be achieved, these width recommendations should control the size of the foundations. 5.4.4 Bearing Depth The foundations should bear at a depth of at least 18 inches below the exterior final grades. We recommend stormwater and surface water run-off be diverted away from the building exterior, both during and after construction to reduce the possibility of erosion beneath the exterior footings. Page 13 of 34 Pages Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 5.4.5 Bearing Material The foundations may bear on either the compacted suitable natural soils or compacted structural fill. The bearing level soils, after compaction, should have a minimum density of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the bearing soils as determined by ASTM D- 1557 (Modified Proctor) to a depth of at least 3 feet below the base of the foundations. In addition to compaction the bearing soils must exhibit stability and be free of "pumping" conditions. 5.4.6 Settlement Estimates Post -construction settlement of the structure will be influenced by several interrelated factors, such as (1) subsurface stratification and strength/compressibility characteristics of the bearing soils to a depth of approximately twice the width of the footing; (2) footing size, bearing level, applied loads, and resulting bearing pressures beneath the foundation; and (3) site preparation and earthwork construction techniques used by the contractor. Our settlement estimates for the structure are based upon the use of successful adherence to the site preparation recommendations presented later in this report. Any deviation from these recommendations could result in an increase in the estimated post -construction settlement of the structure. Due to the sandy nature of the surficial soils, we expect a significant portion of settlement to occur in a fairly rapid elastic manner following fill placement, compaction operations, and during construction. Using the recommended maximum bearing pressure, the indicated maximum structural loads, and the field and laboratory test data which we have correlated into the strength and compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils, we estimate the total settlements of the structure to be 1 -inch or less. Differential settlements result from differences in applied bearing pressures and the variations in the compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils. For the building pads prepared as recommended, we anticipate differential settlement of less than %-inch. 5.5 SUBGRADE MODULUS, FLOOR SLABS, AND SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 5.5.1 Subgrade Modulus Following completion of the site preparation procedures outlined in the Site Preparation section of this report, the subgrade soils and compacted fill should be suitable for slab -on -grade support. We recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch for soil -structure design of slab -on -grade concrete floors. This value should be attainable using standard, good practice site preparation techniques without additional costs Page 14 of 34 Pages RP Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 5.5.2 Vapor Barrier The Wal*Mart geotechnical requirements prefer the use of a capillary break consisting of free - draining crushed aggregate. The specifications further suggest the elimination of a plastic vapor barrier unless justified by severe site conditions or local ordinance. In addressing the requirements outlined in the Wal*Mart "Geotechnical Investigation Specifications and Report Requirements for Florida Projects," we contacted the City of Sanford for information regarding the City regulations concerning the use of vapor barriers beneath floor slabs. We were informed by Mr. Bob Bott of the City of Sanford Building and Inspections Department that the City requires the use of vapor barriers beneath floor slabs in all heated and air-conditioned areas. Floor slab vapor barriers consisting of polyethylene plastic sheets are typically used in Florida to reduce floor dampness and minimize moisture emissions through floor slabs. Moisture emissions through slabs can cause detrimental effects on floor coverings, include bleeding of mastic adhesive through joints and the loosening or detachment of the and carpet. In conformance with the City requirements, and to minimize the potential for poor performance of floor coverings (tile, carpet, etc.) due to moisture emissions through the slab, we recommend the use of a vapor barrier beneath the floor slab. The vapor barrier should consist of a plastic sheet or membrane (6 MIL polyethylene) and care should be exercised during construction to prevent tearing or puncturing of the sheet prior to slab placement. The vapor barrier should be placed atop the finished compacted subgrade and overlain by 2 inches of crushed stone meeting the gradation requirements for FDOT No. 57 size coarse aggregate (FDOT 901-1.4) to provide a permeable absorptive base beneath slab. NOTE: Review of the gradation specifications contained in the FDOT "Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction" indicates that the No. 57 size coarse aggregate conforms to the Wal*Mart requirement for capillary breaks (ASTM reference standard D2321, Table 1, Class IA). 5.5.3 Seismic Considerations The project site is located in a seismic zone O as determined in Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code. No liquefaction potential is considered and we do not recommend any additional investigations on this basis. 5.6 TLE SERVICE PIT STRUCTURE The preliminary plans provided indicate that the proposed store will include a below grade automobile service pit structure. Presented in the following paragraphs are our preliminary recommendations concerning these structures. Page 15 of 34 Pages ur Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 5.6.1 Lateral Earth Pressure - Below grade walls of automobile service pits and other buried structures must be designed to withstand the soil pressure which will act upon those structures. Rigid or unmoving structures should be designed to resist soil pressures developed in the "at -rest" condition. Where retaining structure are not constrained, the "active" and resistive "passive" (if any) conditions apply. Further, in cases where the dock or retaining structure extends below the seasonal high groundwater level, the hydrostatic effects of groundwater must be considered as a part of the lateral earth pressure diagram. In addition, hydrostatic pressures can result in a net "uplift" condition and may require that the designs include ballast or other anchorage to prevent displacement of the buried structures. To assist in the preliminary design phases, we have provided lateral earth pressure coefficients for the at -rest, active, and passive conditions. We developed these coefficients based on the soil and groundwater level information obtained during our field investigation, and the grading information provided. The recommended parameters for the "at -rest" condition are as follows: "At -rest" Condition: phi (f) angle: 30 degrees Ko coefficient: 0.50 For the active and passive wall conditions, we recommend the following parameters: "Active" Condition: Active coefficient Ka: Wall friction coefficient d Backfill angle b: Equivalent fluid pressure "Passive" Condition: Passive coefficient KP: Wall friction coefficient d Backfill angle b: 0.33 0.2 0 degrees 66 pcf (assumes hydrostatic pressure to SHGW elevation); this includes a surcharge of 250 psf and an estimated seasonal high GWT depth of 5.5 feet below the proposed finish floor elevation of 40. 3.0 0.2 0 degrees The active condition equivalent fluid pressures described above are based upon a unit weight of 120 pcf. The equivalent fluid pressure noted above is based on an anticipated TLE pit depth - of 10 feet below the assumed finished floor elevation of 40, and assumes the hydrostatic pressure associated with the rise in the groundwater level to the seasonal high conditions at the boring performed in the TLE pit location (boring location B-13 with an estimated seasonal - high groundwater elevation of 34.3). Please note that other factors, such as surcharge loads imposed by equipment, internal structures or vehicular traffic, may significantly increase later Page 16 of 34 Pages tD Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 earth pressures. Where retaining walls or below grade truck dock structures are included in the final site design, we recommend that the plans be reviewed by an experienced geotechnical engineer and that a complete stability analysis be performed based on the actual soil, fill, and load conditions at the structure locations. 5.6.2 Groundwater Concerns Based on our understanding that the Wal*Mart structure may include an automobile service pit - with below grade structure extending below the groundwater level, we recommend that this pit be constructed as a waterproof structure. Alternatively, additional groundwater control measures may be used to prevent water intrusion into the structure. These measures may include waterproofing for the below grade walls, and a sub -floor and perimeter wall drainage system, as well as a sump pump system for the proposed pit area. As the project design progresses, we recommend that the final plans be reviewed by an experienced geotechnical engineer with specific attention given to dewatering concerns. Similarly, the preliminary plans provided indicate that a truck dock will be included in the structure design. If the truck dock will extend below the high groundwater level, underdrains and/or a sump pump system will likely be required for groundwater control in the dock area. Additionally, flexible pavement sections used in this area may also require underdrains to provide sufficient separation between the bottom of the base course and seasonal high groundwater levels. Where retaining walls are included in the truck dock design, adequate weepholes should be included in the final design to minimize the potential for hydrostatic pressure buildup behind the wall. Backfill placed behind truck dock and retaining wall structures should consist of free - draining, "clean," fine sand with less than 5 percent soil fines, extending from immediately behind that wall to a distance of 5 feet behind the retaining structure. As discussed in the preceding "Groundwater Control" section of this report, temporary dewatering will likely be required during the construction of below grade truck docks and service pit areas which extend below the seasonal high groundwater levels. 5.7 LABORATORY TESTING - NATIVE SUBGRADE SOILS 5.7.1 Test Results The results of the laboratory testing performed on subgrade samples from the proposed parking and building areas are presented below in Table 3: Page 17 of 34 Pages Project No Report No. Table 3: Laboratory Testing Results 70080-010-01 163635v3 �1k:...w'� dam«..w:..- _..,`..br`a �—"'^�'��' s �l.ocatwon9 „�..� F ,»�`��, . �"P"�»u.�"�w.'i� �z Resulf,� ; ��e , � ,r �a�a.• " �.��ae`-"sa�.��:� � Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) 1) Parking Lot 1) maximum LBR: 24 Modified Proctor 1) Parking Lot 1) maximum dry density: 105 pcf (Moisture Density Test) optimum moisture content: 13% percent passing #200 sieve: 6% 2) Building 2) maximum dry density: 101 pcf optimum moisture content: 14% percent passing #200 sieve: 6% pH 1) Parking Lot 1) 6.35 2) Building 2) 5.88 Resistivity 1) Parking Lot 1) 23,000 ohm -cm 2) Building 2) 18,000 ohm -cm The laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of native subgrade soils encountered on the site. Test locations were selected based upon the structure/parking area locations and proposed grades shown on the plan provided. If varying native soils are encountered, or if fill is imported onto the site, we recommend that additional Modified Proctor and LBR tests be performed on representative samples of the materials actually used on the site. A more detailed presentation of the test results, including the Limerock Bearing Ratio and Modified Proctor curves, appears in Appendix C. Based on the results of our evaluation, we anticipate that normal, good practice site stripping procedures will address the surficial sands encountered on the site. The organic soils encountered at locations B-2, B-3, R-8, R-9, R-10, R-11, R-15, and R-23 will require excavation and replacement with compacted structural fill. Our recommendations regarding these soils are presented in Section 5.9.3 following later in this report. 5.7.2 Soil pH and Resistivity Discussion The laboratory testing performed on representative samples recovered from the site resulted in soil pH values ranging from 5.88 to 6.35 and resistivity values between 18,000 and 23,000 ohm -cm. The SCS Soil Survey lists the typically expected range of pH values for the soil types described on the site as follows (the Soil Survey does not provide any information regarding soil resistivity values): Page 18 of 34 Pages --- . _ ._l p Project No. Report No. Table 4: Soil pH and Resistivity Results 70080-010-01 163635v3 w: 6 Astatula/Apopka 4.5 to 6.5 10 Basinger/Samsula/Hontoon 3.6 to 7.3 11 Basinger/Smyrna 3.6 to 7.3 r2O M akka/EauGallie 3.6 to 7.8 Review of the test results indicate that the pH values are within the range typically expected for the site soils described in the Soil Survey. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) guidelines for both pre -cast and cast -in- place concrete substructures (below grade structures such as footings, retaining walls, and pre- cast piping) indicate that the pH values of the samples tested fall within the classifications of moderately aggressive (pH of 6.47) to slightly aggressive (pH of 6.89). The soil resistivity values for both samples fall within the "slightly aggressive" classification. Based on our review of the test results and past experience with similar soils, we do not anticipate that cement other than Type I will be required; however, protective coating for sensitive items may be necessary for concrete structures which extend below the seasonal high groundwater level. Accelerated corrosion conditions typically occur when below grade structures are in prolonged contact with groundwater, allowing the contact of corrosive compounds to the concrete and reinforcing steel. 5.8 ON-SITE PAVEMENTS 5.8.1 Flexible Pavements 5.8.1.1 General We recommend using a flexible pavement section on this project. Flexible pavements combine the strength and durability of several layer components to produce an appropriate and cost- effective combination of available materials. 5.8.1.2 Layer Components Forflexible pavement designs, we recommend using a three -layer pavement section consisting of stabilized subgrade, base course, and surface course placed on top of existing subgrade or compacted fill. Page 19 of 34 Pages Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 The recommended pavement layer thicknesses outlined in the following table are based upon the Wal*Mart criteria for standard and heavy duty pavement sections (Super Center developments) with a 20 -year design life, as outlined in the Wal*Mart "Geotechnical Investigations Specifications and Report Requirements." A summary of the required pavement design parameters is presented below. Standard Duty Pavement: Super Center Heavy Duty Pavement Number of 18 kip EAL: 109,500 Reliability = 85% Initial Serviceability = 4.2 Terminal Serviceability = 2.0 Standard Deviation = .45 (flexible) .35 (rigid) Number of 18 kip EAL: 335,800 Reliability = 85% Initial Serviceability = 4.2 Terminal Serviceability = 2.0 Standard Deviation = .45 (flexible) .35 (rigid) Standard Wal*Mart specifications require minimum asphalt thicknesses of 3 inches for standard duty pavements and 4 inches for heavy duty pavement sections. Our structural number analysis performed using the Wal*Mart criteria resulted in minimum pavement section structural numbers of 2.2 for standard duty flexible pavement sections and 2.9 for heavy duty flexible pavement sections. The layer -specific structural numbers used in our design include 0.44 for Type S asphaltic surface courses, 0.18 for limerock base courses, 0.15 for soil -cement base courses, and 0.08 for stabilized subgrades. We performed our analysis using the Florida Department of Transportation design method with a design Limerock Bearing Ratio of 24 (Soil Support Value of 5.4) obtained from our laboratory testing. Our recommendations for both standard and heavy duty pavement sections meeting these structural number requirements are presented in the following Table 5: Flexible Pavement Component Recommendations. The calculations, data sheets, and FDOT nomographs used in our pavement designs are included as Appendix D: Pavement Design Calculations. Page 20 of 34 Pages u l Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 TABLE 5: Flexible Pavement Component Recommendations Pavement Type Structural Numbers . Com onent.Thickness inches EBase Limerock Base Stabilized Subgrade Base Course Surface Course Standard Duty 3.2 3.4 12 6 3` Heavy Duty 3.6 3.8 12 6 4' Notes: " Wal-Mart minimum pavement thickness standards 5.8.1.3 Stabilized Subgrade We recommend that subgrade materials be compacted in place according to the requirements in the "Site Preparation" section of this report (the recommended minimum compaction is 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density according the ASTM test method D- 1557). Further, stabilize the subgrade materials to a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 40 percent, as specified by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) requirements for Type B Stabilized Subgrade. The stabilized subgrade can be imported material or a blend of native soils and imported materials. If a blend is proposed, we recommend that the contractor perform a mix design to find the optimum mix proportions. 5.8.1.4 Base Course We recommend the base course be either limerock or soil -cement. We have also included in Section 5.10 Special Considerations, recommendations for an alternative base course material consisting of crushed concrete. Since the final pavement grades have not yet been established, we have provided the following guidelines regarding base course selection: 1. If the final grades will include fill sufficient to provide a minimum separation of 12 inches between the bottom of the base course and the seasonal high groundwater level, either a limerock or soil -cement base course should be suitable for the proposed construction. 2. If underdrains are used to lower the seasonal high groundwater levels and provide the recommended 12 inches of separation between the bottom of the base course and the seasonal high groundwater conditions, we recommend the use of a soil -cement base course. Page 21 of 34 Pages Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 If a limerock base course is selected, the limerock should have a minimum LBR of 100 percent and should be mined from an FDOT approved source. Place limerock in maximum 6 -inch lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. If a soil -cement base course is selected, we recommend the contractor perform a soil -cement design to achieve a minimum seven-day strength of 300 pounds per square inch (psi) on the materials he intends to use. Place soil -cement in maximum 6 -inch lifts and compact in place to a minimum density of 95 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density according to specifications in ASTM D-558. - Place and finish the soil -cement according to Portland Cement Association requirements. Final review of the soil -cement base course should include manual "chaining" and/or "soundings" seven days after placement. Shrinkage cracks will form in the soil -cement mixture and you should expect reflection cracking on the surface course. Perform compliance testing for either limerock or soil -cement for full -depth at a frequency of one test per 10,000 square feet, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater. 5.8.1.5 Surface Course For standard duty pavement areas where there is occasional truck traffic, but primarily passenger cars, we recommend using an asphaltic concrete, FDOT Type S -III, which has a stability of 1,000 pounds. In heavy duty pavement areas, where truck traffic is predominant, we recommend using as asphaltic concrete, FDOT Type S -I, which has a minimum stability of 1,500 pounds. Asphaltic concrete mixes should be a current FDOT approved design of the materials actually used. Test samples of the materials delivered to the project to verify that the aggregate gradation and asphalt content satisfies the mix design requirements. Compact the asphalt to a minimum of 95 percent of the Marshall design density. After placement and field compaction, core the wearing surface to evaluate material thickness and to perform laboratory densities. Obtain cores at frequencies of at least one core per 20,000 square feet of placed pavement or a minimum of two cores per day's production. For extended life expectancy of the surface course, you may wish to consider applying a coal tar emulsion sealer. The seal coat will help to patch cracks and voids, and protect the surface from damaging ultraviolet light and automobile liquid spillage. Where periodic re -striping of the parking area is anticipated, we recommend that seal coat application be coordinated with the scheduled re -striping program. The seal coat should be applied at least six months after placement of the surface course. Please note that applying the seal coat prior to six months after placement may hinder the "curing" of the surface course, leading to its early deterioration. Page 22 of 34 Pagesso Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 5.8.1.6 Effects of Groundwater One of the most critical influences on the pavement performance in Central Florida is the relationship between the pavement subgrade and the seasonal high groundwater level. Many roadways and parking areas have been destroyed as a result of deterioration of the base and the base/surface course bond. Regardless of the type of base selected, we recommend that the seasonal high groundwater and the bottom of the base course be separated by at least 12 inches. Review of the estimated seasonal high groundwater levels in comparison to the preliminary pavement grade suggests that underdrains may be required in portions of the pavement areas to achieve the recommended separation. As the project design becomes more finalized, we recommend that we review the proposed grading plans for the possible need for underdrains. To minimize the potential for premature pavement degradation due to buildup and migration of irrigation water, we also recommend that you consider the use of underdrains or "strip" drains behind the curbing perimeter of all landscape islands. The underdrains or strip drains should be routed to a positive outfall at the pavement area catch basins. Additionally, please refer to the "Curbing" section immediately following. 5.8.1.7 Curbing We recommend that curbing around the landscaped sections adjacent to the parking lots and driveways be constructed with full -depth curb sections. Using extruded curb sections which lie directly on top of the final asphalt level, or eliminating the curbing entirely, can allow migration of irrigation water from the landscape areas to the interface between the asphalt and the base. This migration often causes separation of the wearing surface from the base and subsequent rippling and pavement deterioration. 5.8.1.8 Construction Traffic Light duty and incomplete pavement sections will not perform satisfactorily under construction traffic loadings. We recommend that construction traffic (construction equipment, concrete trucks, sod trucks, garbage trucks, moving vans, dump trucks, etc.) be re-routed away from these roadways or that the pavement section be designed for these loadings. 5.8.2 Rigid Pavements We also understand that the truck delivery and dock areas may include rigid concrete pavements for increased durability. Concrete pavement is a rigid pavement that transfers II` much lighter wheel loads to the subgrade soils than a flexible pavement. Concrete pavements maybe constructed atoptheexistingsurficial sands or"clean,"finesand fill (lessthan 5percent passing a No. 200 sieve) compacted to a minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). The concrete pavements may be constructed without additional stabilization of the subgrade soils, with the following stipulations: Page 23 of 34 Pages Ii ail Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 Subgrade soils should be compacted to a minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density to a depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the pavement section, or the full depth of the fill, whichever is greater. 2. Concrete pavement should be constructed only over stable and smooth compacted subgrades. Any surface disturbances or wheel rutting should be repaired prior to placement of concrete. 3. The subgrade should be thoroughly wetted immediately prior to the placement of concrete to minimize absorption of moisture from the concrete during curing. 4. Concrete pavement thickness should be uniform throughout, with the exception of curbing or thickened edges. Rigid pavement may be constructed of non -reinforced Portland cement concrete providing a minimum 28 -day modulus of rupture of 600 psi. This should be verified through flexural beam tests performed on field cast flexural beam specimens according to the procedures of ASTM C-78, at a frequency conforming to the Wal*Mart construction specifications. Portland cement should be Type I. Control joints for crack control for the pavement should be spaced closely, at about 10 to 14 feet apart, and should provide a uniform square or rectangular pattern. Generally, control joint spacing, in feet, should not exceed two times the slab thickness in inches, i.e., for a 5 -inch slab control joint spacing should not exceed 10 feet; for a 7 -inch slab control joint spacing should not exceed 14 feet. Joints should be sawed as soon as the concrete can withstand traffic, while not so soon as to cause raveling of the concrete surface or spalling of the aggregate during sawing. Saw -cut control joints should extend a minimum of % of the concrete slab thickness. Construction and expansion joints are the pavement features most susceptible to damage, and for that reason, their use should be minimized. We recommend that one expansion joint be placed for each 300 linear feet of pavement, in each direction, or fractions thereof. These should be located at narrow sections of pavements, such as driveways. We recommend that construction joints occur at expansion joints where possible. Special care should be taken, on completion, that all construction and expansion joints are thoroughly cleaned of debris, and then properly sealed with an appropriate preformed or self -leveling petroleum resistant joint - sealer. Table 6 below presents the recommended pavement thickness for non -reinforced concrete pavements. TABLE 6: Recommended Non -Reinforced Concrete Pavement Thickness Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 Our recommendations for concrete pavement thicknesses are based on the design traffic loadings of 14,600 18 -kip equivalent single axle loads (EAL) for standard duty concrete pavements and 335,800 EAL for heavy duty concrete pavements, for a 20 -year design life. Further, the recommended thicknesses are based on a subgrade of "clean," native sands or imported fill compacted to a minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density according to ASTM D-1557. We recommend that we review the final concrete pavement design, including section and joint details (joint types and spacings), prior to the start of construction. Placement and curing of concrete pavement should conform with all applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI) standards and in particular with recommended procedures for hot weather concrete work. Compliance testing for density in the pavement subgrades should be performed for the full compaction depth recommended, at a minimum frequency of one test per 10,000 square feet, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater. 5.9 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS 5.9.1 General The subsurface conditions in the proposed stormwater management area were discussed previously in Section 4.2.2. The presence of silty and clayey materials present in the pond locations will display slow infiltration rates, together with the anticipated shallow seasonal high groundwater conditions, favor the use of a wet detention system with an artificial means of drawdown such as a bleed - down orifice. We concur in the selection of wet detention system as appropriate for meeting the stormwater management needs of the project. The majority of the upper soils encountered in the stormwater management area typically displayed low soil fines contents and these soils will generally be usable for use as structural fill material providing that they are dried prior to usage and are maintained below the optimum moisture contents while being placed and compacted. Please note that if higher fines content silty sands (soil fines of 12 to 20 percent) are encountered in the lower portion of the pond excavations, longer drying times will be necessary prior to use of these soils and that these types of materials may display moisture -related instability if moisture contents exceed the optimum levels. More detailed recommendations regarding the usage of these soils as structural fill appear in the following Section 5.9.3 Site Soil Fill Suitability. Page 25 of 34 Pages Project No Report No. 5.9.2 Groundwater Levels 70080-010-01 163635v3 As discussed in the preceding Groundwater Control section of this report, the groundwater table can be expected to fluctuate seasonally depending upon local rainfall, with the groundwater levels rising to the normal peak near the end of the rainy season that normally occurs between June and September. Based upon our review of the soil and groundwater conditions encountered during the field investigation, U.S.G.S. data, and the Seminole County Soils Survey, we estimate that the seasonal high groundwater levels at the boring locations performed in the stormwater management areas (boring locations PD -1 through PD -20) could range from 0 to 5 feet below the existing grade at the boring locations. The elevations of our estimated seasonal high ground water levels range from 29.7 to 37.4. The following table, Table 7: Groundwater Levels - Stormwater Management Areas, summarizes the encountered, estimated seasonal high and average seasonal high groundwater levels at the borings performed in the proposed stormwater management areas. The encountered and estimated seasonal high groundwater table at each location also appear on the boring logs included in Appendix B. Page 26 of 34 Pages ul Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 TABLE 7: Groundwater Levels - Stormwater Management Areas Boring Number ElevationGWT. Encountered, ft. 24HRStabilized;, Stabilized GWT ft. . GWT, ..`' Elevation Estimated SHGW ft. SHGW', Elevation' P-1 30.6 4.2 3.3 27.3 0.0 30.6 P-2 30.7 3.4 3.3 27.4 0.0 30.7 P-3 30.6 3.0 3.4 27.2 0.0 30.6 P-4 30.9 4.3 4.4 26.5 0.5 30.4 P-5 31.6 4.8 5.0 26.6 1.0 30.6 P-6 30.7 4.8 4.8 25.9 1.0 29.7 P-7 31.0 4.6 4.8 26.2 1.0 30.0 P-8 31.5 5.7 5.5 26.0 1.0 30.5 P-9 32.6 7.0 6.8 25.8 1.0 31.6 P-10 32.5 6.6 6.9 25.6 1.0 31.5 P-11 42.4 9.3 9.4 33.0 5.0 37.4 P-12 35.5 3,2 3.3 32.2 0.0 35.5 P-13 35.3 2.0 3.0 32.3 0.0 35.3 P-14 37.2 4.3 4.3 32.9 0.5 36.7 P-15 41.6 10.0 N/E N/E 5.0 36.6 P-16 41.1 9.5 9.6 31.5 5.0 36.1 P-17 38.4 6.0 6.7 31.7 1.0 37.4 P-18 37.8 5.3 5.8 32.0 1.0 36.8 P-19 36.2 4.0 4.0 32.2 0.5 35.7 P-20 38.2 5.8 6.2 32.0 1.0 37.2 NOTE: Ground surface elevations provided by Lochrane Elevations rounded to nearest tenth GWT denotes groundwater level SHGW denotes seasonal high groundwater level Page 27 of 34 Pages u r Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 It should be noted that the estimated seasonal high groundwater levels do not provide any assurance that groundwater levels will not exceed these estimated levels during any given year in the future. Should impediments to surface water drainage exist on the site, or should rainfall intensity and duration, or total rainfall quantities, exceed the normally anticipated rainfall quantities, groundwater levels may exceed our seasonal high estimates. We recommend positive drainage be established and maintained on the site during construction and that permanent measures be constructed to maintain positive drainage from the site throughout the life of the project. We also recommend that all stormwater retention analyses incorporate consideration of the seasonal high groundwater conditions. Additionally, please note that temporary dewatering will likely be necessary during the excavation of the stormwater management area. 5.9.3 Site Soil Fill Suitability Presented in the following paragraphs are our recommendations concerning the suitability of the soils encountered for use as structural fill. We have included the appropriate suitability designations on the logs for the borings performed in the proposed stormwater management area included in Appendix B. Please note that soil strata descriptions on the borings logs that do not include suitability codes (such as organic soils or fine-grained cohesive soils such as clays or silts) are not suitable and are not recommended for use as structural fill material. Group "A" These soils consist of clean sands which have less than 5 percent soil fines. Group "A" soils are the most desirable for use as engineered fill because they drain freely when excavated from beneath the groundwater table, and are not as susceptible to moisture related instability. Group "B" These soils consist of sand with silt or sand with clay which contain between 5 and 12 percent soil fines. Group "B" soils are good sources of engineered fill, but require some extra care during placement and compaction. The moisture content of these soils should not be higher than the optimum during placement and compaction in order to reduce the potential for moisture related instability. These soils drain fairly well, but may require some stockpiling and aeration time if allowed to become saturated during earthwork activities. Group "C" These soils consist of silty and clayey sands which contain 12 to 20 percent soil fines. Group "C" soils are more difficult to use because they are more moisture sensitive. The moisture content of these soils should be maintained below the optimum moisture content in order to help mitigate the potential for moisture -related instability during placement and compaction. Page 28 of 34 Pages Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 If these materials are successfully placed and compacted, they should be graded to shed water from the site and prevent ponding, both during and after construction. If water ponds atop these soils, previously compacted soils can become overly wet and lose stability. Caution should be used when placing these soils during the rainy season and the contractor should be prepared to aerate and dry, and/or excavate and replace these soils when moisture contents exceed the optimum levels. Group "D" These soils consist of silty and clayey sands and clays which have greater than 20 percent soil fines. These soils are not recommended for use as engineered fill because they will be too difficult to practically dry and work. During the rainy season it is virtually impossible to obtain stable compaction of these soils. 5.10 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.10.1 Muck Probe Evaluations The surficial organic soils in the two proposed stormwater ponds, along an existing ditch in the northeast corner of the site within the proposed parking area, and the existing cow pond on the site were evaluated with a series of muck probes. Muck probes were performed at approximately 100 foot intervals along cut -lines advanced through the two proposed stormwater ponds and the existing cow pond. The muck probes were performed by manually advancing a slender, segmented steel rod through the soft organic soils to evaluate, subjectively, the depth of transition to underling sand layers. Manual auger borings were performed to evaluate the muck depths. Auger borings were performed to a minimum depth of 18 inches or until organic soils were no longer present. We did not encounter groundwater in any of our borings. The muck probe locations and the cut lines were performed without the benefit of survey control; the indicated locations and depths should be considered approximate. The muck probes in the northwestern retention pond generally encountered organic soils ranging in depth from 0.5 to 1 foot in depth. Probes performed along an existing ditch in the northeast corner of the site within the proposed parking area consisted of organic soils ranging in depth from 0 to 0.5 foot in depth. Within the existing cow pond, probes encountered organic soils ranging in depth from 0 to 4 feet in depth. Finally, muck probes performed within the southeastern retention pond encountered organic soils from a depth of 0.5 to 5 feet below current grade. A more detailed depiction of the locations and depths of organic soils - encountered are presented on the Muck Probe Location Plan included in Appendix A-2. The surficial organic soils encountered at the boring and probe locations are not suitable to support structures and pavements. We recommend that the full extent of these materials, where present beneath the proposed site improvements, be removed and replaced with properly compacted structural fill material structural fill. Further, this organic material is not suitable for use as Page 29 of 34 Pages Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 Fill used to replace the excavated organic soils should consist of clean sand with less than 5 percent passing a No. 200 sieve. Sand with soil fines contents between 5 and 12 percent may also be used; however, these materials will require more stringent moisture control measures to achieve stable compaction, particularly when placed near or below the groundwater level. The fill material should be placed in 10- to 12 -inch loose lifts and each lift compacted to a minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557) prior to the placement of any subsequent lifts. Compliance tests for density in the fill material should be performed in each lift at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet, or at a minimum of two locations per lift, whichever is greater. We recommend that the excavation and backfilling activities be performed under the full-time observation of a Universal Engineering Sciences engineer or his representative. Additionally, the remaining portions of the site subgrades should be closely observed during the initial stripping and proof -rolling operations for indications of additional deposits of organic materials not encountered during the field investigations. If additional deposits of unsuitable soils are encountered, we recommend that these materials be removed and replaced as discussed previously. 5.10.2 Alternative Base Course Material For the native pavement areas, crushed concrete may provide a cost-effective alternative material in lieu of limerock or soil cement base courses. If crushed concrete is selected as the base course material for flexible pavement sections, we recommend that the material meet the following requirements: 1. Crushed concrete should be supplied by an approved plant with quality control procedures. The crushed concrete stockpile should be free of sandy pockets, foreign materials or uncrushed particles. 2. Crushed concrete shall not contain extremely hard pieces, lumps, balls or pockets of sand or clay -sized material in sufficient quantity as to be detrimental to the proper binding, finishing or strength of the crushed concrete base. 3. Samples of the base course materials shall be supplied to the engineer for testing prior to use in the work. Additional samples shall be furnished during construction, as necessary. 4. At least 97 percent (by weight) of the material shall pass a 3Y2 -inch sieve and the material shall be graded uniformly down to dust. The fine material shall consist entirely of dust or fracture. All crushing or breaking -up which might be necessary in order to meet such size requirements shall be done before the material is placed on the site. Page 30 of 34 Pages Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 5. The base shall be bladed and shaped to conform to the typical sections shown on the plans. The base should then be compacted by rolling with a combination of steel wheel and rubber tire rollers to achieve a minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density according to AASHTO T-180. The finished in-place product shall provide a Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 100 or greater. 6. Compliance tests for density should be performed on the compacted base material at a frequency of not less than one test per 10,000 square feet, or a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater. Additionally, LBR tests should be performed on the material at a minimum frequency of one test per 15,000 square feet, and for each visual change in material. 7. A Universal Engineering Sciences engineer or his representative should perform a final visual inspection of the completed base course prior to the application of the prime coat or tack coat and paving 5.11 SITE PREPARATION We recommend normal, good practice, site preparation procedures to prepare the site soils to support the proposed structure and pavements. These procedures include: stripping the site of vegetation, proof -rolling and compacting the subgrade, and filling to grade with engineered fill. A more detailed synopsis of this work is as follows: If required, perform remedial dewatering prior to any earthwork operations. 2. Strip the proposed construction limits of all grass, roots, topsoil, construction debris, and other deleterious materials within and 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed building and in all pavement areas. Expect clearing and grubbing to depths of 12 inches. Deeper clearing and grubbing depths may be encountered in the formerly or more heavily vegetated areas, or where major root systems are encountered. 3. Following completion of the stripping and grubbing activities, proof -roll the subgrade with a heavily loaded, rubber -tired vehicle under the observation of a Universal Engineering Sciences geotechnical engineer or his representative. Proof rolling will help locate any_ zones of especially loose or soft soils not encountered in the soil test borings. Then undercut, or otherwise treat these zones as recommended by the engineer. 4. Compact the subgrade from the surface by a medium to heavy -weight vibratory roller (a 10- to 15 -ton roller, for example), until you obtain a minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557), to a depth of 3 feet below the base of the foundations in the building limits, and to a depth of 2 feet below the. _ bottom of the base course in the pavement areas. Page 31 of 34 Pages ur Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 5. Test the subgrade for compaction at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet per foot of depth improvement in the building area. In pavement areas, perform compliance tests on the subgrade at a frequency of one test per 10,000 square feet, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater. 6. Place fill material, as required. The fill should consist of "clean," fine sand with less than 5 percent soil fines. You may use fill materials with soil fines between 5 and 12 percent in the building and parking areas, but stringent moisture control measures may be required. Place fill in uniform 10- to 12 -inch loose lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. The site soils to be excavated from the stormwater management area may be used as general structural fill material in "balancing" the site, provided the fines contents of these - soils are below 12 percent and that they are maintained at or below their optimum moisture contents during placement and compaction. Native soils with fines contents in excess of 12 percent should handled, placed, and compacted in accordance with the - recommendations presented in the Site Soil Fill Suitability section earlier in this report. Please note that fill materials (either imported or native) containing more than 5 percent soil fines should not be used in areas requiring free -draining sands, i.e., within the 5 -foot zone immediately behind earth retaining structures. 7. Perform compliance tests within the fill at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet per lift in the building areas, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater. In pavement areas, perform compliance tests at a frequency of not less than one test per 10,000 square feet per lift, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater. 8. Stabilize the pavement area subgrades as recommended in Section 5.8.2 of this report and compact the stabilized subgrade to a minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557/AASHTO T-180). Perform compliance tests for density on the stabilized subgrade for full depth at a frequency of at least one test per 10,000 square feet, or at a minimum of two locations, whichever is greater. 9. Test all footing cuts for compaction to a depth of 3 feet. Additionally, we recommend that you test one out of every three column footings, and one test per every 150 lineal feet of wall footing. Using vibratory compaction equipment at this site may disturb adjacent structures. We recommend you monitor nearby structures before and during compaction operations. If disturbance is noted, halt vibratory compaction and inform Universal Engineering Sciences immediately. We will review the compaction procedures and evaluate if the compactive effort results in a satisfactory subgrade, complying with our original design assumptions. Page 32 of 34 Pages ur Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 5.12 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES We recommend that the owner retain Universal Engineering Sciences to perform construction materials tests and observations on this project. Field tests and observations include verification of foundation and pavement subgrades by monitoring proof -rolling operations and performing quality assurance tests on the placement of compacted structural fill and pavement courses. The geotechnical engineering design does not end with the advertisement of the construction documents. The design is an on-going process throughout construction. Because of our familiarity with the site conditions and the intent of the engineering design, we are most qualified to address problems that might arise during construction in a timely and cost-effective manner. Page 33 of 34 Pages Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v3 6.0 LIMITATIONS During the early stages of most construction projects, geotechnical issues not addressed in this report may arise. Because of the natural limitations inherent in working with the subsurface, it is not possible for a geotechnical engineer to predict and address all possible problems. An Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences (ASFE) publication, "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report" appears in Appendix F, and will help explain the nature of geotechnical issues. Further, we present documents in Appendix F: Constraints and Restrictions, to bring to your attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report. Page 34 of 34 Pages San it •�� II :i 7�� '�. ,. , \. ° • L• t. \�3 IS C ° ! o•°\, i I a 1 / �.- w-1� F 'il = IBooltEl to11.1i allllS ll, _IIS I i `. •` fi l9 o' 1000' 2000' Lake In { 1 I I I Monroe. 'Rand Yal'- ,a � : O \ y/ 'Lim / /• `• IIS i� •�r ° ��"� L:; i-/ II II. I- r - �.. -• -- c --�23T' NARC SSUS 21 St Jose hs' I , I I 46 5 ... - ; j' i f �: _ I `\ IS •'�O II. I �I III I l_ - •'�� • ---- ---- i "__ 27 n OodruII APPROXIMATE= --r= SITE LOCATION` -ll - - L_Jl_ tu rt tie .. i :'�.� ✓ - - I �� Ori, \ Vel Q� Nl•l\'• .�al�®II' •/.: �u- Lf psa jtavenifg -4 Sal 5", -- x P—k_ �• 801.69 ' n c< O`j • i �:: .. �•' �. I ' L. - SOURCE: U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE MAP OF SANFORD, FLORIDA PHOTOREVISED 1980 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES WAL - MART STORE N0. 3207-00 NEW SC - KELLY SITE SANFORD WEST SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA U.S.G.S. SITE LOCATION MAP DRAWN BY: M.E.T. DATE: 04-04-01 CHECKED BY: DATE: SCALE: AS SHOWN PROJECT NO: 70080-010-01 REPORT: 163635 1 FIGURE: A-1 z UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES WAL - MART STORE N0. 3207-00 NEW SC - KELLY SITE SANFORD WEST SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA MUCK -PROBES PLAN DRAWN BY: M. E.T. DATE: 11-02-01 CHECKED BY: DATE: ! 2 SCALE: AS SHOWN PROJECT NO: 70080-010-01 LEGEND " 6 o h \ A \\ • PROBE LOCATIONS \ OUT PARCEL \� M = MUCK Co yo Co yo S 0= SAND / TRACE OF ORGANICS B �' o o ss�� 0 = ORGANICS \ \ f L = LOOSE SAND h C POSSIBLE L. \\ \ JO.7^. (IF ADD'L RETENTION IS NOT REQUIRED) O Q C7 clQ PROPOSED WET \ \ ,v \ S Q. O RETENTION AREA 0' 100' 200' O co yo \ PROP. LEASE LOT h �� 0.0' M 0.0' M - 0.5 SO F 0.5 SO 5 S 0.5 SO G 0.0' M 0.5 SO 0.0' M 0.5 H - .'M OUT PARCEL 1 0.0' M � = I PROPOSED WET RETENTION AREA S 0.0' 0.01 M R 8 o. o 0� O 0.9so N 0.0' M 0.0' SO M 0.5 S 0.0' M _ 1.0 0.0' So / \ L 0.0' M 2.0 0 K 'M M 0.5 S0 / \ 0.0' M S' .o' -2.0 ' M 2.00 - 0.0' M . 0 4. 0.5 SO J - .5 SO .0 M J 0' ' 010 4.0 M 0. M 0' LS 2.0 M 0.0' 0.5 SO 0.0' M 1.0' SO •01 M 0.5 SO 0.0' M 2.0' SO 0 P 0.5 SO 5 (VACA N89'51'20'W 005.00' KESi UNE SECTON 28-19-A1 (AGRICULTURAL) THIS PLAN TAKEN FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY CLIENT UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES WAL - MART STORE N0. 3207-00 NEW SC - KELLY SITE SANFORD WEST SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA MUCK -PROBES PLAN DRAWN BY: M. E.T. DATE: 11-02-01 CHECKED BY: DATE: ! 2 SCALE: AS SHOWN PROJECT NO: 70080-010-01 REPORT: 163635V3 FIGURE: -2 z — LEGEND \ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST LOCATION R-1 \ \ \ THIS PLAN TAKEN FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY CLIENT OUT PARCEL 2 YY \ P-3 P-6 \�f PROPOS \\ \ (VACANT) N RETENTION AREA \ \\ \ (AGRICULTURAL) P \ \ \ 0' 100' 200' POSSIBLE OUT PARCEL 3P 2 R -2V �F \ \\ \ QL. (IF ADD'L RETENTION \ t97Y/� IS NOT REQUIRED) R-1 6 P- PROP. LEASE LOT -14 3 R -19B - Q f 0 12 OUT PARCEL 1 O O O -9 Q O R-11 n� 3 -10 O l�' -4 s-12 °9'� B-8 O -8l7'22oja��, B-7 B-5 -�': D ® 13-6 o R�R� R P- B -2 / R-5 P-14 PACP. 60' ACCESS EASEMENT P-13 7 [ROu SELLER O RERRENAL R/N EASEYExt -12 SELLER RETAINED ^ ^ PROPOSED WET LAND RETENRTIO AREA -19 ,t 8 P-20 (VACANT) N89*51'20"W 1305.00' WEST LINE SEC10N 78 -19 -JO (AGRICULTURAL) UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 NEW SC -KELLY SITE SANFORD WEST SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA BORING LOCATION PLAN DRAWN BY: a. (9. Y DATE: 10-26-01 CHECKED BY: DATE: (J SCALE: AS SHOWN PROJECT NO: 70080-010-01 REPORTA -34 -' FIGUR g-� UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.1 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 0 BORING DESIGNATION: B-1 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 31.8 DATE STARTED: 3/21/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 6.0 DATE FINISHED: 3/21/01 DATE OF READING: 03/27/01 -DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM -0-1586 DESCRIPTION Loose, gray -brown silty clayey fine SAND ATTERBERG -200 MC K ORG (%) (%) (FT./ CONT. N LL PI DAY) (/].) [SC -SM] --- Dark gray 2-2-3 5 37 17 3-3-4 7 5 —X6=8:8...........1.6 . . .... ........... ....... _X Medium, dense, light gray -brown fine SAND 8-11-17 28, [SPI 13-17-20 37 ---Dense 17-17-23 40- 10 ....................... ............... .......... ......... ..... ................... _X Loose, light gray -brown silty fine SAND 4-3-3 6 [SM] 15 33 15- ....................... ......... ... .......... ... . - ... ....................................................................... .......... ........... ................ ............ ---Greenish-gray 4-3-4 7 20- .... .. . ....... ................ .......... ................... BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET tipil UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.2 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: B'2 SHEET: 1 of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 33.5 DATE STARTED: 3/27/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 1.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/27/01 DATE OF READING: 03/27/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): +2.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 DEH A BLOWS N Y p PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) 0 E L 0 MUCK [PT] Medium dense, light gray fine SAND; with 2-9-3 12 silt [SP -SMI Soft,dark gray sandy CLAY [CLI 2-2-2 4 ---Not as muck sand 5 3. 5' T""" .....1.2...... Medium dense, dark gray clayey fine SAND _X [SC] 7-7-10 17 Dense, gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] _X 13-17-21 38 _X 15-15-19 34 10 ...................................................... . ..................... ................................................... .................. ---Very loose, very light gray -brown 15 1-2-1 3 ...... .................. .......................... ................ .............................. ---Greenish-gray 3.-.2.-2 .............................. 4................. BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET 1 30 --- 4....I ...... ................ ............... .I.... .... ..........:.I.. ........... .... ................ ..................... .... 200 MC ATTERBERG K ORG. LIMITS 1%) (%) (FT./ CONT. LL pl DAY) (%) Rp UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70060-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.3 _ PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS a 0 M BORING DESIGNATION: B-3. SHEET: 1 of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 32.9 DATE STARTED: 3/27/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 1.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/27/01 DATE OF READING: 03/27/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): +2.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 S A BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. :PTH -T') M PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. M DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS CI%) � INCREMENT FT.) 0 l%) (%1 DAY) E L LL PI O MUCK [PT] Z Loose, very light brown fine SAND; with silt -X 4-5 2 7 [SP -SM] Very loose, dark brown silty clayey fine SAND [SC -SM] 36 17 2-2-2 4 ---Medium dense 5 ..5._6.5 ....... .....�.1................. ........................................................................................................................ _X 6-7-13 20 Dense, very light gray fine SAND [SP] 13-17-20 37 15-19-25 44 • • " 10 ............................................................................ Very gray -brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] 15 3' 2.............4..................."...:._ ........................................................................................................................10 30.................................................................. ---Loose, greenish -gray --24 5 ........................ BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECTNO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.4 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 DATE STARTED: NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD WATER TABLE (ft): SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: B-4 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 35.0 DATE STARTED: 3/27/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.4 DATE FINISHED: 3/27/01 DATE OF READING: 03/27/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y M ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) 0 (%) DAY) (%) E L LL PI 0 Loose, gray fine SAND [SPI Medium dense, mixed brown fine SAND; 3-4-5 9 with silt [SP -SM] Medium dense, light gray -brown clayey fine SAND [SCI 7-6 6 12 Medium dense, light gray -brown silty clayey fine SAND [SC -SM] 5 TO -8-9..... ... ..T.7...... ............................................................................................... Medium dense, light gray -brown silty fine SAND [SMI 10-11-13 24 12-12-13 25 10-10-12 22 10 ................................,..:...:................................................................................................................................................................................................... Loose, very light brown fine SAND; with silt 3.:3.:� [SP -SMI 15 ..... ..............`.................... '...'._:.................. ..................................... ............................................ .................. ............................................................................... 20 4-3-3 ........ 6 ........................ ...... ................... BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET ............................................................... 25 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................ 30 .................................................................................................................................................................... . .......................................................... 35 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.5 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 � NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD N SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: B-5 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 35.1 DATE STARTED: 3/27/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/27/01 DATE OF READING: 03/27/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1585 - DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y M ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. DESCRIPTION 200 MC LIMITS CONT. � INCREMENT FT.) O (%) (%) DAY) EL LL PI 0 Loose, gray fine SAND [SP1 Medium dense, dark gray -brown fine SAND; with silt and roots [SP-SM1 _X 2-3-3 6 ---Little lighter 5-6-6 12 Medium dense, light brown fine SAND; with roots [SP1 5 —X _X 5-6-1.1....... .... 1.T.......�..:...:.-... ........._................ _................................._...............:.... ,...---Dense;..Jeryligfit gray. ............. . . ............ .. . ....... . ...... 11-18-17 35 13-13-15 28 11-13-17 30 10 .................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................... Loose, gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] 3-2-2...... 4 15 .. ............................................................................_....._....._.._................_........_.....__..........._............._ ........._...................................._........... Very loose, very light brown fine SAND 4 [SP1 20-3-2.:2..... ............................................................................................... BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET 25 _ ......... ..... ..... ................ ..... ....... .......... ............ ......_........_....... ....... ...... .............. ............. ....... _....... ... _................... ........... ............ .................. .... ....... ..........._...... 30 ..... ........................._............................................ .............. ....... ......... ................. ............... _.................. ..... ........._................._ ............... .... ..... ........... ...._ .................. 35 ............................................................................................................................................................. UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO. 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.6 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: B-6 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 35.7 DATE STARTED: 3/27/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 3.8 DATE FINISHED: 3/27/01 DATE. OF READING: 03/27/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION(FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) 0 1%) 1%) DAY) I%) E L LL PI 0 17 Loose,light brown fine SAND [SP] ---Medium dense, lighter 4-4-5 9 8-12-11 23 T ---Light gray 5 ... . . .... ... . ...... . ......... . . .. . .... .. ........ .. ... ...... ... .. ---Dense, with roots 12-15-18 33 —X 15-19-23 42 16-16-19 35 10 - . ............. -- ...... -- ..... .......... .. .............. .................................................................................... ................. ................. ..... ...... . ......... ......... ... ... .............. Loose, very light gray silty fine SAND [SM] 15- 2--3 2 ......... ............. . 5 . ........ .... .......... .. .. .... ....................................................... ......................... ........ .......... ....... ................. ............ ............................. . ................. 2-2-2 4 20 ....................... ................ ....... . ....... . . . .. .......... . . ....... ... BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET 1 25 --1.....[ .. ........ — .1 ....... I I. 1 30---1 1 . . ......... I - .1 .......... I. 35 �- j ....................... UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.7 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 A NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD N SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: B-% SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 37.1 DATE STARTED: 3/28/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.6 DATE FINISHED: 3/28/01 DATE OF READING: 03/27/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ftl: 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 ATTERBERG K ORG. 200 MC LIMITS (%) I%) (FT./ CONT. LL PI DAY) (%) DEH A BLOWS N Y p PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) 0 E L 0 Loose, mixed gray fine SAND [SP] Loose, brown fine SAND; with silt [SP 3-2-2 4 Loose, gray -brown clayey fine SAND 3-3-4 7 5 �:....................................................................................:... Loose, gray -brown silty fine SAND [SN _X 5-4-5 9 X� 5-5-5 10 4-5-7 12 10— :.......................................................................................... ---Very light gray -brown 15 4-5- ........4 9 ............................,....................................................................................... : =_ 20 ..... 3-2-1 .............3................. BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET r .... .................. ................ .......... .......... ATTERBERG K ORG. 200 MC LIMITS (%) I%) (FT./ CONT. LL PI DAY) (%) UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NC.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.8 rnu,itci: wAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 DATE STARTED: NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD WATER TABLE (ft): SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: B -S SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 36.5 DATE STARTED: 3/28/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 6.0 DATE FINISHED: 3/28/01 DATE OF READING: 03/27/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM -D1586 DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6- (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CON T. L INCREMENT FT.) O o (/ol o 1%) DAY) (%) E L LL PI 0 _ Loose, light gray fine SAND [SPI 17 ^ 6 8 }; 6-5-4 9 Loose, dark gray silty clayey fine SAND _ [SC -SMI 32 24 2-1-3 4 Loose, light gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] 5 ......6-7.7...........1.4 .................:.,........................................................... _........................................ ................... ................. ........ .... ............. ................. ....... ........... _x 8-7-7 14 7-7-7 14 6-7-8 15 10 ............... ........... .... ...:................ .................. ........................................................ ........ ........................ ............................................ _.......................... Loose, light brown fine SAND; with silt 3 [SP -SMI 15 ...3.:3 ....... ...... ...... .......... '...'.-:.................. ............................................................. ........ ............ ..... .............. ......... ......................................................::........... 2021-1 ....................................... 2 . ...... 29 ....................... 34 V.ery.lo.ose..[ighz.b.ro.w..y.ery.light.b.rovvn.silty.... fine SAND . mixed [SM] BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET i 25 ....:... ...... .............. .........._.......... .......... ....... ........ ........... ................ ................. ..-................. ............ ..... ...... .................. ...... ........... ..._.. ...... ...... ...... .... ............. .... ............ .. w 1 , 30 _ ......... ...... .............. ........_...................... .... ........... .......... ..... _................... ..._................ .............. ........ .... ............. ......... ......... .... .... ........... ................._... ...... .......... .. 0 M85 C1 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0 PROJECT NO.: 70080.010-01 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT REPORT NO 1636353 BORING LOG PAGE: B-2.9 BORING DESIGNATION: B-9 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 34.6 DATE STARTED: 3/27/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/27/01 DATE OF READING: 03/27/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 DEH PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 N NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD �i SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA PER 6" CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS B LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN L REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 0 BORING DESIGNATION: B-9 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 34.6 DATE STARTED: 3/27/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/27/01 DATE OF READING: 03/27/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 DEH A BLOWS N Y p PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) 0 E L 0 Loose, gray fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] ---Dark brown with roots 1-2-3 5 ---Medium dense, light brown 4-5-7 12 ---Brown 5 7-6-7 7 Loose, gray -brown clayey fine SAND [SC] _X Medium dense, gray -brown fine SAND [Sl 5-4-6 10 6-7-9 16 6-8.:8........ 1 6 10 Loose, very light silty fine SAND [SM] tF ......5.:5.:3............. $..................:...........................................................................I..................... 3-4-4 9 Loose, very light brown fine SAND [SP] ........................................... BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET ATTERBERG -200 MC LIMITS K ORG. (%) (%) (FT./ CONT. LL pl DAY) (%) 8 1 10 [ ......13 .......1............ I .............[ ................. u PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO 70080- 1 BORING LOG REPORT PAGE: B-2.10 BORING DESIGNATION: B-1 O SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 34.8 DATE STARTED: 3/28/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.3 DATE FINISHED:` 3/28/01 DATE OF READING: 03/27/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 DEPTH PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD N (BLOWS/ FT.1 W.T. SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA DESCRIPTION CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN L 0 REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: B-1 O SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 34.8 DATE STARTED: 3/28/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.3 DATE FINISHED:` 3/28/01 DATE OF READING: 03/27/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 DEPTH A L BLOWS PER 6- INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ FT.1 W.T. Y B 0 DESCRIPTION E L 0 Loose, gray -brown fine SAND [SP] 6-5-5 10 Loose, mixed brown fine SAND; with silt [SP-SM1 4-4-5 9 Loose, light gray -brown fine SAND [Sp] 5 6=81.0..........i.8 ............:...................................................................................... 8-10-7 17 ---Medium dense, very light gray 8-8-9 17 Medium dense, light gray silty fine SAND 10 6-7-9 .................. .................... 16 ........... ... .:.... [SMI ....... .............................................................................. . Very loose, very light brown fine SAND; i 15 3-2-2 ....................................................... 4 _.:............................ silt [SP -SMI ........................ ................................ Very loose, very light brown silty fine SAI 20--j................................................. 1-2-1 [SM1 BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET ATTERBERG K ORG. -200 MC LIMITS (%) (aha) (FT.! CONT. LL I PI DAY) 1%) Rp PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES REPORT NO. 163635v3 BORING LOG PAGE: B-2.11 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: B-11 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 35.7 DATE STARTED: 3/28/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.8 DATE FINISHED: 3/28/01 DATE OF READING: 03/28/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 D( PTH A BLOWS N Y p PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) 0 E L 0 Medium dense, light gray -brown fine SANC [SP] —X 5-7-5 12 Medium dense, gray silty clayey fine SAND _X [SC -SM] 7-7-5 12 56.7. 7"14*...*........................ ,.. .......................................................................................... _X 6-6-8 14 ---With clay 9-8-7 15 6-6-7 13 . 10 ............................................ . _.. ................... .......... ....... ....... .............. ....... ...... ........._......_. Loose, very light gray -brown silty fine 4-5-38 [SM1 ............................................................................................................................ 2-1-1 2 ........................................... BORING TERMINATED AT20 FEET ATTERBERG K ORG. -200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. LL I PI I DAY) (%) UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.12 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 DATE STARTED: NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD J SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS`. SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: B-1 2 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 39.6 DATE STARTED: 3/28/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 9.4 DATE FINISHED: 3/28/01 DATE OF READING: 03/28/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 tiS A BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. DEPTH M P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. M B DESCRIPTION 200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. (FT.) L INCREMENT FT.) O 1%) 1%) DAY) (%) E L LL pl 0 Loose, gray -brown fine SAND [SP] 17 ;• 5 5 -X 2-2-4 6 Loose, gray -brown silty fine SAND; with a _X trace of clay [SM] 3-3-4 7 Medium dense, light gray -brown clayey fine - SAND [SCI 5 4._5.6..........x.1 ................ Medium dense, light gray -brown silty fine _X SAND [SM] 6-6-7 13 8-8-6 14 V_X .= 5-6-6 12 10 _X Medium dense, light gray -brown fine SAND; 7-6-5 11with . silt (SP -SMI ........................................................................ _X Very loose, very light brown silty fine SAND 1-1-2 3 [SM] 11 33 20-............ ............... .................................... ... ......... ............. ................................... BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET 25 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30— ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35 ......................................................... .... ............... ..... ..... ........ .... ............ .................. ... .......... ..... u UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.13 BORING DESIGNATION: B-1 3 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 35.3 DATE STARTED: 3/28/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 6.8 DATE FINISHED: 3/28/01 DATE OF READING: 03/28/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BLOWS PER 6" INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ FT.) NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD Y M B O L DESCRIPTIONo SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA MC o (�°) CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS ORG. CONT. (%I LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN � REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: B-1 3 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 35.3 DATE STARTED: 3/28/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 6.8 DATE FINISHED: 3/28/01 DATE OF READING: 03/28/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 DEPTH (FT.) A M P L E BLOWS PER 6" INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ FT.) W.T. Y M B O L DESCRIPTIONo 200 1%) MC o (�°) ATTERBERG LIMITS K (FT./ DAY) ORG. CONT. (%I LL PI � 0 Loose, light gray fine SAND [SP] Loose, dark brown fine SAND; with silt roots 2 -2-4 6 [SP-SM1 _X ---Medium dense 8 11 5-7-7 14 Medium dense, brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] 5 8.8.9............�.T ...............:..... ..... ...................................................... ............................................. ... .............. .................. ........... _X Medium dense, light gray -brown fine SAND 7-7-6 13 T [SP] Loose, brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] 5-4-3 7 10 .... 3.:3 3 6 ......8 .................19...... ............................................................ Loose, very light gray silty fine SAND [SM] 15 4-.4.-3........ 7 .......................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ---Very loose, very light brown 20 3-2-1 .............3................. .............................................................................................. BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET 25 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.14 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 A NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD N SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: B-14 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 37.6 DATE STARTED: 3/28/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/28/01 DATE OF READING: 03/28/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 ATTERBERG K ORG. -200 MC LIMITS (%) (%) (FT./ CONT. LL pl DAY) (%} D(FT A BLOWS N Y H P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) 0 E L 0 Loose, gray fine SAND [SP) Loose, gray -brown fine SAND; with silt -X 3-3-4 7 [SP -SM] • Medium dense, light orange -brown fine - SAND [SP1 6-7-10 17 : • ; ---Very light brown 5 ...1.0._8.,1.1......._1.g...:...�.. Medium dense, gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] _X 8-9-10 19 _X 7-7-7 14 1 n ......5.-6-8........_...14 ................ ATTERBERG K ORG. -200 MC LIMITS (%) (%) (FT./ CONT. LL pl DAY) (%} UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: 8-2.15 PROJECT: WAL•MART STORE N0.3207-00 BORING DESIGNATION: B-1 cJ SHEET: 1 of 1 NEW SC-KELLY SITE, SANFORD SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 32.3 DATE STARTED: 3/27/01 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 4.1 DATE FINISHED: 3/27/01 REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE OF READING: 03/27/01 DRILLED BY: UES-ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.5 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1586 A BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. - DEPTH M PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. M DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS (FT.) P B o o (FT./ CONT. /o /o E INCREMENT FT.) p 1%) ( ) LL PI DAY) (%) 0 _ • Loose, light brown fine SAND; with roots [SP] 1-3-5 8 ---Medium dense, light gray-brown _X 5-8-13 21 p5........_...•....','. ................................... T 0�?D�1.0....20........ 7-6-7 13 ---Lighter 6-6-7 13 5-6-8 14 10 ............................... Very loose, very light gray silty fine SAND [SM] 15 2-2-1 3 .........:........... ......... ....... _. ....................................... . ................................................................................ 20 ... .......... 1 BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET .......................................................................................... i 25........... ........................................... .......... ................. .......... ......._........................ .............. _.._.................... .........._...... ... ......... ............ ................. ..... .............. 30 r ;r UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 91 PAGE: B-2.16 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BORING DESIGNATION: P-1 SHEET: 1 Of NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 30.6 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 4.2 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 REMARKS: DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 --- DEPTH A BLOWS N Y M ATTERBERG K ORG. FT. ( 1 P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION 200 MC LIMITS FT. ( / CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) 0 0 1%) 0 1%)DAY) (%) E L LL Pt 0 Fibrous PT & MUCK [PT] Light gray -brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] 175 57.8 v .: Gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] 5 ............................................. Gray silty clayey Y Y fine SAND [SC -SM] 30 17 10 ....................................... ............................... BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET ..... ............ ............ ......... ........................... 15 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... � I I 20 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... _......... 25 ........................................... . - 30--- .................. ....... ... ........... ......... ............._...... .......... .._............... .................. ................. ..... ....._............. ..... ........... :.................. ............ ..._........ ..... ............ .................. --r 35 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 u UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.17 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 DATE STARTED: NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD WATER TABLE (ft): SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: UES -ORLANDO BORING DESIGNATION: P-2 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 30.7 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 3.4 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 -y DEPTH M BLOWS N M ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6' (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTIONLIM 200 MC TS (FT./ CONT. E INCREMENT FT.) O (off) (%) DAY) (%) LL PI 0 ti Organic fine SAND [SP -OL] Light gray -brown fine SAND; with silt • [SP-SM1 Gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] 5 ............................................... ......................................... ........................................... ......... ........................... ........... ................................................ 10 ............................................ ......... ............................................................................................... BORING TERMINATED 10 FEET 15 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. i 25 ............................................................................ __................. .... ................... ...... ............ .... ............ ........... ............ ....... .... ............... .... ............... ............... ........... ....... 30 .... ....... ...... ....... ....... .......... ......... ... ....... ......... ............. .................................. ................................... ..... ........ .... .......... .............. .... .... ... .... ............ ... ...... ...... ..........._........... -3 351 ......... ........ ........ ...................... ......... ............... ......... ................ ................................................................ .............. ......... ........... I u UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: 13-2.18 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: • i SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN f REMARKS: ORG. BORING DESIGNATION: P-3 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 30.6 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 3.0 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y M ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6- (BLOWS/ W.T. g DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) 0 (%) (%) DAY) (%) E L LL PI Dark gray fine SAND; with roots [SP] Brown fine SAND; with silt and roots [SP -SM] Very light gray -brown fine SAND [SP] 5 .... ........................ ................ .......... ...:.. ................................................................................................................................................................................................... Very light brown silty fine SAND [SM] 10 ....................... ...... ........ ....... ....... ... BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FFFT .........._ ......... ............ ........... .................... .................. UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.19 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: P-4 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 30.9 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.5 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH N Y ATTERBERG (FT.) (BLOWS/ W.T. M DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS K ORG. BLOW PER 6 B (FT./ CONT. [INCREMENT FT.) (%) (%) P L 0 E L LL P, DAY) I%) 0 — Light brown fine SAND [SP] Gray brown silty fine SAND [SM] 5Dark§ea�-br6wh . ............ ........ ................................ ............. .......... . ............ ....... - ...................... .................. Greenish -gray clayey fine SAND [SC] 43 19 Gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] inI . . . . .... . ....... ........ .......... NATED AT 10 FEET t . . ..... 1' '1-- .... * 11 .. .... .............................................................. f ... .......... I � ..........:......1............ I .......... I .... Rp UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.20 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: ORG. BORING DESIGNATION: P-5 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 31.6 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.8 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y M ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTIONo -200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. E INCREMENT FT.) 0 (h) u (h) DAYI (%) LL PI 0 Mixed gray fine SAND; with silt (SP -SM] 2 . Light brown fine SAND; with roots [SP] 5 .........................................1 .. ......................................................................................... Gray -brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] 10-1...................................................... BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET ] 15.....[ ......................] .... ............I..........I........ ..I..... ... .................... ................. ..................... ...... ........... ....... ......... I ....... ........... [.................I .... ........ UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.21 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 M NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD N SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: K BORING DESIGNATION: P -G SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION Ift): 30.7 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE Ift): 4.8 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 INATED AT DEPTH M BLOWS N M ATTERSERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) p (%) E L LL PI DAY) (�) 0 Dark gray fine SAND [SP] Mixed brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] Gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] v 5 ........:....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ---Little lighter INATED AT UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.22 _ PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: DESCRIPTION MUCK/ ROOTS [PT] BORING DESIGNATION: P-7 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 31.0 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.6 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. Ift): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 Mixwd brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] v .... ............... ........... ...._..................... ....................................................................... ---gray-brown ATTERBERG K ORG. -200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. 1%) I%) LL PI DAY) (%) 76 1 65.3 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.23 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: W.T. BORING DESIGNATION: P-8 SHEET: 1 of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 31.5 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.7 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEH A BLOWS N Y p PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. 8 DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) 0 E L 0 Light gray -brown fine SAND [SP] Light gray sandy CLAY [CL] 5 .................................................... .................................................................................. Z ---Not as sandy Very light gray -brown fine SAND [SP] 10 BORING TERMINETED 1 O FFFT . I . .............. .... ..... .......... .. ATTERBERG K ORG. -200 MC LIMITS (%) (%) DAY CONT. LL PI DAY) (%1 RP UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.24 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BLOWSY NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: ORG.00 BORING DESIGNATION: P'9 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 32.6 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 7.0 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM 0-1452 DEPTH A M BLOWSY M ATTERBERG K ORG.00 (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -2 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) p (oho) (%) DAY) (%) E L LL PI 0 Mixed gray fine SAND (SP] Mixed brown silty fine SAND [SM] Brown -reddish fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] 5 .................................................... Gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] ............................................................................................... 1 n ...................................................... ..'..............:..}.................I............4............ 4...:............. 1....... ..................... i.................. ...... ..... ...... I ..... ...... .{ ....... ......F..... .... ........ l...... UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.25 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 SLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: ORG. BORING DESIGNATION: P-1 0 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 32.5 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 6.6 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH 6 A M SLOWS N 5 YATTERBERG M K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. a DESCRIPTION -200 Mc LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) 0 1%) 1%) DAY) E L 0 — Mixed gray fine SAND [SPI --Mixed brown ---Light brown 5 . ... . . . ........ . .. .... . . ........ ....... . . .. . .. . ........ . .. . ........... ..... . . .......... Gray -brown silty fine SAND [SMI Bluish -gray CLAY [CLI 73 28 Gray brown silty fine SAND [SM] ................. BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET10 ............... . ............ ........... . ..... ................. ............. _ .............................. I ....... . --F - - - ...I ......... - I ........ ..... . I UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.26 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: P-1 1 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 42.4 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 9.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 5.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 S DEPTH DEPTH A M[INCREMENT BLOWS N Y M ATTERBERG K ORG. PPER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L FT.) 0 (%) 1%) LL PI E L DAY) (4%) 0 Dark gray fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] ---Mixed brown Very light brown fine SAND [SP] 5 .... ......._..............................�.,.".:.".:.....:--.Very. light .b.ro.wn.to..w.hite..................................... ... ................. .............:. 6 22 10 _.........__... BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET .................................................................:..........:................... UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3_ PAGE: B-2.27 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: - ORG. BORING DESIGNATION: P-1 2 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 35.5 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 3.2 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM 0-1452 DEPTH 5 A M BLOWS N 5 Y M ATTERBERG K - ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 mc LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) 0 1%) -P, DAY) (%) E L LL 0 '7 MUCK [PT] Dark gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] v 5 . .... . . .... ... .... ............... ........ •Brown Very light gray fine SAND; with silt [SP -SMI ................. ................. ............ ............................... .......... silty fine SAND [SM] Dark gray -brown clayey fine SAND [SCI 10 ............................. ................ .. . I I BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET Rp UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.28 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS - LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: K BORING DESIGNATION: P-13 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 35.3 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 2.0 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y M ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION 200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) O (%) 1%) DAY) 1%) E L LL PI 0 17 MUCK [PT] Black organic silty fine SAND [OL -SM] 5 25 2.3 Gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] ---Dark brown 10 ................................................. BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.29 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 M BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA ~ CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS i LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: W.T. BORING DESIGNATION: P-14 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 37.2 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.5 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 [SP -SM] ATTERBERG K ORG. 200 MC LIMITS I%) I%) (FT./ CONT. LL PI DAY) (%) .......... I............._...L.................I........._.I.............G................. DEPTH M BLOWS N Y (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) 0 E L 0 , Mixed gray fine SAND; with s Brown silty fine SAND [SM] ---Gray A Gray clayey fine SAND (SC] 5 ..................................................... -Z ,............................................................... Very light brown to white fine - 0 ............................................ BORING DESIGNATION: P-14 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 37.2 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.5 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 [SP -SM] ATTERBERG K ORG. 200 MC LIMITS I%) I%) (FT./ CONT. LL PI DAY) (%) .......... I............._...L.................I........._.I.............G................. 1 u UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.30 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 N NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD M SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: (FT.) BORING DESIGNATION: P-15 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 41.6 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 10.0 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 5.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH M BLOWS N M ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION 200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) 0 LL PI E L DAY) 0 , Dark gray fine SAND [SP] Mixed orange and gray clayey SAND [SC] 5 ....................................� . Light gray -brown fine SAND • .............................................................................................. ---Little lighter 10 BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET .............................................................................................. 1 25 -4 .............. .......... I...... ...... ....I.......... 1 30 —I .... .[ .......................1................I. 351................................................................................................ ... ................. .......................... I .... .............. F................. I............ I............4 ................. 7..................1 A............ 7 .............4................. l...................1 CITY OF SANFORD PERMIT APPLICATION Permit #: 04-2746 Date: 11/23/04 Job Address: 1151 Rinehart Road Description of Work: Plumbing build out for retail Space Historic District: Zoning: Value of Work: $ 63.875.00 Permit Type: Building Electrical Mechanical Plumbing X Fire Sprinkler/Alarm Pool _ Electrical: New Service — # of AMPS Addition/Alteration Change of Service Temporary Pole Mechanical: Residential Non -Residential Replacement New (Duct Layout & Energy Calc. Required) Plumbing/ New Commercial: # of Fixtures 64 # of Water & Sewer Lines 16 # of Gas Lines 0 Plumbing/New Residential: # of Water Closets Plumbing Repair — Residential or Commercial Occupancy Type: Residential Commercial X Industrial Total Square Footage: Construction Type: # of Stories: # of Dwelling Units: Flood Zone: (FEMA form required for other than X) Parcel #: (Attach Proof of Ownership & Legal Description) Owners Name & Address: Deno P. Di keou, 502 N_ Highway 17-92, Suite 200, Longwood, FL 32750 Phone: 407-830-4888 Contractor Name & Address: Certified Mechanical Co., Inc., 2502 Vulcan Road, Apopka, FL 32703 state License Number: CFC019157 Phone & Fax: 407-294-6324 / 407-294-09ntact Person: Norman Shrode Phone407-294-6324 X213 Bonding Company: N/A Address: Mortgage Lender: Address: Architect/Engineer: Address: Phone: Fax: Application is hereby made to obtain a permit to do the work and installations as indicated. I certify that no work or installation has commenced prior to the issuance of a permit and that all work will be performed to meet standards of all laws regulating construction in this jurisdiction. I understand that a separate permit must be secured for ELECTRICAL WORK, PLUMBING, SIGNS, WELLS, POOLS, FURNACES, BOILERS, HEATERS, TANKS, and AIR CONDITIONERS, etc. OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT: I certify that all of the foregoing information is accurate and that all work will be done in compliance with all applicable laws regulating construction and zoning. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. NOTICE: In addition to the requirements of this permit, there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county, and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts, state agencies, or federal agencies. Acceptance of permit is verification that I will notify the owner of the property of the require men Florida Lien L S713. 11/23/04 Signature of Owner/Agent Date Signature o Contract t Date Print Owner/Agent's Name Signature of Notary -State of Florida Date Owner/Agent is _ _ Produced ID Personally Known to Me or APPLICATION APPROVED BY: Bldg: (Initial & Date) Special Conditions: Zoning: Norman Shr dp �n Contrac g is Name ---W23/04 Signature of Notary -State of Florida Date �t My Coma Baldwin 'i My Commission DDI 06396 / Expires April 07 2006 , Contractor/Agent is = Personally Known to 9 Produced ID Utilities: FD: (Initial & Date) (Initial & Date) (Initial & Date) UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 BORING PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE 1\10.3207-00 NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: DEPTH JAI M BLOWS M N ti PAGE: B-2.31 BORING DESIGNATION: P-1 G SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 41.1 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (fl): 9.5 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 5.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1457 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECTNO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.32 PROJECT N I NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: P-1 % SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 38.4 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 6.0 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 v o co M O u UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 Il PAGE: B-2.33 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: P-18 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 37.8 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 . DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 7008G-010-01BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 1636350 PAGE: B-2.34 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: ........ BORING DESIGNATION: P-19 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 36.2 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.0 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.5 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 S A BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. DEPTH M PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. (FT./ CONT. (FT.) P B DESCRIPTION 1%1 (%) L INCREMENT FT.) 0 DAY) (%) E L LL PI 0 MUCK [PTI Gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] v 5 ....... ........ ..._....._........... .......... .::,............_.........._._............................................................... Very light brown to white fine SAND [SPI BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET i..1.1.... 2.6" 15 ........ ........................................._....................................... a 20 ................ _....... .......... ..:.. _..... ......... ...... ................. ................ ................. .:.. 25 .. ... ..... _ ..............................:.._ .... ...._........ ...... .......... . 30 .. ................ ...:.......................... ..... .................. ................... ........................ 35 0 i..1.1.... 2.6" UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.35 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: W.T. BORING DESIGNATION: P-20 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 38.2 DATE STARTED: 3124/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.8 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH 5 A M BLOWS N S Y M (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) 0 E L 0 Dark gray -brown fine SAND [SP] 17 ---Light brown 5 . .. . . ...... .. .. ..... .......... . ........ ... _.; ---Very light ...... ......... .. gray ..................................... v ---Gray 10 ............. ........... ................ BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEU 1 15 --- .......... I ........ .... I. 1 .4. 200 Mc ATTERBERG K ORG. LIMITS IFTJ CONT. LL PI DAY) I%) UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.36 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 A NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD N SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA _ CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-1 SHEET: 1 01 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 37.4 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 8.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 A BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. D(FTT" p PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION 200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) 0 a (�) o (/�)LL DAY) 1%) E L PI I, 0 Mixed gray fine SAND; with silt [SP-SM1 P 7 '•"• I Mixed brown silty fine SAND [SM1 10 18 Light brown fine SAND [SP] 5 ... "......... .................. ................................................ ................................. .................................... ............ .............................. ................... Light gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] v . 10..._ _. = .................. . _ .......... ... ...__.............. ....... ........_............ .... BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET 1 5 _ ..............._.. .......... ..........._......... ...... ._...._._.:.................................................. ......... ........................ .... ....._....... . UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LQ G REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.37 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 I NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD W.T. SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS 4 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN I REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-2 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 39.4 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 9.0 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH (FT.) A M p E BLOWS PER 6" INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ FT.) W.T. Y M B O DESCRIPTION -200 (%) MC (o/a) ATTERBERG LIMITS K (FT./ DAY) ORG. CONT. 1%) LL pl O Gray -brown fine SAND [SP] 67 27 Mixed gray -orange sandy CLAY [CL] Light brown silty clayey fine SAND [SC -SM] 5 .............. . . .................. .......... . ................ _.................. ............ ............ ..._...._........ .......... ........ Ver li ht brown to white fine SAND [SP] Y g v . ---Very light gray -brown t n .................... ......... ............... .......... --- UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BO R I N G LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.38 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: 4 SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-3 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 37.6 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.5 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEH A BLOWS N Y p PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) O E L 0 _ Mixed gray fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] ---Gray-brown Very light brown fine SAND [SP] BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET ATTERBERG K ORG. -200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. (%) (%) DAY) (%) LL PI UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.39 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BORING DESIGNATION: R-4 SHEET: 1 of 1 NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 41.6 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 8.5 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 - REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH M BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS CONT.(%) L INCREMENT FT.) p (%) (%) DAY ) E L LL PI 0 Dark gray -brown fine SAND [SPI ---Brown ---Light brown 5 ................................. ".:."... ".....- -Very light gray ....... .... ................. ................................_ ............ .._..... ........ ............ ..... ........ ....... ....... ......... ..... ...........:. i 10 - ........ ......... ...... ._ .......................... ................................... _.......... ............... BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET ................ ............ ..:... 15 .. ..... ............... ... .... ........: ... .._........ ............................ ............. ................:................ .... ._............................ ......... .............. ...... ...__ ........................._....:... 20 ................................................................................................................................. 25 ..:..... .... ............ .... .... ........... ...... ..... ............ ...... ......... .......... ................ ................. .................... .... ...... ....... ............. ...:.... ............... ...... ........ .......... ...... ................ ........... ... 30 ............................................. _...................................... ..................... .......... .................... ....... ................. ....... ... ...... .... .......... ....... ..... ... ......... .:..............:....... I o 35 _ ........................................................................................................... . ......................................................... ............ ............... __ v UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.40 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 BORING DESIGNATION: R-5 SHEET: 1 Of 1 NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 38.7 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 5.0 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 REMARKS: SUVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.5 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH M BLOWS N M ATTERBERG K ORG: (FT.)E -200 MC LIMITS INCREMENT FT.) 0 (%) (%) DAY) (96) LL PI 0 17 Dark gray -brown fine SAND [SP1 ---Very light brown 5 .. ............. ".,.'.,.:............. ..... ...,.............. .._................................. ..... .........._....................... ......_............................:.... _............:.................... Gray silty fine SAND [SM1 10 ._............_ ...................._.............. ........ _...................... BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET ............ ... ....._................... ........ .......... f 15 _.__.... _.................. _..._..........._............................ ..... ................................ .............. .................... ....... .........:..... ...... ..._......._ ........................:.......... 20 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 ... ....... ...............: .... ........_...... ...... ..... ......................... ....... .................. .................... .......:... ....... ...... _..... ... ....... .... -' 30 .......... :................................ .... n35 .... ........................................................... ......................................... UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.41 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 M P L E NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD N (BLOWS/ FT.) SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN -- REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R'6 SHEET: 1 of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 42.2 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 7.4 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 i DEPTH (FT.) M P L E BLOWS PER 6" INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ FT.) W.T. Y M. B p L DESCRIPTION -200 ° (�0) MC ° 1 �) ATTERBERG LIMITS K (FT./ DAY) ORG. CONT. LL PI 0 7 '. . Gray fine SAND [SP] Brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] Very light brown fine SAND [SP] 5 ............................................................. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... Gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM1 BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECTNO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.42 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-7 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 43.9 DATE STARTED: 3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 8.2 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/24/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 .................... .................... i ... ........ .1............. I ... .... �i A BLOWS N S Y ATTERBERG DEPTH (FT.) M P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. M B DESCRIPTION -200 Mc LIMITS K (FT./CONT. ORG. L INCREMENT FT.) 0 (%) (%) DAY) (%) E L LL P, 0 Gray -brown fine SAND [SPI 7 ---Very light gray -brown mottling 5 — ... ... . ... .... ... ....... .......... ... ............... ................................................................................... . .................................. ............ ...................... ........ ............ ---With no mottling 10 . ..... ........ ......... ....... ........ . . . I BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET ................. .................. ............ .................... .................... i ... ........ .1............. I ... .... �i RP UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01- 0080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.43 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-8 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 32.9 DATE STARTED: .3/24/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 1.0 DATE FINISHED: 3/24/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): +2.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION (FT./ CONT. INCREMENT FT.) 0 (%) (o/) DAY) (%) E LL pl 0 Fibrous peat [PT] 327 87,7 Light gray -brown silty fine SAND; with roots [SM] 5 ---Little dark UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.44 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN _ REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-9 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 34.1 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 2.5 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): +2.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 200 MC ATTERBERG K ORG. LIMITS (off) I%) (FT./ CONT. LL PI DAY) 1%) A BLOWS N Y (FT)H P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) 0 E L 0 MUCK [PT] Light gray -brown fine SAND; with roots v '.'. 5 ................................................. :.:.:.:........... ............. ............... ........... ....... ................ .......... : Gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET 200 MC ATTERBERG K ORG. LIMITS (off) I%) (FT./ CONT. LL PI DAY) 1%) UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.45 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 A M P L E NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD N (BLOWS/ FT.) SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-1 0 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 33.4 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 3.0 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): +1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH (FT.) A M P L E BLOWS PER 6" INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ FT.) W.T. Y M B 0 L DESCRIPTION -200 MC 1%) ATTERBERG LIMITS K (FT./ DAY) ORG. CONT. I%) LL PI MUCK fibrous [PT] Mixed brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] v — Light gray -brown fine SAND [SP] 5 — ................. ...... ........... ............ Light gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] ........... ...... ........ 10 . ... .. .. . ......... . .. ....... .................. ............ . - ...... .. .......... BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET 15— . .......... . . .. .... .. .... . ......... . . ......... ... ......... ... ..... ....... . .... . ... ....... . .... . .................. 20 . .... .................... . . ......... . ...... .. . .. . .......................... .............. . ................... ...... .................. .... ........ . ...... ....... . . ..... ............ ........ ... .................. .................. 25 . ... .. . . .... .. ... .. . . ........ .......... .......... ......................................................................... ...................... ............................. .... .. .. .................... .......... ........ ....... 30 .. .. ........... ........... . ........ . ......... ... . .. .. ..... ........ .. . . ........ . .. .......... ... ........... .......... ..... . UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.46 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-1 1 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 33.9 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 2.8 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): +2.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y M ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) 0 f%) (%) DAY) 1%) E L I LL PI 0 MUCK organic fine SAND [PTI 62 22.2— 2 2Light Lightgray fine SAND [SP] v. Gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] Dark gray silty clayey fine SAND [SC] Dark gray silty fine SAND [SM] ---Dark gray 10 ................................................... ... BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET ................................... _ _................................................... _ ........ I ..... ...... I............ V... u UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: 8-2.47 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO. 3207-00 BORING DESIGNATION: R-12 SHEET: 1 Of 1 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTERBERG CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 33.8 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 LOCATION: i SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 5.8 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO LIMITS (FT./ EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.5 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM 0-1452 DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y M ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 o MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. E INCREMENT FT.) 0 (%) a (h) DAY) (��) LL pl 0 Mixed gray fine SAND; with roots [SP -SM] 7 11 Mixed brown silty fine SAND [SM] - Gray -brown clayey fine SAND [SC] 5 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... - A— ---Greenish gray 10 .......... ............................................ .......................................................................... BORING TERM8INATED AT 10 FEET - _................... 15 _:.............................. ...... ......... ._..............:................. ...... .._............................ ................. ........ ....._:............... .... ............ ...... ....._ ................................... 20 .... ..... ............... ... ..... ........... ................... ........... ............... ........ ..................... ............. ............... ...... ......... .......... ......... .................. ............ ............................. .. ............ ...... 25 30................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 35 ......................................................................................................... UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.48 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-1 3 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 33.7 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 6.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 1 15 ..... I .......... ............. I ...... -... I .. - I.- :. .1 .. ...... ..... - .. ... .. . . ...... -200 MC ATTERBERG K ORG. (%) (%) LIMITS (FT./ CONT. LL TP -1 DAY) I%) S S DEH A M BLOWS N Y M (FPTT.) p PER 6- (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) 0 E L 0 — Dark gray fine SAND [SP] ---Gray-brown Brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] . Light gray brown silty fine SAND [SM] 5 . . . ... .. ...... ... ... . ..... .... . ........................ ............................. ......................... Greenish -gray clayey fine SAND [SC] Light brown silty fine SAND [SM] BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET 1 15 ..... I .......... ............. I ...... -... I .. - I.- :. .1 .. ...... ..... - .. ... .. . . ...... -200 MC ATTERBERG K ORG. (%) (%) LIMITS (FT./ CONT. LL TP -1 DAY) I%) UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: '008 °' °' BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.49 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-14 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 32.5 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.8 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft); 0.5 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH H A BLOWS N Y (FT p PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) 0 E L 0 Mixed brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] Light brown -gray fine SAND [SP] 5 .-1 ............Gray.clayey..f.ine-SAND.....[.SCI ................................. Very light gray fine SAND [SPI in................................................. INATED AT 10 FEET ATTERBERG I%) K ORG. MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. 1%) (%) DAY) (%) LL PI UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.50 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-15 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION If* 31.8 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 1.9 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): +2.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEH A BLOWS N Y p PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) 0 E L 0 MUCK [PT] Gray -brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM v . Dark gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] 5 ................ . Very light brown fine SAND [SP] 1 BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET ATTERBERG K ORG. -200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. I%) 1%) DAY) 1%) LL PI 127 55.3 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.51 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BORING DESIGNATION: R-1 B SHEET: 1 of 1 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTERBERG CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 31.0 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 3.6 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO (FT./ EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): +1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION (FT./ CONT. E INCREMENT FT.) 0 1%) DAY) (%) LL PI Light brown fine SAND; with mottling [SP] ---Brown Z ."." : Gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] 5 ..................................................... _ ..................... .................................................................... ............ .... ........... ................... ...... ............ ........... .................. .................. Gray -brown clayey fine SAND [SC] Very light gray fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] Gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] 10 ......................:...............BORING . ................. .......... ..... .............. ........_... TERMINATED AT 10 FEET ......... .._.... .................. 15 ............ ........_._._........;..:_....::...:......... ........ ......_......._................... :.:..:.... ..... .... ...........:.......... .... ....:...:._......... _:......._...................... 20 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................ 25 30 ........... ................... ...... ..................................... ..... ...... ......... .........._....................... .......... ............. .:... ............. ................... .... ....... ........ .... .., ..........:........................ 35............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... "D UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.52 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 S NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-1 % SHEET: 1 of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 32.6 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 7.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 [ a—1..._I.._....................I...._..........f.......... I...... ... .{................. ,..........._....._:........ .__....................... .................... :...G........_.. c 35 ............................................ . S DEPTH A M BLOWS N M ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) 0 (%) (%) LL PI E L DAY) (%) 0 Dark gray fine SAND; with roots [SP1 ' -. ---Mixed gray : Mixed brown silty fine SAND [SMI 5 ............ .......... :,.::..:........................................................... ................. ........... ........ v Greenish -gray clayey fine SAND [SCI 10 ..... ...................._......_ ......... ........ .. BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET [ a—1..._I.._....................I...._..........f.......... I...... ... .{................. ,..........._....._:........ .__....................... .................... :...G........_.. c 35 ............................................ . 119 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.53 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-1 8 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 33.9 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 6.2 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y M (FT.) p PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) 0 E L 0 Mixed gray fine SAND [SPI 17 Mixed brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -S Light gray -brown fine SAND [SPI 5 . . ... .. ....... .. ..... ............................................................... ......... ........... v Light gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] .................. ................ ..... I10 � BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET -200 MC ATTERBERG K ORG. I%) I%) LIMITS (FT.! CONT. LL I P, DAY) (%) I I PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BORING DESIGNATION: R-1 9 SHEET: 1 Of 1 N NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA P PER 6- CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 33.3 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 6.1 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE COSULTING ENGINEERS DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 LIMITS ] -200 MC ATTERBERG K ORG. (%) (%) (FT./ CONT. LL PI DA (%) U DEH A M BLOWS N 20 . Y M (FPTT.) P PER 6- (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION L INCREMENT FT.) 35-1 .... 0 E I. L 0 Mixed brown fine SAND [SP) 17 ---Very light brown 5 . . .. ..... . . ..... .. ....... .... .. . ... ................ ........................ ........ Gray -brown silty fine SAND P 10 . ..... .......... BORING TERMINATED AT 10 LIMITS ] -200 MC ATTERBERG K ORG. (%) (%) (FT./ CONT. LL PI DA (%) U 20 . ............................ Zb. . .... . ........ 30- ............ 35-1 .... ....................... t I. LIMITS ] -200 MC ATTERBERG K ORG. (%) (%) (FT./ CONT. LL PI DA (%) U UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70060-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.55 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE; SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-20 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 32.9 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 7.2 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE. OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y M ATTERBERG K pRG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS (FT CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) p (%) 1%1 ./ DAY) (%) E L LL PI Gray -brown fine SAND [SP] Very dark brown silty fine SAND [SM] Brown fine SAND [SP] ---Gray-brown 5 _ ..................... ......... ........... :..:.. •. .................... -............ ...................................... ..................... ........... ............... ......... ............. ..................... .......... .................. Gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] v 10 __ .....:........... ...... .......... ........_ " = BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET ................ - .................. ............ ... .................. ......... ...... ............ u UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.56 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE N0.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-21 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 32.9 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 6.8 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26.01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y M ATTERBERG ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS (FT./CONT. CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) 0 (%) (%) ./ DAY) (�/) E L LL PI 0 Light gray -brown fine SAND; with mottling [SP] Gray silty fine SAND [SMI 5 .. ........ ......... ..:.....,:.................................................................................... ............... ................. .... .............. ............ ............. ........ ......... .................. v Light gray -brown fine SAND; with silt ISP-SM1 10 ...................................................... BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET ............................................................................................ u UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.57 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 3/26/01 NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD DATE FINISHED: SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: 11-22 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 33.3 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 6.0 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 ILL -p.1 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 BORING DESIGNATION: R-23 SHEET: 1 Of NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 31.6 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 5.2 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): +1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 Rp UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.59 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-24 SHEET: 1 of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 32.6 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.7 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 0.5 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y M ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION 200 MC MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) Q (0 DAY) lob) E L LL PI 0 -Mixed gray and brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -SP] ---Mixed brown ---Light brown 10 4 5 ........................................... ". Very light gray -brown fine SAND [SP -SM] Light gray -brown silty fine SAND [SM] BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FFFT ................................................................................................. UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: 163635v3 PAGE: B-2.60 PROJECT: WAL-MART STORE NO.3207-00 BLOWS NEW SC -KELLY SITE, SANFORD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: CPH ENGINEERS LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SURVEY PROVIDED BY LOCHRANE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING DESIGNATION: R-255 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: 28 TOWNSHIP: 19 S RANGE: 30 E G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 33.4 DATE STARTED: 3/26/01 WATER TABLE (ft): 7.3 DATE FINISHED: 3/26/01 DATE OF READING: 03/26/01 DRILLED BY: UES -ORLANDO EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): 1.0 TYPE OF SAMPLING: ASTM D-1452 DEPTH M BLOWS N M ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT.) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION 200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) 0 1%) (%) E L LL PI DAY) 0 Mixed gray fine SAND [SP] 5 6 Dark brown fine SAND; with silt [SP -SM] 5 ................. . JLiD ght gray brown silty fine SAND [SM] ].............................................:................................................ BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET 15 _..:....._.:........._ .... ......................:..... ........ ...:................................................. :........__...........................__......................... 20 ... .............. .......... ....... :........ ....... ............ ...... ........... ....... ..... ....................................................................... .................................... . UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES SYMBOLS Number of Blows of a 140 -Ib weight Falling 90 In. Poqufrsd to Drive Standard Spoon One Foot WOR Weight of Drill Rods S Thin -Wall Shelby Tube Undisturbed Sampler Used 90% Percent Core Recovery from Rock Rec. Core -Drilling Operations : Sample Taken at this Level Sample Not Taken at this Level Change in Soil Strata v Free Ground Water Level Seasonal High Ground Water Level RELATIVE DENSITY (sand -silt) Very Loose - Less Than 4 Blows/Ft. Loose - 4 - 10 Blows/Ft. Medium - 10 to 30 Blows/Ft. Dense - 30 to 50 Blows/Ft. Very Dense - More Than 50 Blows/Ft. CONSISTENCY (clay) Very Soft - Less Than 2 Blows/Ft I Soft - 2 to 4 Blows/Ft. Medium - 4 to 8 Blows/Ft. -! Stiff - 8 to 15 Blows/Ft. Very Stiff - 15 to 30 Blows/Ft. Hard - More Than 30 Blows/Ft. 1«Y TO BORING LOGS UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICALNAMES y - GW Well -graded gravels and gravel -sand Js Z mixtures, little or no lines GP Poorly graded gravels and gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines Z W _ W GM Silty gravels, gravel -send -slit mixtures t] ?< 3 Zd u- GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -day mixtures Q N O � � � r� + 2}•Sf • O Z SW Well -graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no.ljnes SP Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines e W SM Silty sends, sand -silt mixtures 2 SC Clayey sands, sand -day mixtures ML Inorganic slits, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey line sands CL Inorganic days of low to medium plasticity, gravelly days, sandy days, iS g q silty days, lean days MENNEN � 7 OL Organic slits and organic silty days of Q W Z UOUD UMrr (LLQ low plasticity rn MH Inorganic slits, micaceous or e U y� dlatomacecus line sands or silts, elastic silts CH Inorganic days or high plasticity, fel days J OH Organic days of medium to high plasticity Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, muck and otter highly organic sails • Bred on ft ma.rw peskg ttr 3-im (75 -mm) alw m B-3 PLASTICITY CHART Ron Ad 50 offifflIPANNE 40 30. 20 10 7 4 511111111111111 MENNEN 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 So 70 e0 90 100 110 UOUD UMrr (LLQ B-3 Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v2 DESCRIPTION OF LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES WASH 200 TEST The Wash 200 test is performed by passing a representative soil sample over a No. 200 sieve and rinsing with water. The percentage of the soil grains passing this sieve is then calculated. pH DETERMINATION (CALIFORNIA DOT 643) The pH is measured by mixing distilled water with a soil sample until the soil particles are dispersed. Then the sample is checked for pH, using a pH meter. RESISTIVITY TESTING (CALIFORNIA DOT 643) The resistivity test is performed by preparing a sample with soil passing the No. 8 sieve, adding distilled water, and mixing. The sample is then placed in a soil box with electrodes, where it is connected to a resistivity meter. The resistivity is measured passing through the soil. The sample is removed from the box and further diluted with distilled water, and the procedure is repeated until a minimum resistivity is obtained. ORGANIC CONTENT DETERMINATION ASTM D-2974 This test method evaluates the moisture content, ash content, and organic matter in peats and other organic soils, such as organic clay, silt, sand, and "muck". The organic content measurement was performed by placing a sample of soil in a low temperature oven. The soil is then dried (as described above) to measure the initial moisture content. The soil is then transferred to a high temperature kiln which burns off the organic materials. The organic content is then calculated as the ratio of the weight loss to the dry weight of the soil measured from the low temperature oven; it is expressed as a percent. MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION ASTM D-2216 Moisture content is the ratio of the weight of water to the dry weight of soil. Moisture content is measured by drying a sample at 105 degrees Celsius. The moisture content is expressed as a percent of the oven dried soil mass. N-1211 M, Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v2 DESCRIPTION OF LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES CONTINUED... LIMEROCK BEARING RATIO - FM 5-515 This test method is intended to evaluate the bearing value of soils when they are compacted in the laboratory at moistures varying from the dry to wet side of optimum. The samples are compacted using a 10 -pound hammer dropped from a height of 18 inches. The test is useful for evaluating limerock and other soils used for base, stabilized subgrade, and subgrade or embankment material encountered. MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION ASTM D-2216 Moisture content is the ratio of the weight of water to the dry weight of soil. Moisture content is measured by drying a sample at 105 degrees Celsius. The moisture content is expressed as a percent of the oven dried soil mass. I, B - 4.2 4a UNIVERSAL Project No.: 70080-010-01 Report No.: 164219 Ea ENGINEERING SCIENCES Date: April 5, 2001 Consultants In: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspections 3532 Maggie Blvd. • Orlando, FL 32811 • (407) 423-0504 • FAX (407) 423-3106 REPORT ON LIMEROCK BEARING RATIO (FM 5-515) Client: CPH Engineers Post Office Box 2808 Sanford, Florida 32772-2808 Project: Wal-Mart Supercenter Store No. 3207-00 New SC -Kell Site Sanford West Florida 1 p Y , Sample: Brown Sand With Silt IV Location: Parking Area, Native Maximum Density: Optimum Moisture: Maximum LBR: Required LBR Value: Wash -200: Fi Limerock Bearing Ratio - Sample By and Date: 1- Date Received: Date Tested: Stress Penetration Curve Attached 105.0 pcf 13.0% '24 40 N/S FM 5-515 Drilling 3-30-01 3-30-01 4-5-01 Note: 'The above sample does not meet the requirement of LBR value of 40. I certify this test was performed in accordance with FSTM Method FM 5-515. vh/si WO# N/S C-1.1 Project No.: 70080-010-01 Report No.: 164219 Date: April 5, 2001 250 200 150 0 100 t4 90 60 � 70 C 60 CUd 50 Y 40 U �. O Q 30 E J 20 b 10 108 w U CL v 106 rl i L C 104 w 102 8 10 12 14 16 Moisture Content (% by weight) .i' LBR Value: 24 Optimum Moisture: 13.0 Maximum Density: 105.0 Sample No.: A1532 C-1.2 UNIVERSAL PROCTOR TEST RESULTS ENGINEERING SCIENCES CLIENT PROJECT NAME/LOCATION CPH Engineers Wal-Mart Sanford West, Florida, Store No. 3207-00, Post Office Box 2808 New SC -Kelly Site, Seminole County, Florida j Sanford, Florida 32772-2808 PROJECT NO.: 70080-010-01 Sample Location: Sample Description: Building Pad, Native Gray to Brown Sand With Silt _= DESCRIPTION OF PROCTOR TESTS Test Method (1) Standard (2) Modified (3) Modified (1,2 or 3) ASTM 0698 ASTM 01557 ASTM D1557 (AASHTO T-991 AASHTO T-180 AASHTO T-180 4 Inch Mold 6 Inch Mold Vol. of Cylinder 1/30 1/30 1/13.333 cuff ! I Hammer Weight (lbs.) 5-1/2 10 10 ! I I I ! ! I Hammer Drop in.) 12 18 18 1 1 I I i I Hammer Blows Per 25 25 56 Layer Number of Layers 3 5 5 i j ! Compaction Energy 12.375 I 56.259 56.259 — ft. -lbs. per cu. ft.) ! i I SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS Z I Lab No. L532 I j i Date Tested 4-2-01 ! �R .K] • ,�y�R._ ;ry Test. Method 2 — Maximum 101.4 Dry Density (pcf) - Optimum 14.0 Moisture Content (%) Wash 200 (%) 5.9 l�l it IIII ill! !II i I I i i I vh Date: April 10, 2001 Report No.: 164744 W.O.#N/S C-2 � 1 1 STRUCTURAL COEFFICIENTS FOR DIFFERENT PAVEMENT LAYERS Specification Layer Section Coefficient Laver 337 0.00 FC -2 337 0.20 FC -1 or FC -4 331 0:44 Type S 333 0.30 Type III 332 0.20 Type H 280 0.30 ABC -3 (Marshall - 1000) 280 0.25 ABC -2 (Marshall - 750) 280 0.20 ABC -1 (Marshall - 500) 272 0.25 Econocrete (1100 psi) 272 0.22 Econocrete ( 800 psi) 270 0.20 Soil Cement (500 psi) 270 0.15 Soil Cement (300 psi) 335 0.15 SAHM (Marshall - 300) 204 0.15 Graded Aggregate (LBR-100_) 250 0.18 Cemented Coquina Shell (LBR-100) 200 0.18 Limerock (LBR-100) 250 0.16 Bank Run Shell (LBR-100) 230 0.12 Limerock Stab. (LBR-70) 240 0.12 Sand Clay (LBR-75) 260 0.10 Shell Stab. (LBR-70) 160-3 0.10. Stabilized Subbase 180 0.08 Stabilized Subbase 160-2 0.08 Type B Stab. (LBR-40) . 160-2 0.06 Type B Stab. (LBR-30) 160-2 0.06 Type C Stab. 170 0.12 Cement Treated Subgrade (300 psi) 165 0.08 Lime Treated Subgrade The coefficients presented in this Table are based on the best currently available data. Adjustments will be made to these values, by memorandum, in the future should research or other information dictate. Unbound subbase are used only as a component of a Composite Base. See Index 514. Subbase layer coefficients are set at 90 % of the base coefficient. G N LIMEROCK DEARING RATIO ( L B R) 10 40,000 30,000 ' $ 20,000 a . a S. _ s 10,000 E a 6 fn �0 9,000 a E� o sy 7 So o 8,000 a o E- 7,000 w c' 5 6 ,000 5,000 k h,000 3 3,000 �( 2 2,000 AASHO Resilient Modulus Correlation To Soil Support Value Ikom lei i .11t(ITT I I WIi 5 x 10 t o 3 i s �4 j2 1 R s 95% NU Oeslgn Slruclurol Number, SN sox 0.35 M„ • 5000 psi Fad HEAVY DKTY FoR STD, 'PuTY APSI : 1.9 FAWAAC N T � 4 A PT = 2, b Solullonl SN = 5.0 LTSr`Z'O) USC— LAS L A :E %U ?,2 AtAw) nAUM stq 2r9 IN A,,,,aA�ANE WITH WAL *,MA Nr - MA VbA-�ISS, Figure 3.1.- Design chart for flexible pavements booed on using moan values for each Input. 99.9 TL o • 99 .O 2 A a ,,, (T r Design ServlceoblIlly Loss, OPSI b. 0 . s O .i - g .4 o q W 0 .t tti o:= Y U p 4O to Cr i0 aog 70 1.0 i0 v $ 50 Ikom lei i .11t(ITT I I WIi 5 x 10 t o 3 i s �4 j2 1 R s 95% NU Oeslgn Slruclurol Number, SN sox 0.35 M„ • 5000 psi Fad HEAVY DKTY FoR STD, 'PuTY APSI : 1.9 FAWAAC N T � 4 A PT = 2, b Solullonl SN = 5.0 LTSr`Z'O) USC— LAS L A :E %U ?,2 AtAw) nAUM stq 2r9 IN A,,,,aA�ANE WITH WAL *,MA Nr - MA VbA-�ISS, Figure 3.1.- Design chart for flexible pavements booed on using moan values for each Input. TL eo E r Design ServlceoblIlly Loss, OPSI b. to . s O .i Y �/ N 50 q W 0 o:= Y U p 4O to Cr aog o xo 1.0 o Q v $ .5-:�S o � o_ E� u o 1 00ITI 1 in Ikom lei i .11t(ITT I I WIi 5 x 10 t o 3 i s �4 j2 1 R s 95% NU Oeslgn Slruclurol Number, SN sox 0.35 M„ • 5000 psi Fad HEAVY DKTY FoR STD, 'PuTY APSI : 1.9 FAWAAC N T � 4 A PT = 2, b Solullonl SN = 5.0 LTSr`Z'O) USC— LAS L A :E %U ?,2 AtAw) nAUM stq 2r9 IN A,,,,aA�ANE WITH WAL *,MA Nr - MA VbA-�ISS, Figure 3.1.- Design chart for flexible pavements booed on using moan values for each Input. 14L T- AA S�/Lc-/u, ZL -c l 1� i�-' SL -- FLL S' RI Computed by date Ckd by date Rev sheetof / r x � '® sp n� �.. � P � � p. ,�.M � �� Wal*Mart - Sanford West, Florida Store #3207-00 New SC -Kelly Site Seminole County, Florida GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FACT SHEET -- Include this form in the Geotechnical Report as an Appendix. PROJECT LOCATION: Wal-Mart Supercenter Store No. 3207-00 New SC -Kelly Site, Sanford West, FL Engineer: Bruce H. Woloshin, P.E. Phone #: (407) 423-0504 Geotechnical Engineering Co.: Universal Engineering Sciences, Inca Report Date: April 9, 2001 Ground Water Elevation: 25.4 - 35.6 Fills soils Characteristics: (If encountered) Date Groundwater Measured: 03/21/01 Maximum Liquid Limit: N/N - Use Non -plastic Topsoil/Stripping Depth: 12 inches Maximum Plasticity Index: N/N - Use Non -plastic Undercut (if Required): See Text Specified Compaction: 95% Modified (ASTM D -1557) Modified Proctor Results: (Attach Plots.) Moisture Content Range: -2% to +0% of optimum Recommended Compaction Control Tests: 1 Test for Each 2,500 Sq. ft. each lift (bldg. area) 1 Test for Each 10,000 Sq. ft. each lift (parking area) Structural Fill Maximum Lift Thickness 12 In. (Measured loose) Subgrade Design LBR value = 24 COMPONENT ASPHALT CONCRETE standard heavy standard heavy Stabilized Subgrade 12" 12" N/A N/A (If Applicable) Base Material 6" 6" N/A N/A (Stone, Sand/Shell, etc.) Asphalt Base Course N/A N/A Leveling Binder Course N/A N/A Surface Course 3" 4" 5" 7" (Concrete Thickness) NOTE: This information shall not be used'separately from the geotechnical report. FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA Universal Engineering Sciences Report No. 163635 dated April 9, 2001 Geotechnical Exploration Doc#164692 E - 1 Wal"Mart - Sanford West, Florida Store #3207-00 New SC -Kelly Site Seminole County, Florida Include this form in the Geotechnical Report as an Appendix. PROJECT LOCATION: Wal-Mart SuperCenter Store No. 3207-00 New SC -Kelly Site. Sanford West. FL Engineer: Bruce H. Woloshin, P.E. Phone #: (407) 423-0504 Geotechnical Engineering Co.: Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc, Report Date: 04/09/01 Foundation type: Spread Footings Allowable bearing pressure: 3,000 Psf. Factor of Safety: 2.0 for bearing capacity Minimum footing dimensions: Individual: 24" Continuous: 18" Minimum footing embedment: Exterior: 18" Interior: 18" Frost depth: NONE Maximum foundation settlements: Total: 1" Differential: 0.5" Slab: Potential vertical rise: None Anticipated Vapor barrier or capillary break (describe): 6 mil polyethylene sheet with 2 " crushed stone (FDOT No. 57) Subgrade reaction modulus: 150 Psi/in Method obtained: Normal site preparation Active Equivalent Fluid Pressures 66 pcf Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressures 265 Perimeter Drains (describe): Building: None Retaining Walls: See Text Cement type: Type I Retaining Wall: At rest pressure: KQ = 0.5 Coefficient of friction: 0.2 COMMENTS: NOTE: This information shall not be used separately from the geotechnical report. FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION i Universal Engineering Sciences Report No. 163635 dated April 9, 2001 Geotechnical Exploration DOC#164692 E - 2 Wal*Mart - Sanford West, Florida Store #3207-00 New SC -Kelly Site Seminole County, Florida WAL*MART, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA NEW SC -KELLY SITE 4/09/01 UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED OTHERWISE IN THE DRAWINGS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE LIMITS OF THIS SUBSURFACE PREPARATION ARE CONSIDERED TO BE THAT PORTION OF THE SITE DIRECTLY BENEATH AND 10 FEET BEYOND THE BUILDING AND APPURTENANCES. APPURTENANCES ARE THOSE ITEMS ATTACHED TO THE BUILDINGS PROPER AND TYPICALLY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE BUILDING SIDEWALKS, GARDEN CENTER, PORCHES, RAMPS, STOOPS, TRUCK WELLS/DOCKS, COMPACTOR PAD, ETC. THE SUBBASE DOES NO EXTEND BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING AND APPURTENANCES. ESTABLISH THE FINAL SUBGRADE ELEVATION AT 6 INCHES BELOW THE FINISHED CONCRETE ELEVATION WHEN USING A 4 INCH SLAB OR 7.5 INCHES BELOW THE FINISHED CONCRETE WHEN USING A 5.5 INCH SLAB TO ALLOW FOR THE SLAB THICKNESS OVER 2 INCHES OF GRANULAR MATERIAL OVER A PLASTIC VAPOR BARRIER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS OF ALL CUT AND FILL DEPTHS REQUIRED. STRIP ALL UNSUITABLE SURFACE MATERIALS INCLUDING SURFACE VEGETATION, ORGANIC TOPSOIL, ROOTS, AND ANY UNSUITABLE SURFACE SOILS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AREA. THESE MATERIALS SHALL BE WASTED FROM THE SITE OR USED AS TOPSOIL IN LANDSCAPE AREAS. ANY ANTICIPATED FOUNDATION, FLOOR -SLAB, OR FILL AREA SHALL BE DENSIFIED AND THEN PROOF ROLLED TO DETERMINE IF ANY UNSTABLE SOIL CONDITIONS EXIST. SURFACE DENSIFICATION AND PROOF ROLLING SHALL BE PERFORMED AFTER ANY REQUIRED EARTHWORK CUTS ARE MADE AND PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT. ANY UNSUITABLE AREAS SHALL BE UNDERCUT AND REPLACED WITH COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL. STRUCTURAL FILL PLACED IN THE BUILDING AREA SHALL BE COMPRISED OF INORGANIC, NON -PLASTIC GRANULAR SOILS WITH LESS THAN 10 PERCENT FINES PASSING THE #200 SIEVE. THE FILL SHALL BE PLACED IN LOOSE LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING 12 INCHES IN THICKNESS AND BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 95 PERCENT OF THE MODIFIED PROCTOR MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (ASTM D1557). THE MOISTURE CONTENT SHALL BE CONTROLLED TO AT LEAST PLUS OR MINUS 2 PERCENT OF OPTIMUM. THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM SHALL BE CONTINUOUS STRIP_ FOOTINGS AT THE WALLS AND ISOLATED SPREAD FOOTINGS AT COLUMN LOCATIONS. THIS FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A COMPLETE SITE WORK SPECIFICATION. INFORMATION COVERED IN THIS PREPARATION SHALL GOVERNS OVER THE WAL*MART SPECIFICATIONS. REFER TO THE WORK SPECIFICATIONS AND THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES DATED APRILI2, 2001, UES PROJECT NO. 70080-010-01, AND REPORT NO. 163635, FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION NOT COVERED IN THIS PREPARATION. THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLYAND IS NOT CONSIDERED A DESIGN SPECIFICATION. An E -Mail address for the Geotechnical Engineer, Bruce H. Woloshin, P.E. is : bwoloshin(a)_uesorl.com (A final review of the pad prep before the construction documents are completed is required.) Universal Engineering Sciences Report No. 163635 dated April 9, 2001 Geotechnical Exploration DOC#164692 E - 3 Subsurface roblems are a rinci ° al cause of construction dela s cost overruns; claims; and dis utes.�« Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique; each geotechnical engineering report is uniquely prepared for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering reportwithout first confiding with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one -not even you -should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. AGeotechnical Engineering Report is Based on A Unique Set of Project Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique project specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conduced the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: the function of the proposed structure as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or project ownership As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes -even minor ones -and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of when they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events such as flood, earthquakes, or groundwaterfluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report, to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgement to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ -sometimes significantly -from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. F-1.1 A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over rely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgement and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also, retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can. also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce such risks, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations," many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineer's responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks., Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenviron mental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Rely on Your Geotechnical Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. PROFESSIONAL FIRMS PRACTICING ASFE IN THE GEOSCIENCES 8811 Colesville Road Suite G106 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301-565-2733 Facsimile:301-589-2017 email: info anasfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 1998 by ASFE, Inc. Unless ASFE grants written permission to do so, duplication of this document by any means whatsoever is expressly prohibited. Re -use of the working in this document in whole or in part, also is expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE or for purposed of review or scholarly research. I IGER06983.5M F-1.2 Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v2 CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS WARRANTY Universal Engineering Sciences has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive use, in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices, and makes no other warranty either expressed or implied as to the professional advice provided in the report. UNANTICIPATED SOIL CONDITIONS The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between these borings. The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become known until excavation begins. If variations appear, we may have to re-evaluate our recommendations after performing native observations and noting the characteristics of any variations. CHANGED CONDITIONS We recommend that the specifications for the project require that the contractor immediately notify Universal Engineering Sciences, as well as the owner, when subsurface conditions are encountered that are different from those present in this report. No claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those anticipated in the plans, specifications, and those found in this report, should be allowed unless the contractor notifies the owner and Universal Engineering Sciences of such changed conditions. Further, we recommend that all foundation work and site improvements be observed by a representative of Universal Engineering Sciences to monitor field conditions and changes, to verify design assumptions and to evaluate and recommend any appropriate modifications to this report. MISINTERPRETATION OF SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT Universal Engineering Sciences is responsible for the conclusions and opinions contained within this report based upon the data relating only to the specific project and location discussed herein. If the conclusions or recommendations based upon the data presented are made by others, those conclusions or recommendations are not the responsibility of Universal Engineering Sciences. CHANGED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION This report was prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this project and to assist the architect or engineer in the design of this project. If any changes in the design or location of the structure as outlined in this report are planned, or if any structures are included or added that are not discussed in the report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions modified or approved by Universal Engineering Sciences. F - 2.1 Project No. 70080-010-01 Report No. 163635v2 USE OF REPORT BY BIDDERS Bidders who are examining the report prior to submission of a bid are cautioned that this report was prepared as an aid to the designers of the project and it may affect actual construction operations. Bidders are urged to make their own soil borings, test pits, test caissons or other investigations to determine those conditions that may affect construction operations. Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be responsible for any interpretations made from this report or the attached boring logs with regard to their adequacy in reflecting subsurface conditions which will affect construction operations. STRATA CHANGES Strata changes are indicated by a definite line on the boring logs which accompany this report. However, the actual change in the ground may be more gradual. Where changes occur between soil samples, the location of the change must necessarily be estimated using all available information and may not be shown at the exact depth. OBSERVATIONS DURING DRILLING Attempts are made to detect and/or identify occurrences during drilling and sampling, such as: water level, boulders, zones of lost circulation, relative ease or resistance to drilling progress, unusual sample recovery, variation of driving resistance, obstructions, etc.; however, lack of mention does not preclude their presence. WATER LEVELS Water level readings have been made in the drill holes during drilling and they indicate normally occurring conditions. Water levels may not have been stabilized at the last reading. This data has been reviewed and interpretations made in this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, tides, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported. Since the probability of such variations is anticipated, design drawings and specifications should accommodate such possibilities and construction planning should be based upon such assumptions of variations. LOCATION OF BURIED OBJECTS All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Universal Engineering Sciences to attemptto locate any man-made buried objects during the course of this exploration and that no attempt was made by Universal Engineering Sciences to locate any such buried objects. Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects which are subsequently encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text of this report. TIME This report reflects the soil conditions at the time of investigation. If the report is not used in a reasonable amount of time, significant changes to the site may occur and additional reviews may be required. F - 2.2