HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeoTech Report for COM2008-00027 - BLD Engineering / Geo-tech Reports - 5/8/2008 ALKAI CONSULTANTS, LLC.
Environmental Engineering • Geotechnical Engineering • Wetland Consulting
May 8, 2008 Job# 10149
Mason County Department of Community Development
P.O. Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
Attn: Mr. Wright
Geotechnical Report Review
Permit#Com 2008-00027
Applicant: South Shore Ent.
At your request, we have reviewed a Geotechnical Report for the above referenced permit. The report was
prepared by Envirotech Engineering dated November 12, 2007. The report was signed and stamped by Michael
Clyde Staten, PE(License#43045).
The report contains the information required in the Mason County Code, Landslide Hazardous Areas 8.52.140.E.
Further, it is ALKAI's opinion that the report was prepared to at least the typical standard of practice for
geotechnical engineering in this area.
We therefore recommend that Mason County accept the geotechnical report.
Should you have any questions or concerns, or if we may be of additional assistance, please call our office at
(360) 613-2407 or contact us by e-mail at Jim@alkai.net.
Sincerely,
ologist
Donald Balmer, L.G. 'C, 1950 Ja es Harding, E.I.T
Senior Hydrogeologist Sed ® P0ect Engineer
Donald K. Balmer
Attachments: Geo Tech Work Order
Geotechnical Report: Envirotech Engineering
Mason County Requirements Checklist
9465 Provost Road NW, Suite 202 9 Silverdale,Washington 98383 • (360) 613-2407 • Fax: (360) 613-2408
d
Project Lp �T� 0e 7 ALKAI CONSULTANTS 5/2/2008
5 tfax--- e:-rT,
Mason County Requirements
For Geotechnical Reports
Mason county code 8.52.140 section 5(E)
X❑ 1) A discussion of general geologic conditions,specific soil types,ground water
conditions,the upslope geomorphology and location of upland waterbodies and
wetlands, and history of landslide activity in the vicinity
X❑ 2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features.
X❑ 3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes.
X❑ 4) The area of the proposed development,the boundaries of the hazard, and associated
buffers and setbacks shall be delineated(top, both sides, and toe)on a geologic map
of the site.
XO 5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the
subsurface profile, and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes.
X❑ 6) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and
seismic loading conditions. Analysis should examine worst case failures. The analysis
should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static safety
factor is 1.5,the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1 and the quasi-static
analysis coefficients should be a value of 0.15.
X❑ 7) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features,septic drain fields and
compacted fills and footings, including recommended buffers and setbacks from the
landslide hazard areas.
X❑ 8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which
specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and
replanting, and the method of vegetation removal.
X❑ 9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which
identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to
protect the slope from erosion, landslides and harmful construction methods.
X❑ 10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
X❑ 11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management,
drainage,erosion control, and buffer widths.
X❑ 12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other
proposed mitigation.
X❑ 13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the
location and nature of existing and proposed development on the site.
I
� i
ALL SE T�3AC'KS .ARE MEASURED
FRO^,/1 TIIEFURiHES'f
PROJECTION OF THE BUILDING
� �•.
120.38
%i
25'REAR SETBACK LINE ;I %' �•
I
I
I
I I `• N
Io .............................i 3
�I I N V
�1 I• 'v- I
I li I
j bTORMWATER RETENTION
be6IGNED FOR EXI$TMG I Warehouse
I i WAREHOUSE AND WION OaJARE It
1 I: (EXISTING) I I EXISTING
II I
I I I
EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD
I,
� I
I 1 I I
I ; NEW STORMWATER PRIMARY
........................................................................z............+............... .. SEDIMENT POND-SEE CIVIL
o i t RETENTION POND
0 1 200.30
EXISTING
AND PARIc�M AREAS
25'SIDE SETpAdC LINE _
1 1
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
SOLID WASTE LOCATION ;•'••••'� , TO DE REMOVED by P MD PARCEL COINATICN
Y 'I" 24'-2"
I ca O --- —
NEW ROAD -
11PROVEMENT6FEW TTED
PREVIOUSLY I �+
SEPTIC AND PU°IP TANK AREA I O _ Urtion-Square _. .--___-.-----_ i__ - --- ( O�✓
SEE 6EPtIC DESIGN MY OTHERS 1 I EXISTING RETAIL/OFFICE 1
7
NEW PARKINGAREAS- NEW CPD88WALK
I I
iv 34 SPACES I I S'-®"¢I i �D 6 ' z
II I
rU. —L
I `----- --- - n
----- ------ ----- ------- I LLLLLLLLLL
-------
A DRA"IELD AREA ----- --- - ----- - ----- ------ b 4
-SEE SEPTIC DESIGN 5Y OTHERS NEW ENTRYtEXIT
N 88' 320.71 Ex16tING ROAD EDGE
t0 6E MODIFIED
90'FRONT 6ETDACK LINE EXISTING EXIT.�.�—
_ �•; 6XISTMfi 61,17R1'
5 4 S-BULT CENTERLINE D Iby Road ._
112'-4"
PARCEL NO.: 32232-50-94015
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Site Plan
UNION HOOD CANAL LAND AND IMP CO ELKS: S4-S& LOTS:
1-3, 28-30 E PTNS OF VAC 50GUE t OAKS ST SEE SURVEY 30/5 Scale: I" ■ 50'-0"
SITE ADDRESS: NO"
320 E DALBY ROAD
UNION,WASHINGTON
MASON LPN R p�ED
SITE PLAN REQUIRED TO BE ON SITE
I PLANNING
By
CHAN (S SUBJECT TO MZL)--L
js
_Date
Geotechnical Report
for
South Shore Enterprises, LLC Commercial Building
Parcel Number 32232 50 94015
320 Dalby Road
Mason County, Washington
November 12, 2007
Project#0754
Prepared For:
South Shore Enterprises, LLC
PO Box 249
Union, Washington 98592
Prepared By: C^
Envirotech Engineering
74 NE Hurd Road
Belfair, Washington 98528 �
Phone: 360-275-9374 w L
Fax: 360-275-4789 EXPIP�s 1 ?�9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION.................. ...............................................'..................................... 1
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK.................................•--------------------..................................................................... 1
2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................3
2.1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS....................................................................'.......................................
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................................
2.2.1 Upslope Geomorpholog .......................................................................................................
2.3 SURFACEDR-UN:AGE..................................................................................................................... 3
2.4 SLOPE.AND EROSION OBSERVATIONS........................•---------.........................................................
11
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION.................................................................................................4
3.1 FIELD METHODS_.---.............................................................•---.......................... 4
3.2 FIELD S LAIPLING AND FIELD TESTING.......................................................................... 4
3.3 GENERA:GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS..... ..........................................................................._...... 4
3.4 SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................. ........................ 4
3.11 Groundrvater.................................••--------............••••-----------................................................... 5
3.5 SOILSTESTING............................................................................................................................. Is
3.5.1 Visual Classification.................................................................................--........................ 5
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS,CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................6
4.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION REcommEND ATIOI S..............................................................................6
4.1.1 Bearing Capacitt............................................................................................................... 0
4.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade................................................--.......................
............_.............._
4.2 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES........................................................ ...................................... 7
4.3 EARTMTORK CONSTRICTION RECOAIAIENDATIONS .................................................................... 7
4.3.1 Exeavation...................................................................................... 7
43.2 Plavement and Compaction c f Native Soils and Engineered Rll.......................................... R
43.3 Retaining Wall Backfill......................................................................................................... 9
4.3.4 Wet Weather Considerations............... ................................................................. ........ 9
4.4 SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION CONTROL........................................................... 9
4.4, 1 Septic Drain fated Impac-s.....................................................................—-.......................... 10
4.4 2 Building and Rioting Setbacks........................................................................................... 10
1-1.3 Temporary and Permanent Erasion Control............................................................................................ 11
4.4.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage...................................................................................... 11
4.45 Vegetation Considerations................................................................................--.__......... 12
4.4 6 Off-site impacts................................................................................................................... 12
4.5 SEISAIIC CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................................................... 12
4.6 P:AVEAIENTAN_ALYSIS.............................. ................ ................... •-----..............-............._....... 12
5.0 CLOSURE..................................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix A - Site Plan
Appendix B-Geologic Map
Appendix C - Soil Information
Soil Profile
Soil Logs
Well Reports
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Envirotecb Engineering (Envirotech) has completed a geotechnical investigation for a vacant
property identified as parcel number 32232 50 94015 located in Mason County. Washington
(Project). The physical address is 320 Dalby Road located near Union. As presented herein_ this
report includes infonnation pertaining to the Project in this Introduction Section:. observations of
the property and surrounding terrain in the Surface Conditions Section: field methods and soils
descriptions in the Subsurface Investigation Section: and.. recommendations for foundation,
settlement. carthwork, lateral earth pressures. slope stability and erosion control in the
Engineering Analysis and Recommendations Section.
An initial geotechnical evaluation of the Project was conducted by Envirotech with the property
owner, Rick Buechel of South Shore Enterprises. LLC. on November 1, 2007. Although natural
slopes are relatively minor on the property, it ,vas determined that the Project will require a
geotechnical report due to the significance of the existing fill within and near the proposed
building footprint. During the evaluation and site visit by- Envirotech. surface and subsurface
conditions were assessed. After completion of the field work and applicable Project research,
Envirotech prepared this geotechnical report.
1.1 Project Description
Information pertaining to the Project was provided by-the property-owner. The Project is accessed
from an existing paved road (Dalbv Road) linking State Highway 106. See the vicinity map on
the following page of this report. At a minimum.the new development is expected to consist of a
1-story commercial building, asphalt paved parking lot_ on-site septic system, and other ancillary-
features. The planned building will be 5000 square feet_ used for retail/ office. and founded on
concrete footings and slab-on-grade. Approximate building footprint with relation to site features
are illustrated in the Site Map in Appendix A.
1.2 Purpose of Investigation
The purpose of this geotechnical investigation -,vas to evaluate the Project in order to provide
geotechnical recommendations relating to the construction of the planned retail/ office building.
The investigation included characterizing the general Project surface and subsurface conditions,
and evaluating the suitability of the soils to support the planned site activities.
1.3 Scope of Work
In order to fulfill the purpose of investigation, the geotechnical program completed for the
proposed improvements of the Project include:
• Review project information provided b-y the Project owner and owner's representative_
including field density-reports of the compacted fill:
• Conduct a site visit to document the site conditions that may influence the construction
and performance of the proposed improvements:
• Define the general subsurface conditions of the site by observing excavations of up to 2
feet near the planned building footprint, review geological maps for the general area,
research slope stability, and review well logs from an existing well near the Project:
• Collect bulk samples at various depths and locations:
Em irotccla Lnginccring South Shorc Gcotcchnical Investigation
Ph. ,60-27�-9374 pagc 1 Pared 32232 50 94015
Fay: 3fi0-275-47R9 Mason ConTitN. 1ashing1011
Nm cmbcr 12. 2007
• Perform soils testing to determine selected index properties of the soils that include 2
v1sual classifications:
• Complete an engineering analysis supported by planned site alterations, and the surface
and subsurface conditions that were identified by the field investigation and soil testing.-
and,
• Establish conclusions based on findings. and make recommendations for foundations.
slope stability, erosion control. earthwork construction requirements. and other
considerations.
J
E 2MD ST
E 4TH--S
( E KUNN AVE
— L E STH ST-(' 0�
EPINEST21dR9"4'd ESPRAGUEAVE�
E UNgN HEATS OR 1
i
w -
�.'
( #� -----------
A*0 Project
`V „ `I
E VUECR� � E HYLAND DR i�� ESTOR�
LU
E MANZANRA DR �--�--3. ! --- TA
COMA POWER ACCESS RD
ti0
ej
i
Camon Lake
Vicinity Map.from Mason County Wehsite
Endiroteclu Engineerinb South Shore Geotcchnical Imestigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 page 2 Parcel ',22i2 jo 9401
Faiv 360-275-4789 Mason C01111IN- WU Ishinguon
Nm e-mber 12. 2007
2.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS
Information pertaining to the existing surface conditions for the Project was gathered on
November 1, 2007 by Michael Staten, geotechnical engineer with Envirotech. During the site
visit,the type of geotechnical investigation was assessed,site features were documented that may
influence construction, soil samples were collected from selected locations, and near-surface soils
were visually classified. This Surface Conditions Section provides information on general
observations, vegetation, topography, drainage and slope/ erosion conditions for the Project and
surrounding areas that may impact the Project.
2.1 General Observations
The Project is currently vacant land as previously mentioned. Compacted granular fill exists
within most of the southern portion of the property. Commercial buildings exist directly to the
east of the property, and Dalby Road borders to the south. A small creek runs across the property
from west to east, and is located about 250 feet north of the planned building. Beyond the
property lines and adjacent commercial buildings, sparse rural development exists. There is
virtually no vegetation within the vicinity of the planned improvements.
2.2 Topography
The Project is situated within slightly sloping terrain. The building envelope location is on
relatively flat engineered fill over approximately 5% to 8% natural sloping terrain. Natural
descending grades of approximately 5% to 8% exist on the property, and extend towards the
creek to the north. The fill slope is approximately 2:1, and has a maximum height of 7 feet at the
northern edge of the fill pad. The topographic information provided in this section was
extrapolated from a public lidar source, and incorporated observations and field measurements.
See the Site Map in Appendix A and the Geological Map in Appendix B for an illustration of the
general topography, with respect to the planned development.
2.2.1 Upslope Geomorphology
Ascending grades are located to the south of the planned development. This slope is
approximately 5%to 8%. Steeper ascending grades are located over 300 feet to the south
of the planned development. There appears to be a small creek beyond Dalby Road
flowing from west to east, over 300 feet from the planned development.
2.3 Surface Drainage
Stormwater runoff originating upslope and beyond the southern property line is anticipated to be
intercepted by the drainage conveyance adjacent to Dalby Road. Surface drainage within the
property appears to sheet flow in a northerly direction to existing infiltration ponds or the creek.
Excessive scour, erosion or other indications of past drainage problems were not observed at or
near the planned development.
2.4 Slope and Erosion Observations
Conditions that could be detrimental to the proposed development with relation to slope
movement or erosion were not observed at the time of the site visit.
Em irotech Engineering South Shore Geotedmical W\esu_,<tlioii
Pli. 360-211S`)37-t page Parcel 32232) 50 94015
Fax: ',60-2'S-178y 19ason County. l�'ashington
Noy ember 12. 2007
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Information on subsurface conditions pertaining to the Project was gathered on November 1,
2007 by Michael Staten, geotechnical engineer with Envirotech. Specific information on field
methods,sampling,field testing, subsurface conditions,and results from soil testing are presented
in this section of the report. Appendix C has pertinent information on subsurface conditions for
the Project, including a soil cross-section, one test pit log representative of the native bearing
soils of the building,and one water well report.
3.1 Field Methods
Information on subsurface conditions for the Project was accomplished by observing soils within
an excavated test hole near the planned building footprint of approximately 2 feet below the
existing ground surface. Information on subsurface conditions also included reviewing a water
well report originating from a nearby property.
3.2 Field Sampling and Field Testing
One bulk sample was collected at the Project site at approximately 2 feet below the existing
ground surface near the anticipated building location. The soil sample collected was secured and
transported for possible laboratory testing.
Relative density of the in-situ soils were accomplished by Envirotech by recording the resistance
from hand tools.Field testing results generally indicated medium dense to dense soils in the upper
0.5 feet of the existing native soils, dense from 0.5 feet to 1.5 feet, and very dense soils below 1.5
feet in depth.
In addition, the fill material was tested with a nuclear densitometer by Geotechnical Testing
Laboratory.These test results are provided in the Field Density Test Report provided in Appendix
C.These results indicated dense to very dense compacted fill soils.
3.3 General Geologic Conditions
In general, soils at the project are composed of materials from glacial advances. The geologic
conditions as presented in the "Geologic Map of Washington," compiled by J. Eric Schuster,
2002 indicates Lower Tertiary (Oligocene-Paleocene), ITS. Lower tertiary are generally
sedimentary rocks,and dominantly deposited from glacial drift, including alluvium deposits. This
project is located within the Puget Lowland. Typically, "lower tertiary sedimentary rocks
unconformably overlie the Crescent Formation." as revealed in the Geologic Map. Initial
sedimentary rocks were formed from shale, sandstones and coal deposits from rivers. During the
Quaternary period,the Puget Lowland was covered by numerous ice sheets, with the most recent
being the Fraser glacier with a peak of approximately 14,000 years ago. Upon the glacial retreat,
the landscape was formed by glacial erosion glacial drift deposits.
3.4 Specific Subsurface Conditions
The following subsurface conditions are estimated descriptions of the Project subgrade utilizing
information from the depth of penetration at all testing, sampling, observed and investigated
locations. Soils for this project were described utilizing the Unified Soil Classification System
Fnv irotcch Engineering South Shore Geotcchnical Imcsll�)aliou
Pli. 60-27;)7-4 page 4 Parcel ,2212 �0 9401;
Fas: 3b0-27>-�7K9 Mason County� ill(-)toll
Nov cmhcr 12 2UU7
(USCS). Using the USCS in conjunction with estimated relative densities and other anticipated
engineering properties of the soil, susceptibility for potential landslides, erosion and seismic
hazards may be assessed.
The Project is composed of compacted fill soils overlying native soils. For engineering purposes,
these native soils consist of distinguishable layers,as presented below.
Soils beneath the planned building consist of compacted engineered fill ranging from 1 foot to 3.5
feet in depth. These soils were observed to be moist, light brown, dense to very dense poorly-
graded gravel with silt and sand (GP-GM). Gravels are primarily coarse and subrounded to
subangular. Sand content was primarily coarse, and the fines content exhibited no plasticity.
Native soils extending to an unknown depth was observed to be medium dense to very dense,
moist, brown silty sand with gravel (SM). Soils at approximately 1.5 feet below natural ground
are locally known as `hardpan.' Gravel content was primarily subrounded and coarse. Sand
content was primarily well-graded, and the fines content exhibited no plasticity.
According to the well report, the hardpan may extend to depths of 25 feet to 75 feet below the
ground surface.
3.4.1 Groundwater
From the water well report and knowledge of the general area,permanent groundwater is
expected to be greater than 50 feet directly below the property at the building pad
location. Perched groundwater at shallow depths was not indicated on the well reports.
3.5 Soils Testing
The soil samples obtained at the Project site during the field investigation were preserved and
transported for possible laboratory testing. Visual classification of soils was performed in the
field. The following soil tests were performed in accordance with the American Standards for
Testing and Materials(ASTM):
2 Visual Classifications(ASTM D2488)
3.5.1 Visual Classification
The general results from the visual classification are presented in the aforementioned
Subsurface Conditions Section at depths of up to 2 feet below the natural ground surface.
Specifically, native soils within the upper 2 feet consisted of approximately 20% gravel,
60%sand-sized soils, and 20%fines. Fill soils consisted of about 55%gravel, 35%sand
and 10% silt. Minor variations observed during the visual classification of particle size
content (i.e. gravel, sand, fines), or isolated pockets within the soil stratification were
insignificant in relation to the overall engineering properties of the soil.
Emirotech Engineering South Shore Gcotechnical investigation
Ph. 360-27�937l page> Parcel 32232 50 9401
Fav 360-275-.t789 Mason Count_ Washington
Nim cmbcr 12. 2007
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS,CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections present engineering analysis and recommendations for the proposed
improvements of the Project. These recommendations have been made available based on the
planned improvements as outlined in the Introduction Section of this report;general observations
including drainage and topography as recapitulated in the Surface Conditions Section; and, soil
conditions that were identified from the geotechmcal investigation that is summarized in the
Subsurface Investigation Section. Engineering analysis and recommendations for the Project that
is provided herein, includes pertinent information for building foundations, earthwork
construction, slope stability/erosion control, and seismic considerations.
4.1 Building Foundation Recommendations
Recommendations provided in this section account for the site development of a typical one-
story, commercial building. Below the upper 12 inches of Project soils, there are apparently two
distinguishable layers of soil that will influence the bearing capacity and settlement of the
structure. The recommended allowable bearing capacities and settlements as presented below,
consider the probable type of construction as well as the field investigation results by
implementing practical engineering judgment within published engineering standards.
Evaluations include classifying site soils, and deriving probable relative densities, unit weights
and angles of internal friction of the in-situ soils based on observed field conditions and soil
testing for this Project.
The imported fill appears to be sufficiently compacted to withstand the structural loads of both
the planned building and parking lot. The competence of the compacted fill is based on the
accuracy of the field density tests by Geotechnical Testing Laboratory, and the adherence to the
recommendations in this report.
The frost penetration depth is not expected to extend beyond 12 inches below the ground surface
for this Project under normal circumstances and anticipated design features. The fill soils are not
frost susceptible, and the native soils have low to moderate frost susceptible characteristics and
should be used only to the extents provided in this report.
4.1.1 Bearing Capacity
For the existing site conditions, bearing values should increase with depth. Existing in-
situ soils at the Project site indicates that the structure can be established on shallow,
continuous or isolated footings. Foundations shall be established on relatively
undisturbed native soil. Alternatively, foundations may be constructed on selective re-
compacted native soil or compacted engineered fill as described in the Earthwork
Construction Recommendations Section of this report. Footing width and depth
recommendations shall be adhered to,and are based on 2000 pounds per square feet(psf)
maximum structural bearing pressure.
For a bearing capacity requirement of no more than 2000 psf, a minimum footing width
of 16 inches shall be placed at a minimum of 12 inches below the final ground surface on
undisturbed engineered fill or native subgrade. These recommendations are made
available based on adherence to the remaining recommendations that are provided in this
report.
Emrirotech Engineering South Shot-e Gcoteclhnical Imestigation
Ph. 360-27;-9374 page G Parccl >0 9401
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason County. Washington
Noy Clllber 12. 2001
4.1.2 Settlement
Total and differential settlement that a structure will undergo depends primarily on the
subsurface conditions, type of structure, amount and duration of pressure exerted by the
structure, reduction of pore water pressure, and in some instances,the infiltration of free
moisture. Based on the expected native soil conditions, anticipated development, and
construction abides by the recommendations in this report, the assumed foundation
system may undergo a maximum of 1.0 inch total settlement:,and a maximum differential
settlement of 0.75 inch.
4.1.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
Interior slabs, if utilized, should be supported on a minimum of 6 inches of compacted
granular material that is placed over undisturbed native subgrade or engineered fill.
Existing compacted fill soils found at the Project site is suitable material for supporting
concrete slabs. Although not required for the structural integrity of the concrete slab-on-
grade, a vapor barrier is usually used for damp-proofing. If vapor barriers are used, it is
suggested to utilize a barrier that is sufficiently thick to resist puncturing during
construction, or place a 2 inch layer of sand above the barrier prior to placing the
concrete slab.
4.2 Lateral Earth Pressures
Lateral earth pressures exerted through the backfill of a retaining wall are dependent upon several
factors including height of retained soil behind the wall, type of soil that is retained, degree of
backfill compaction, slope of backfill, surcharges, hydrostatic pressures, earthquake pressures,
and the direction and distance that the top of the wall moves. Significant retaining structures are
not anticipated for this Project. If retaining walls are later planned for this Project, prescriptive
requirements from the County should be adhered to. For retaining structures with a height
exceeding County prescriptive requirements, additional design parameters must be accounted for
in the retaining wall analysis, and recommendations should only be provided by a qualified
engineer after the type of backfill is acquired, inclination of backfill slope is estimated, and the
final wall height is determined.
4.3 Earthwork Construction Recommendations
Founding material for building foundations shall consist of undisturbed previously compacted
soils or undisturbed native soils. Additional compacted engineered fill, or selective re-compacted
native or fill soils may be used as bearing soils to the extents provided in this Earthwork
Construction Recommendations Section. The recommendations include excavations, subgrade
preparation,type of fill,and placement of fill for building foundations.
4.3.1 Excavation
Excavation is recommended to remove any excessive organic content or other deleterious
material, if present, beneath foundations and to achieve appropriate foundation depth.
Additional sub-excavation will be required for this Project if the soils below the required
foundation depth are incompetent due to inappropriate land disturbing, or excessive water
trapped within foundation excavations prior to foundation construction. All soils below
HiN irolcch Engineering South Shore Geotechnical Imcstigation
Ph. 360-175-1374 page 7 Parcel 32232 iO 9401
Fax: 360-27i-4780 Mason Count. Washington
Nm eluber 12. 2007
the bottom of the excavation shall be competent, and relatively undisturbed or properly
compacted fill. If these soils are disturbed or deemed incompetent, re-compaction of
these soils below the anticipated footing depth is necessary. Excavations shall be
completely dewatered, compacted, and suitable before placement of additional native
soil, engineered fill or structural concrete. It is recommended that foundation excavations
are inspected by a geotechnical engineer or qualified professional in order to assess the
bearing material prior to placement of structural footings if the soils are disturbed beneath
required foundation depths.
4.3.2 Placement and Compaction of Native Soils and Engineered Fill
For additional engineered fill or disturbed native soils that may be utilized as fill material
directly beneath foundations, observation and/ or geotechnical testing is recommended
prior to foundation construction. Additional fill is anticipated in order to extend the
northwest portion of the pad. The following placement and compaction requirements are
necessary.
For disturbed native soils or new engineered fill beneath foundations,limits of compacted
or re-compacted fill shall extend laterally from the bottom edge of the foundation at a rate
of one foot for each foot of compacted or re-compacted fill beneath the foundation. See
the illustration below.
F❑❑TING
COMPACTED
NATIVE SOILS
OR ENGINEERED I
FILL
1
I F�--' 'T I ' —I 1 '
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
Engineered fill for the building pad should be maintained with a minimum of 2:1
(horizontal:vertical) side slopes. A 3-foot depth of the existing pad side slopes should be
re-compacted where additional fill is required.
Both engineered fill and native soils used as compacted fill should be free of roots and
other organics, rocks over 6 inches in size, or any other deleterious matter. Engineered
fill should consist of 60%to 100%gravel-sized material(particles between 3/16-inch and
3 inches),and less than 10%fines(particles passing#200 standard sieve)by weight.
Compaction shall be achieved in compacted lifts not to exceed 8 inches and 12 inches for
native soils and engineered fill, respectively. Each lift should be uniformly compacted to
at least 95%of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) and within
3% of optimum moisture content. Each lift surface should be adequately maintained
during construction in order to achieve acceptable compaction and inter-lift bonding.
Em irotech Engineering South Shore Geotechnical Imestigation
Ph. ,60-275 9 7-4 Page 8 Parcel iO 9401
Fax: ')60_275-4789 Mason count. Washington
Not ember 12. 20U7
4.3.3 Retaining Wall Backfill
As previously mentioned, significant retaining structures are not anticipated for this
Project. However, if used, native soils may be used as retaining wall backfill for this
Project. Backfill may also consist of engineered fill or borrow materials approved by a
geotechnical engineer. Placement, compaction and extents of retaining wall backfill
should also be specified by a geotechnical engineer or qualified professional.
4.3.4 Wet Weather Considerations
Although the subsoil characteristics do not pose a great risk in regards to saturation,
additional provisions may be required during prolonged wet weather. Every precaution
should be made in order to prevent free moisture from saturating and ponding within
excavations. If the bottom of excavations used for footing placement changes from a
moist and dense characteristic as presented in this report to loose, saturated conditions,
then these soils become unsuitable for foundation bearing material. If this situation
occurs, a geotechnical engineer should be notified, or these soils should be completely
removed and replaced with suitable compacted material as presented in this section.
4.4 Slope Stability and Erosion Control
According to the Coastal Zone Atlas of Mason County, Washington, the Project is within and
near terrain labeled `Stable' regarding potential landslide activity. Stable slopes are generally not
prone to landslides due to small grades and accommodating geology. This site is not considered
inherently hazardous due the existing gentle grades. A Stability Map from the Coastal Zone Atlas
for the general area of this Project may be found on the following page of this report.
A slope stability analysis was not performed for this project since. This is due to the existing
natural slopes with grades less than 10%,and controlled fill slopes. The fill slope is significant on
the north end of the pad, about 60 feet north of the planned building, with a vertical relief of
about 7 feet. Recommendations are provided in this report concerning features near the fill slope.
Emirotech Engineering South Shore Geotechnic it hwcsiigalion
Ph. 360-27i-);74 page 9 Parcel �21,2 50 9401;
Fax: ,60-27i-4789 Mason Cotint�. Washington
Nox cinber 12. 2()()7
Scale 1.24,000
n S k '1i11�
0 $00 low 15M hiclrc%
Project
5 r
6-
_ r r
Map from Washington State Department of Ecology Website
4.4.1 Septic Drainfield Impacts
The approximate location of the proposed septic drainfield is presented on the Site Plan
in Appendix A of this report. Based on the septic drainfield location, soil properties,
relatively minor grades,and the anticipated development,the drainfield is not expected to
adversely influence the stability of any slopes within and near the Project, negatively
impact the planned commercial building,or negatively influence the fill soils.
4.4.2 Building and Footing Setbacks
Although the commercial structure is anticipated to be about 60 feet away from the fill
slope,the footing setback is restricted to 10 feet from the top of the fill slope on the north
end of the engineered fill pad. However, the setback for structural pavement may be
reduced to 5 feet.
EnN,irotech Engineering South Shore Gcolechnical lm estigation
Ph. 360-275-9374 page 10 Parcel 32232 50 9401 i
Pax. 360-27S-4789 Mason Comm. Washington
NoN cmbcr 12. 2007
T13P STRUCTURE
SLUPE SLOPE
FACE _
I I-1-, ,.I
10 FT MIN — FOOTING
4.4.3 Temporary and Permanent Erosion Control
Based on the USCS description of the Project soils, the fill soils have a low erodibility
factor and the native surface soils are considered moderately erodible. Temporary and/or
permanent erosion control measures may be required for site development. Existing
erosion control present on-site such as silt fencing and sediment ponds appear to be
sufficient for this Project. Additional temporary erosion control measures may need to be
employed if excessive erosion occurs or required by the County or other prevailing
agencies. See Appendix A for locations of existing erosion control facilities. If necessary,
excessive sediments in the retention basin should be removed after construction is
complete and the site is permanently stabilized.
Permanent erosion control may also be necessary if substantial vegetation has not been
established within disturbed areas upon completion of the Project. The fill slopes have
already been seeded, and appears sufficient for permanent erosion control. Any runoff
allowed to be discharged down any fill slope shall have appropriate outlet protection such
as a protected channel. This protection may include pavement or riprap. Areas of
permanent erosion control should be monitored until completely established. Additional
erosion control measures that should be performed include routine maintenance and
replacement, when necessary, of permanent erosion control, vegetation, drainage
structures and/or features.
4.4.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided in the final design for all planned buildings.
Drainage shall include sloping the ground surface, driveways and sidewalks away from
the Project structures. All constructed surface and subsurface drains should be adequately
maintained during the life of the structure. If drainage problems occur during or after
construction, additional water mitigation will be required. This may include a
combination of swales, berms, drain pipes, infiltration facilities, or outlet protection in
order to divert water away from the structures.
From a geotechnical perspective, both perimeter footing drains and roof drains are
optional for the office building. If footings are established at depths greater than 2 feet
below final grade,then perimeter footing drains are recommended. If utilized, subsurface
water intercepted in the perimeter footing drains, and stormwater collected from roof
drains shall be tight-lined to an appropriate infiltration area or outlet protection area
located downslope and at least 10 feet from any structure.
Em-irotech Engineering South Shore Geotedmical hiN cstigation
Ph. 360-27�)�7-4 page 1 l Parccl 322,2 50 9401
Fax: 360-275-4789 Mason CountN. Washington
November 12. 2()o7
4.4.5 Vegetation Considerations
Vegetation is an excellent measure to minimize surficial slope movements and erosion on
slope faces and exposed surfaces. Seeding is necessary on the fill slopes, and should be
maintained when necessary.For this Project,the removal of vegetation is not restricted.
4.4.6 Off-site impacts
From a geotechnical position,it is Envirotech's opinion that the adjacent properties to the
proposed development should not be significantly impacted if all recommendations in
this report are followed. This is based on the anticipated and recommended erosion
control. Drainage features that are required for this Project that have not been accounted
for in this report shall include proper mitigation as to not adversely impact properties
beyond the Project.
4.5 Seismic Considerations
Soils immediately below the expected foundation depth for this Project are generally Type D,
corresponding to the International Building Code (IBC) soil profiles. According to the IBC, the
regional seismic zone is 3 for this Project. The estimated peak ground acceleration ranges from
0.50g to 0.60g. This estimation is based on the United States Geological Survey(USGS)National
Seismic Hazard Project in which there is an estimated 2% probability of exceedance within the
next 50 years.
There are no known faults beneath this Project. The nearest Class `A' or Class `B' fault to this
property is the Hood Canal Fault Zone(Class B), in which the distal end is approximately 3 miles
to the northwest of this Project. This information is based on the USGS Quaternary Fault and
Fold Database for the United States.
The potential for liquefaction and other earthquake induced hazards are believed to be very low
for this Project. This is based on subsurface conditions such as soil characteristics and the lack of
a permanent shallow water table. Subgrade characteristics that particularly contribute to problems
caused by seismic events include submerged, poorly-graded granular soils. Although gravel-and
silt-sized soil particles could be problematic, fine and medium grained sands are typically
subjected to these types of seismic hazards. No significant sand stratifications are anticipated to
be within the upper 50 feet of the subsoil for this Project.
4.6 Pavement Analysis
The pavement section design analysis was completed using AASHTO's Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures. The AASHTO procedure utilizes the CBR value of the subgrade soil,
traffic count reliability, serviceability or ability of the pavement to serve the type of traffic the
facility will use, and the material properties of the asphalt concrete (AC) and base course (BC).
The traffic data was assumed by Envirotech based on number of buildings and anticipated use.
Data on reliability, serviceability, and standard deviation values were assumed based on
AASHTO's procedures. The soil modulus was calculated based on correlation of soil properties
with R-values. A nomograph presented in the AASHTO Guide, was used to calculate the
structural number.
Emrirotech Engineering South Shore Gcotechuicat Imestigation
Ph. 60-275-91, page 12 Nrccl .;22 2 ;O 9401
Fax: ,60-27i 4?S9 Mason Count. NvJ lshington
Nov ember 12. 21007
The thickness of AC and BC were then calculated from the equation relating the structural
number and the layer coefficients by assuming a standard AC thickness of 2 inches. Based on the
result of the analysis, Envirotech recommends that the following pavement elements be utilized
for parking areas:
Flexible Pavement Rigid Pavement
Asphalt concrete : 2.0 inches 6.0 inches
Base coarse : 6.0 inches
Concrete in rigid pavements should have a 28-day compressive strength of 3000 psi. Appropriate
concrete joints at 20 feet apart with transfer mechanisms should be included.
As previously recommended, pavement edges shall be at least 5 feet from the top of fill slopes.
Base coarse for parking lot construction should meet the requirements of Class B foundation
material from the Washington State Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for
Road,Bridge and Municipal Construction.
EnOrotech Engineering South Shore Gcotcchnical lmcstigation
Ph. 3,60-275 9,74 page l 3 Parcel 32232 50 9401� ,
Fati: 360-27>-4789 Mason Count_ Washington
Noy cnibcr 12. 2007
5.0 CLOSURE
Based on the project information and site conditions as presented in this report, it is Envirotech's
opinion that additional geotechnical studies are not required to further evaluate this Project.
Due to the inherent natural variations of the soil stratification and the nature of the geotechnical
subsurface exploration, there is always a possibility that soil conditions encountered during
construction are different than those described in this report. Therefore,it is recommended that a
qualified engineer observes and documents the construction,or Envirotech is promptly notified if
project and subsurface conditions found on-site are not as presented in this report so that we can
re-evaluate our recommendations.
This report presents geotechnical design guidelines, and is intended only for the owner, or
owners' representative,and location of project described herein. This report should not be used to
dictate construction procedures or relieve the contractor of his responsibility.
Any and all content of this geotechnical report is only valid in conjunction with the compliance of
all recommendations provided in this report. Semantics throughout this report such as `shall,'
`should' and `recommended' imply that the correlating design and/or specifications must be
adhered to in order to protect life and property. Semantics such as `suggested' or `optional' refer
that the associated design or specification may or may not be performed. The recommendations
provided in this report are valid for the proposed development at the issuance date of this report.
Changes to the site other than the expected development, changes to ordinances or regulatory
codes, or broadening of accepted geotechnical standards may affect the conclusions and
recommendations of this report.
The services described in this report were prepared under the responsible charge of Michael
Staten, a professional engineer with Envirotech. Michael Staten has appropriate education and
experience in the field of geotechnical engineering in order to assess landslide hazards,
earthquake hazards,and general soil mechanics.
Please contact Michael Staten at 360-275-9374 if you have any questions, comments, or require
additional information.
Sincerely,
Enviroteqh Engineering
A-J44
Michael Staten,P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
Emvirotech Enginecring Sotith Shore Geotedmical Investigation
Ph. 60-27 -9 374 page 14 Parcel 22 Q2 50 94015
Fax: 300-27`)-47189 Mason Count. Washington
v10ve lber 12. 2007
APPENDIX A
SITE PLAN
A
SCALE, I INCH = 80 FEET
ETF-NTION POND
40
rPROPERTY LINE
TOP OF EXISTING t 11
FILL SLOPE (FILL
DEPTH -9 FT)
EXISTING SILT FENCE
ol
PARKING
PROPOSED SEPTIC AREA
PROPOSED 5,000
SF BUILDING , ,60
,. BEGINNING OF FILL
(FILL DEPTH = 0 FT)
PARKING �x
ATIVE GROUND
A
TP1
DALBY ROAD
PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATIONS
RETAIL/ OFFICE BUILDING
GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT
SOUTH SHORE ENTERPRISES, LLC
320 DALBY ROAD
NOTES LEGEND PARCEL 32232 50 94015
1. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL CURRENTLY ON-SITE IS MASON COUNTY WASHINGTW
SUFFICIENT. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL MAY BE REQUIRED ENGINEER-
FOR THIS SITE PER THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. SILT FENCE ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
2. CONTOURS ARE NOT PRECISE, AND ONLY DEPICT GENERAL SLOPE DIRECTION 74 ME HURD ROAD
TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS. CONTOURS WERE EXTRAPOLATED BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 9MO
FROM A PUBLIC LIDAR SOURCE, AND INCORPORATED FIELD �. . EXISTING CONTa1R 360-275-9374
MEASUREMENTS,
Tple TEST PIT SITE PLAN
APPENDIX B
GEOLOGIC MAP
SCALE, I INCH = 80 FEET
0 4
ETENTION POND
NATIVE SOILS, SILTY SAND WITH
GRAVEL (SM)
FILL SOILSs "40
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT
AND SAND (GP—GM)
-PROPERTY LINE
, TOE OF EXISTING
FILL SLOPE
A TOP OF EXISTINGt,l
FILL SLOPE (FILL
DEPTH —8 FT)
EXISTING SILT FENCE
ol
5 FT NJEMENT 5E7-SACK
PARKING Fxam TOP or Ft t t. st oc
PROPOSED SEPTIC AREA
PROPOSED 5,)00
SF BUILDING —60
BEGINNING OF FILL
(FILL DEPTH = 0 FT)
PARKING;
µ ATIVE GROUND
44
/I
A
TP1
A
DALBY ROAD
PROJECT/ OWNER/ LOCATIOW
RETAIL/ ❑FFICE BUILDING
GE❑TECHNICAL REPORT
SOUTH SHORE ENTERPRISES, LLC
320 DALBY ROAD
POTE& LEGEND PARCEL 32M 50 94015
1. NATURAL SLOPES ARE LESS THAN IOX FOR THIS SITE. MASON COUNTY WASHINGTOJ
THERE ARE NO MINIMUM BUILDING OR VEGETATION BUFFERS ENGINEER,
FOR THIS PROJECT. SEE THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SD_T FENCE ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
REGARDING IMPORTED FILL. 74 NE HURD ROAD
2. CONTOURS ARE NOT PRECISE, AND ONLY DEPICT GENERAL SLOPE DIRECTION BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528
TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS. CONTOURS WERE EXTRAPOLATED eo EXISTING CONTOUR 360-275-9374
FROM A PUBLIC LIDAR SOURCE, AND INCORPORATED FIELD
MEASUREMENTS. TP1 TEST PIT GE❑L❑GIC MAP
APPENDIX C
SOIL INFORMATION
z 4 �F-
o q K
r� J co
W W
Z wis
m r
W J y i p
.U-�Q c z a W
p[
o LL 1 1 �XN w o
�W z w a ZQ~ J
0X 'z- .a
Z\L) W It
WI �� Q
\ 0cno W_>
U<w V/JU W I.- Kn
7 W L rwp ._.RZ444 N
J o
(All w Wn�m
I
0
ULO
IN
Z�
94
0^ ..
W Z Z d
A N
J3
W
A~Q O
W041Co
X GI LO H 1
0 44
Fz rr
A
J
q
A
W
N
O
0-
0
w
a
z
Q r
01 J
J q -WE
w WQ� UJF-
A W.-.yq
Q�CA 0_ C3
O J W X
=
0 �f/)U �'�WFTW
WtyQf
J X aWf(Y )
W U
� �"aC3 z0
p3U Vl0Q
d i. WZQQ
J l7 W l�
Ww� aL34►=
�n> i x
zQI UK02
Al.7�v W(4wz
QXJ`�
oe W J
0 z p U
J Q w.-.
E�-J V1 2 w Lw,
Har
S y O
O ,,H—W
z +0CU0
TEST RT LOG
TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1
PROJECT: Commercial Bull g Report DATE OF LOG: 1111I2W
PROJECT NO: 0754 LOGGED BY: MCS
CLIENT; South Shore EnWptises,LLC EXCAVATOR: WA
LOCATION: Parcel 32232 5094015 DRILL RIG: None
Mason County.Washir gion ELEVATION: WA
INITIAL DEPTH OF WATER: N/A FINAL DEPTH OF WATER: WA
srAN MnuPENEMT=TW
DEPTH SAMPLERSUSCS DESCRIPTION LL PI DEPTH N CURVE
RM TEST DATA 10 30 50
' SM Brown,nK**.nudlrm dense b dense
SILTY SAND wNh GRAVEL Gmvd is
coarse and subrounde&Sand Is
1 pdmo*ws"mds&Low plaod*.
Very dense
2 E�ocamdon Imink elsdatapp=ftW*2
led
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
No GrourdwaMr Encowdered ENVIROTECH ENGINEERING
iarswbnA.rn�p�rw�.axysosirreapnaano�daarb. Geabdirded eAO
arrpwda.aswf�s�aw.ara..am.as..
""`°t -mer' Copy�.� WATER WELL REPORT
1� 4 CoPy-O.vner's APW(cattoa Nv. --__�
hra COPY-Drillers Copy STATE OF WASMNG► M >
l) OWNER: tv�t__.13�..u.�...__ .. ...�' ,v�a�caer�.►dd>~�..�r.,x_..S_g�_... .-� ..s�t�....---9 p�9 z
:) LOCATION QF
co �- �'/�(—
+.i . Q//F r fir[- Air f�./ �hhrPi 1it�r
L fag and dtstanca hom teettoa s s r
0
d•) PROPOSED USE: Dometaic 91 Industrial p Muntelpat p (10) WELL LOG:
lY IrrWatlon Q Test weU Q Oaur Q Formation:DearNbe by color.character,awe of matarlet and atruepae 4hld
Show thickne s of aolufers and the kind tad+hetan or and t rust tw inch
? ) TYPE OF WORA: Owner's number of wan 8"eum paaetmted, h at toms one entry for gocl,change to fortum n,
tit more tthan anal.-_-
New wall A LGthod:Dug ❑ ~Hord Q MAC" sso>tf TO
H Deepened O Cabe. jq Ddven E)Rocoodidonad
0 aatary a Jetted 0
C i DBA ENSIGNS: Dlamater of wort__ _.inter
Drltled.J4Q_7___& Depth at completed
c y L Q—
C � CONSTRUCTION DETAIMA —
0 Casi09 fosislJled:
-�-Dtam,from-0— tt to !A 7 fL
E Threaded O "atom.hvm_ IL to,10 >t
Welded J Dim.hom _!L to a
Perforatioata: Yas p soA
dl TAN of pattorater
8tzz of ptriormIkm in. by
0 L perfandam fttnh_- ft to ft.
perforeboaa Lrom ft. to &
_ —verfteatioaa boat ft.to
Screms: Yes X No Q
mmufacturaes No Ad &�
Q Type_lz: N/F. %5. Yodel No----
Dlam._V_-slot cu yr_from_....-_it.to Sir ft-
slam. slot abs _from fL to fL
r
Gravel packed: Yes❑ If-jK SL-of gravel:._
Gravel placed from ft.to
i S1LlftlCC reel: Yas M No D To" depthl- n
Mat-W used to taat�lfACit`ep►_��'� __
Did any strata cantata aauaable waters Yes(3 No a
WSW of-rb"—Depth at atrats ---
O Method of aesnng-rTata off- ,_� �.
zPUMP: Ltaeafaeluaars N..... _�_
d �Ypo: Hp
IDATMLEVELS- Land-aarface*low
level ._tee O tt blow tap Of wall Data_ -1
G ''- Der aquaee Inch Daft___
O wr'te tao wafer to oonauned by
V (Cap,val..:aW_) _
LV Vi'�EL.L TESTS:. D^awdawn is Mwant water level to
o.erwd below nestle legal Tf yea•by w work wrtad_?-- L-
0 Pump ttlQ made? Yea R '_.o 0btm7_�/.�/,Jf��.
_ kZ' gal✓mta_with :2� ft dm----a after >tira. WELL DRILLER'S STATMIJENT., ��—
Y This well was drilled under my Jurisdiction and this fs pw is
true to UM beat of mp knowledge and belief.
Cc tired troQawNtop to wrier:erel)pump turned off) (water Tavel i
Q e Wafar�l.h el Level Time Water I.a.l Nw>►�a'i -�5,t lY..FL 11.-,. 13J-_I.L� lam.......
rtnte Water ... }
• _
G-� =7_.SC_r.6'.:..... �_— ..---......... _ Arm.ter ( a
tPanoncorporauen) or rtRt)
.................--•-•---...
test ---- m�tn.wtt� t.d.awdown afttr_._.....___.h�y [sijptd]:. f��- •
in Date.--__ CCCJJJ
•retttre of water----Wes a chemkal anAbYats made?Yes(3 No� --•-.._..___._.
19........
Rev.e.n).
(USE ADDITIONAL mere Er may)
MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670
' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
November 26,2003
Mike
Wes W Nevada Corp. TO BE KEPT IN THE-
Ocean
P.O. Box 9748 PARCEL FILE
Scottsdale AZ 85252
Dear Mr. Greenwood:
This letter is in response to your inquiry about locating a post office in the Union Rural
Activity Center,Mason County,Washington. You are asking, as the construction
contractor,whether any specific permitting is needed to site the post office in Union on
parcel 32232-50-94015. This parcel is within the Rural Activity Center and is zoned
Rural Residential 2.5 (RR2.5).
Mason County recognizes the community importance served by a post office and
considers thai land use as an essential public facility. In accordance with the Mason
County Development Regulations,an essential public facility may be located in any land
use zone in the county and must be evaluated through a Special Use Permit. This permit
involves an application,public notice, and review by the county's hearing examiner prior
to being issued a building permit. Certain conditions of approval may be added to the
building permit as a result of this Special Use Permit review.
If your firm does receive the competitive bid for this post office building,you will need
to apply for this Special Use Permit. You should allow two to three months to complete
this permit review. In addition,you should schedule a Pre-Submission Conference at the
time of the Special Use Permit review. At this meeting,you will meet with staff
members of the planning,building,health, and public works departments to discuss how
their respective department development standards apply to the review for your project
proposal and any needed special reviews. The Mason County Permit Assistance Center
can help you to schedule this meeting in the future.
If you have any fin ther questions,please contact me at(360)427-9670 extension 365.
Sincerely,
Allan Borden
Long Range Planner
J:\FRONT COUNTER(KMR)\word documents\IRQ RESPONSES\2003 irgs\Ocean West Greenwood
letter nov 2003.doc