The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTALUS WEST #1 General Information NORTHLAND MORTGAGE COMPANY A~CHO~AGE DATE~ AUGUST 8, 1990 TINE! ...... THE FOLhOWING NAMEs John Smith DEPTi Enviromen=al Quality FOR YOUR COMMENTS PLEASE CALL ME ABOUT THIS ( ) AS YOU ~OUESTED ( x) AS WE DISCUSSED TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE 3 IMPORTANTI IF YOU DO NOT HECSIVE AL~ PAGES, PLEASE CALL BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. (907)274-§150 PA~# (907')'277-4051 ************************************************************ Here is the Deed s~tting forbh the rsstrlctions,and then the partial release of some of the restrictions. The goal is to release, in full, all restrictions of the initial Deed because tbs ~ots are serviced by private septic systems. If you should have any question, please contact me at 274-5150' Thanks GRI~ATI~R ANCHOllAGE ARBA BOROUGH DEPARTMIlNT OF I~NVIRON},~Ff~TAL QUALITY MEMORANDUM December 19 o 1974 Paul Cart Planning Department FROM: Chief Sanita~lan , ~/// ~ SUBJIICT: Talus West Subdivision Unit #1 We have received and reviewed the soil tests and well test pumping for unit/il Talus West Subdivision, Soils Thoro was a deep soil log (26 feet) completed along with sieve analysis on grab ~amples on evol~ platted lot. There was alee fifteen (15) of these te~t~ performed on Tract B and six (6) tests performed on Tract C. 8ix (6) day percolation tezt~ wove run on each ~eparate aotl type encountered lhroughout unit ~1 ac a e~s referen~ against viauel an~ysis and ~ereentng. These tests show the soils are fairly, tight, but itre acceptable for disposal of highly treated sewage effluent, Teat pumping was conducted on a well and one other well (sixty-nine feet away from the te~t well) was monitored for draw-down. There was ltttlo or no observed influence on the monitor well after eontinuously~ pumping the te~t well for six (6) hours. This te~t pumping indicates that the ~poelng of the well~ in the subdl~ion is adjusts for tho ground wate~ supply available. Reeommendation~ We recommeud that the paired lots in unit #1, Talus West Subdivision, be allowed to be developed separately. Further that traet~ B and C bo allowed to bo subdivided in ac~rdance with the existing ~ontng ~-6). The soils engineering firm doing the extensive analysis on this unit made a strong recommendation that individual aerobic package sewage treatment plant~ be used on each lot with effluent ¢lt~poaal via a deep seepage trench. We concur fully with llfl~ ~ec~mmendaflon and recommend the existing note on tho plat regarding sewage disposal be replaced with the following win-ding. Paul Cart Pag~ Two December II}, 1974 "As of tho date of filing of this plat, the lots within it are not served by public sewer and water facilities, Ail lots developed prior to publi~ sewer ~ice must use an in~vidu~ household ~e~bio wa~tewato~ ireatment plant ~nd disposal field that has been a~provcd by the Greater Anchorage A~ea Borough Department of ~nvi~nment~ ~ualiW, The treatment plant ~u~t h~ve ~ ~pprov~d m~intennnco agreement that runs ~i/h the land". Roll Strickland, R.3. Chief Sanitarian TESTINg ~ EXPLORATION ~ CHEMICAL ~ MATERIALS O NSPECTION [940 POST ROAD 279-2581 September 16, 1974 Tryck Nyman & Hayes 740 "I" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Attention: Subject: Dan Chapman Talus West, Flow Nets ~/\ Dear Dan: Attached are computations for the flow nets. These are reworked and give slightly more refined answers than those used for the 20 August transmittal---they are shown as "wide line" notes for 4 cases at K = 10=5 CM on a print of the 20 August reports' Figure 1. The reworked flow nets (to make them presentable) provided a check with greater precision than the precision of the assumption used for K, coefficient of permeability. The flow quantities Q/FT assume the viscosity is con- stant at all times and is that of water. The methodology is that described by Terzaghi & Peck in Soil Mechanics mn Engineering Practice and is that used for steady state flow; i.e. seepage through and below dams. In this instance the assumption is conservative and describes a homogeneous soil with a constant head in the trench, no surface aspiration, and steady state flow to a ground water table at a depth of 24'. The result is that a long slender seepage pit, a trench, is more efficient than a square pit as %he majority of flow is through the pit's walls which occupy more area for a narrow trench than a square pit of equal volume. All other things being equal, a deep trench is prudent. The trench should be filled with a permeable soil, a gravelly sand, or sandy gravel with a high K.---All of the results in a trench about 8 or more feet deep, 3 or MEMBE Tryck Nyman & Hayes September 16, 1974 Page 2 more feet wide and about 20' long (where Lhe soils easily except gravity flow).---Where the soils-are tigh~ (approach- ing the characteristics of silts) the trench must be about 5± times as long or be a series of trenches---the result being a drain field rather ~han a leaching pit. We trust the foregoing ms sufficient to your present needs. Very truly yours, Ha~rry R/'Le~e; P.E. HRL:rb Enclosures z~ 279~2581 August 20, 1974 Tryck, Ny~nan &.Hayes 740 t Street Anch0~age, Alaska 99501 Attn: Dan Chapman Subject: Talus West Subdivision Dear Dan: In response to your recent request, we have reviewed the flow net for the situation of deep trenches. The attached, F.igurq 1 shows three possible conditions: a 3-foot wide trench to 8 feet and to 14 feet in depth; and also a 8-foot wide trench, 14 feet in depth. You will note that only the silty soils (F-4) %vith a coefficient of permeability less than 10-5 CPS presents a significant problem with regard to disposal of exfiltration on the order of 350 gpd. In that case, we must assume that a permeable strata will be intercepted above the water table. In such a case the probability is that trench lengths between that recommended as a minimum length, twenty feet and that shown for a "A" series, silts, soils, would be practical. However, trench lengths on the order of 120 feet are probably impractical to single-family residences; thus, a search for permeable soils on those few sites appears justified. The method of computation is the flo~v net with the assumption being made that the soils are homogeneous to the full depth of the trench and between the trench and underlying water table (which in turn was assumed to exist at 24 feet below grade) and the horizontal coefficient of permeablility was assumed to be ten times the vertical coefficient of permeability. The values shown on Figure 1 are those for the horizontal component of permeability. MEMBER Mr. Dan Chapman Page 2 August 20, 1974 We trust the foregoing and attached Figure 1 are sufficient to your immediate needs and are sufficiently conservative to provide a practical discharge system Very truly yours, ALASKA TESTLAB HRL/mfm Attachments ~g4o POST ROAD ~ August ANCHOBAGE. ALASKA ATL WO 995OJ Tryck, Nyman & Hayes 740 "I" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Attn: Mr. Dan Chapman Subject: Talus West Subdivision, Soil Permeability Gentlemen: In response to your request we have reviewed the reports dated October and November 1971 with regard to thirteen test pits placed'at the s~bject site. The data indicates the free water table to be well below the limits of exploration. (Many of the thirteen test pits terminate in silty soil for which the saturated capillary rise would be in excess of 10', ---and as these materials were invariably rated as "dry" by the hole logger; we may assume the water t~ble's depth as something in excess of 23' to 24'.) The soil data indicates the soils to be, in some instances, quite silty, in others very clean. Based on the textural classifications and on the two qradations, we have arrived at an opinion with respect to the coefficient of permeability for the various materials. In simplified for~, the F-4 materials~have a K = 10-5 CPS, the F-l, F-2, and F-3, 10-4 CPS. The NFS soils are 10-2 CPS. These values are not corrected for viscosity, and it is assumed that all of the'fluids flowing through the soil have the characteristics of water. (This ms a reasonable assumption within the precision of these data.) We have further estimated the quantity of flow into the soil mass, assuming the soils to become fully saturated to the assumed (design purpose) water table level 10' below the pit; further, we have assumed the horizontal permeability is ten+times as great[as the vertical permeability, and that all flow is vertically downward. Based on that premise, a flow net was constructed. The results are as follows for homogeneous soils. MEMBE~ Page T~,o, Talus August 12, 1974 Soil K CM/SEC G~D Test ~[oles F-4 10-5 22 F-3,F--2,F-1 10-4 228 NFS 10-2 22800 (8), (10) (1), (?.), (~), (~), (12), (13) (3), (5), (6), (7), (1 1) From this it appears that the assumed sized unit should oerform adequately in the NFS soils and needs to be slightly lar~er or have a slightly higher working head for the F-l, ~-2, soils, and be inadequane for the F-4 soils (area of holes 8 and 10). The suqqested dimensions of the leaching oit are: not less than 10' on a side, (preferably 15' on a s~de when in F-2 or F-3 materials,) and where the exploration indicates MFS soils to be only a thin Layer below the limit of the pit; the pit should be b~ckfilled with gap qraded laroe ~ravel and cobbles to provide a shell stiffener to avoid future cave- in and to orovide a high volume of voids for the retained liquid. The depth of the oit is ooverned by the scils and should be on the order of 14', where the soils ar that depth are F-l, F-2, or F-4 expand the pit's width to 15' The fore~oinc calculations are based on the fundamental "flow net" theory for movement of waner through soils. The calculations are believed to be on ~he conservative side for the several materials exsmined, and %o reflect the steady state flow as opposed to 'the limited peak demands, and the partial saturation of the soil. The basic equation for this comoutation is QT (L)hlN~/ND~IKiI The fo~ Where QT is f].o~¢ L Width of Unit h1 = head loss NF = NuT, er of flow channels ND = Number of drops i(w = Coefficient of hcrizontal permeability K!i = Coefficient o~ Vertical Permeability methodolo~ used was inversion of the flow ne~ a dam. commutations In addition, seepage was computed bv simplified assumption of a "reverse" well flow. In that instance, for K = 10-4 CPS a;pit 15' on a side by ~4' in height, with 5' maximum~ retained head is expected to provide 356 callons oer day. This computation serves as a cood check on that developed by the fundamental flow net mathematical model of the soil system. Page Three, Talus¥ ~st August 12, 1974 The layered soil system results in the development of increased seepage area, i.e., where a confined NFS layer exists, bounded top and bottom by an F~4 soil, 'the seepaqe is controlled by the horizontal flow into the NFS layer with flow within the bounds of the pit through the F-~ soils'beinq of sliqht consequence, i.e., if a ~' layer of NFS soil exists at- about 1' shove the pit base, and the retention head is 5', the flow would, be similar or better than' for all F-1 soils. In order to %est this approach with the empirical me,hod presently nsed, we may s~bstitute 100 to 200 square feet per bedroom and assuage three bedrooms. This requires an absorption area of 300 to 600 square feet. The foregoing recommendations result in 300 to 550 square feet; resulting in a reasonable correlation between empirical and theoretical, and the probability that the assumptions are conservative. In the case of the F-4 soil the K assumed, results in a high probability that long term absorption will require higher head and a ~reater absorption area. In that case, we suggest 25' deep pit, this ~s a 15' head~ possibly a series of omen augered holes backfilled with gravel and interconnected at the surface in order to achieve head and skin area. If you wish,a model of this extreme condition will be worked We mrust the foregoing review is sufficient to your immediate needs. Very tr~lv vou. rs, ALASKA TESTLAB Harry P~. Lee, P.E. H PJ~/p f LoT '=' ~ ,~" *. ¢ ¢ / Head K jeer . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . Office/74 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 /907-279-054~, TR Sob ~o. 5458.2 bio TNHANCAK/Telex 090-25332 August 29, 1974 Platting Board Greater Anchorage Area Borough Mr. Ken Cannon, Chairman 3500 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Subject: Request for Deletion of Restrictive Note - Talus West Subdivision Addition No. 1, Plat 72-248 Members of the Board: We respectively request, on behalf of the developer of Talus West Subdivision, that the Platting Board act to remove a note on the plat of Talus West Subdivision Addition No. i which restricts building on each lot "until such time as each lot is served by public sewer". A brief history and reasons for this request follow. Talus West is a 6S-acre subdivision lying one-half mile south of O'Malley Road and fronting Abbott Loop Road on the west. The preliminary plat for the entire parcel was approved in December 1970. The minimum lot size in the approved subdivision plan was 20,000 square feet. The development of the parcel was planned to be staged in two increments, the final plat for the first 44 lots being submitted and approved in March 1971. In April 1972 we submitted for approval the final plat for the second increment of Talus fqest, but approval of this final plat was denied by the Planning Commission because DEQ recommended 40,000 square foot minimum lots rather than the already-approved 20,000 square foot minimum lots. Rather than agree to plat the remainder of the subdivision into 40,000 squ~re foot lots we met with DEQ and after consider~oie thought artd discussion we felt that the most desiroable approach for the developer and for the community was to plat the sCbdivision into the 20,000 square foot minimum lots, but restrict the number of homes in the subdivision by requiring the lots to be developed in pairs. This was the beginning of the "double-lot concept" which restricts the sale and development of a p~ir of lots to a single dwelling. Tho enforcement of this provision in the double-lot concept is by the restriction noted on the recorded subdivision plat. The plat was returned to the Commission under the double-lot concept and was approved in June 1972 for recordi~g~ The benefit of the double-lot concept to the developer was that he could offer for sale a pair of lots rather than one large lot, the cost of which i$ out of economic means for most buyers. Buying two lots hopefully provided an opportunity to build on one and hold the other for investment. ~xe benefit to the community -2- was that the double-lot concept would allow an economical expansion of public water smd sewer facilities in the future, because the cost per lot for these facilities would be something medium-sized lot o~mers could afford. We are requesting removal of the restriction at this time because of improved methods of on-site sewage waste treatment recently approved by the Department of Environmental Quality. Tho Multi-Flow package sewage treatment plant manufactured in Dayton, Ohio and supplied locally by Aerobic Sewage Purification, Inc. has been proven to be a system substantially more efficient than a septic tank and requiring considerably less drainage field. As a provision in removing the restriction, the developer will require that the Multi-Flow unit (or an equal system) be installed in lieu of a septic tank when a dwelling is constructed on the lot. In addition, each homem~ner in the subdivision will be required to agree to a maintenance contract of these units to assure that they continue to work properly (the manufacturer provides the first year's maintenance at no cost], We suggest that the enforcement of this provision be accomplished by ~he Building Dep~rtment and/or the Department of Bnvironmental Quality. DBQ has approved this concept and has stated that the intent of the restrictive note on the plat will be met by the installation of the Multi~Flow units. Talus West Subdivision Addition No. 1 has 48 lots. The average size of these lots is 25,t00 square feet measured to the road centerline. Talus West Subdivision has been improved with wide well-drained gravel roads and underground power and telephone. Thank you for considering this request. Very truly yours, TRYCK, N~f~N & HAYES Ban Chapman, P.E. ~/ Partner cc: Ward A, Hulbert Paul Cart, GAAB DC/ftk DEED RESTRICTION WHEREAS, TARGET NORTH, INC. , is the owner of the following described real property: Lots 15 through 30, Block 3, Lots 3 through 6, Block 4, Lots 1 through 20, Block 5, Lots 6 through 7, Block 6, Lots 1 through 6, Block 7, TalUS West Subdivision, Addition No. 1~ as recorded in the Anchorage, Recording Office, Third Judicial District, Alaska, and WHEREAS, it is the desire and intention of the owner to sell the property described above and to improve on it mutual. beneficial restrictzons under a general plan of development for the benefit of all the lands herein described, the future owners of those lands and for the benefit of the Greater Anchorage Area Borough; NOW THEREFORE, because of onsite sewage disposal problems the following lots must be conveyed and retained in pairs and developed only with one single family dwelling for each pair of'lots until such time as the subdivision is served by a municzpal sewage system and this restriction duly revoked as provided herein: Block 3 Lots 15 and ]6 Lots 17 and 18 Lots 19 and 20 Lots 21 and 22 Lots 23 and 24 Lots 25 and 26 Lots 27 and 28 Lots 29 and 30 Block 4 Lots 3 and 4 Lots 5 and 6 Block 5 Lots and 2 Lots and ~4 Lots and 6 Lots and 8 Lots and 10 Lots and 12 Lots and 14 Lots and 16 Block 6 Block 7 This restriction is To continue only be by document executed by the Greater Anchorage Area which document must state, served by municipal sewer. be by any of the owners of the Greater Anchorage Area Lots 7 and 8 Lots 1 and 2 Lots 3 and 4 Lots 5 and 6 until revoked. the Director of Revocation may Public Works of Borough or its successor in interest, mn essence, that this subdivision is Enforcement of this restriction may the above described lots and/or by Borough. TARGET NORTH, INC. STATE OF ALASKA ) ) SS. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) On this~/~ay of ~,~ .... ~_ , 1972, before the undersigned Notary Public, personalgy appeared WARD A. HULBERT, of TARGET NORTH, INC., and he acknowledged to me that he signed · khe foregoing instrument as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes theremn set forth, and stated he was~ authorized to sign the same on its behalf by resolution of its ,Hoard of Directors. ., ......... ~G ~ ~ITNESS my hand and official seal %he --~9~-nab:~vewri%ten. 9 3 I 7 NOTARY My Commission day and year zn and for Alaska Expires: ~,,lu;fl ~,,{.,6 E REC. DISTRICT October 1, 1974 NOTE: This meeting was held in the City Council Chambers, Loussac Library, 427 F Street, A~chorage, Alaska. 1. Roll Call Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Mr. Cannon, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Maffei, Mr. Roguska~ Mr. Wade, and Mrs. Shemry. Mr. Baldwin (excused) John Gliva, Roll Stricktand, Dr. Reed, Mary Putman, PRul Carr, Warren Cole, Dick Hart, Clay Douglas, Joe Vicente, Neida Cherrstrom Old Business A. Reconsideration of Ascot village appearance request of September 17, 1974, concerning subdivision notes on plats. Chairman Ken Cannon related that he received a letter withdrawing the move for reconsideration from Jerry Roguska. ~ere was no further action taken. B. Subdivisions 1. S-3482 - cUSATO SUBDIVISION (subdivision) previously unsubdivided land ~ tractS, containing approximately 80 acres, located on the west side of Hiland Drive, the east and west sides of South Fork Eagle River, in Sec. 4 approximately 3 miles east of gki Bowl Road. Approval subject to: 1. Resolving utility easementS. 2. Providing proof that adequate access is guaranteed to the property. 3. showing 50' stream easement on the plat. NOTE: A request for a T.P.I.V. was denied at this time due to inadequate information. S-3489 - ~HUNDERBIRD TERRACE SECOND ADDITION, BLOCK 4, LOTS 5-16; BLOCK 9, L0--~--~1-22; BLOCK 10, LOTS 1-19 (resubdivision) 3 blocks, 20 lots, into B blocks, 43 ]otS, containing approximately 9.4 acres; located on the north side of E. 20th Avenue, south of Cassius Court and Alexander Ave., west of Norene Street and east of Goose Lake Drive. Approval subject to: 1. Resolving utility easementS. 2. The north 30' of 20th AVe. Block 4, LotS 5A through 16A be dedicated October 1, ]97~ Su~m~ary of Act%on and Minutes Page 2 for right-of-way. 3. That prior to final filing the problem of removing water utility hookups in conformance with the City of Anchorage Water Utility request be achieved. 3. S'-3487 - MC KINNEY SUBDIVISION ADDITION NO. 3, LOT 1 (subdivision) previously unsubdivided ].and into 1 lot containing approximately .657 acres, located on the east side of D Street, north of Fireweed Lane and South of W. 22nd Ave. Approval subject to: 1. Resolving all utility easements. 2. Showing proper street dedications.if necessary through drafting revisions. 3. Dedicating additional property along D Street if required by the City Engineer to comply with straight line street ~onfiguration along the eastern side of D Street. 4. Renaming of the subidivison to Bragstad Subdivision as reflected on t}~e revised plat. 3. New Business A~ivisions 1'~-~-2182 A - T~S WESI SUBDIVISION ADDITION NO. 1 - A request to remove ~/~ ~e~cti~ve n~te which resiricts building o~nduvidual lots ~ntiI such time that each individual lot is served by public sewer. After presentation by D.E.Q. staff and considerable Board discussion a motion was passed that the pairing note be lifted if all the requiremeuts for providing ah adequate water supply and sewage disposal system were satisfactory and meet with the approwal of D.E.Q. NOTE: During testimony it was D.E.Q.~s position that if any individual lot was unable to support an adequate onsite sewage disposal system or adequate water supply then that lot could not be sold individua]~y and the pairing restriction would still be enforced for that lot. For those lots that could sustain a adequate on site sewage disposal system and water supply could be sold individually. S-3510 - E. 34th AVE. (vacate, eliminate) that portion Of E. 34th Ave. 60-foot right-of-way located north of E. 36th Ave., west of Creekside Drive, and ~ast of Upland Drive. Denial of the vacation request due to the findings of facts and presentation of the Staff memo. S-3382 - GLEN ALPS ESTATES ADDN. NO. 1, BLOCK 1, LOTS 1-4, (subdivision) into 1block, 4 lots previously unsubdivided land, located in Section 30, approximately 1-1/2 miles east of Hillside Drive, and west of Flattop Mountain. GREATER ANCHORAGE AREA BOROUGH ~ ¢=.~ DATE ANSWER TO: DEPARTMENT: , REQUESTED: REQUESTED ACTION SCHEDULE FOR INFORMAT'ONT,Oo~Y '~ CALL ME BEEORE YOU ANSWER EOR IMMEDIATE AC FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ¢~ NEED YOUR RECOMMENDATION OTHER -- TRYCK Off lee/T;* NYMAN HAY6$ ENGINEERS / PLANNERS / SURVEYORS Anchorage, Alaska 9950t /907 279-0540 P~ucl~ 0 tile mcently,-fs~ued E~;ency Order by the Department of ~n~n~ntal This subdivision e~:ploys the double--lot concept and uas planned and deMgTmd based on the criteria of the G~ater Anchorage Area Borough Departn~t~t ~°ubledet concept ts by ~ed ~estrictton~ and by the r~st~fctlen net~d AP, EAS OF ~OU~LE-LOT~ ~ITH LESS THA~) 40,000 <~.tm~ FEEl" Z~ 'TALUS WEST ADD~TION )~0. 1 B_lock Doubl~_Lgt~ Area 2B g 26 38~898 1~02 2~ & 30 39~407 TRYCK NYMAN ErHAYELS Hro Jerry Reir~and ~arch 2, 1~73 Job 3438,1 Glock Lots I & 2 37,226 2,774 3 & a 34,000 5 E ~ 34,3~3 5,660 7 ~ 8 37,717 9 & 10 36~155 11 ~ 1~ 39~4~3 ~7 13 & 14 39,106 894 19 S 20 37,649 2~351 7 Lots 1R 2 37~39 2~761 }ia a~e a~tacht~q to this ~que. st two copte.~ each of Che recorded plat of Talus Subdivision Addition ~1 and a ~ar~ed~up p~i~t ~ich identffles (1) the ten do~le ~utred ~ be added to ~e a~a contained tf~ the double-lot so that the total available ~lthtn th~ one-half (1/2) st~et tight or-d:ay i~edt~tely adjacent lot in ~e double-lot ~oula contain at l~st ~,00~ squar~ feet ~asured to the ce~)~rli~ of the st~et Our ~u~t for the exception to ~e requt~(~nt that ~ach lot ~ust contain least 40,OL~ squa)~ feet in net ate~ befo~ a st~uctu~ ~ay ~ b~tlt upon for the fou~een do.lo--lots identified above tn ~qe ~ble. ~e vmuld app~ciate an early ~s~nse to this request because ~e ~e~e alre~6,y ~nto ou~ sales ~hen ~e E~ergency Or, er t~as issued. The streets have a!ready been constructed tn the sb~di~slon and ~e ~re p~sently p~pertnq the contract ~ith Ch~ach El~tric Association fm· ~ e installatlo~ of underg~und elec~tJc and telephone. Thank you foe your atte~Lion ~ this ~t~. Please advise if you ~lut~ truly yours~ TRYCK, )iY~A~ R ~AYES ~:l~)c E~ctosur~ cc ~ ~ard tlulbert Kyle Cherry I~olf Strickland GREATER ANCHORAGE AREA BOROUGH PLANNING DEPARTM£NT DATE: 'FO: FROM: SUBJ: }fay 22, 2973 Charles Carlson/~ Building Safet~ Lot Groupiug As you two or more lots into one building parcel in order to per-mit d~vclopment of properties which othezx¢ise could not be developed to our Standards due to lot size, poor soils, etc. l. Te anticipate limited use of this provision in areas hmch are not ,served by public se~¢er and/or water presently, but will have these facilities available in tSe foreseeable future. .21~is memoraadttm will serve to notify you that the subdivision plats listed below have recently been approved by 'the Plamning Commission u. tilizing specific lot ties whie_h are delineated on the ~ · plats ~ thais department recently instituted a system of greuping 'l!tese plats are on file ~ the Planning Department. By alerting tAe counter personnel, we are hopeful that we wiJ1 be able to enforce this provision ~cess~z~ at the sewer or building permit acquisition level.. !"la~a tell your couater Deople to feel free to call me for additioual c] ar'.: fits rio ' · - -- n if they become doubtful or any problems arise ~ connsc- tion with this arrangement. 1. Shaakieton Subdivis4on, Lots 23A4 - 23A6 Tied & Lots 23A1 - 23A3 Tied 2. Disna Subdivision (S-2895) 3. Sun,et A~'~es q,~ ' ' ' ...... uodzvzs~on (Lets 1 - 4) (S-2924) T~us West Subdivision No. 1 ~A), Bk. 3~ Lots 15-30 in'pairs. B__k. 4~ Lots 3-6' in pairs .Bk. 5, Lots ]'--20 in vaira will provide your es, artment with addendth%s to this list Pez'iodicslly. February 27, 1973. WILL~M A. EGA~ GOVERNO~ MACKAY BLDG. 338 DENAL! STREET ANCHORAGE 99501 Mr. Dan Chapman Tryek, Nyman & Hayes 740 "1" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 SUBJECT: Talus West Subdivision NO. I Dear Mr. Chapman: 'i We have been asked by Mr. Roll Strickland to resNond to yeur letter of February 16, 1973 which requested information as to interpretation of the new Department of Envircnmental Conserva- tion Wasta Water Regulations. We have the following information to offer. The double lot concept would comply with the require- merits of the regulations when the total area of the lot is 40.,000 Sq. Ft. or more. The 40,000 Sq. Ft. figure in the Regulation applies to.net area which discounts the area covered by streets or easements. In this respect lots which depend on these areas from roads and easements will not comply in the strictest sense of the regulations. I myself have not seen'any plans for this subdivision, but in talking with Mr. Strickland and yourself it has been learned that lot concept will provide lots of at least 38,000 to'39,0C0 Sq. Ft. in ail cases. It would be my suggestion at this time that due to the large size of the lots involved and their nearness to the 40,000 Sq. Ft. figure that you apply through our department's system for an exception. The proper procedure would be to supply the supporting documentation with your request and address it to Mr. Jerry Reinwand, Special Asst. to the Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Pouch O, Juneau 99801. Mr. Reinwand is the Commissioner's designee to process these requirements for exceptions. If you have any further question regarding the regulations or procedure for applying for an exception~ please advise us and we will try to provide the necessary information. Yours. truly~ Kyl_~J..Ch~ry U ,' ' R~gional Environmental Engin'eer cc: Jerry Reinw~d GAAB-GEO ,./ i,~ ']able TNHANCAK/Te[ex 090-25332 February 16, ,973 Mr. Rolf Strickland Assist. Director of Department of Environmental Quality Greater Anchorage Area Borough Pouch 6-650 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Subject: Talus West Subdivision - Addition #1 Dear Mr. Strickland: We, like many other persons who have surely contacted you since the recently- issued Emergency Order by the State Department of Environmental Conservation, are greatly concerneQ about the effect this order will have on platted sub- divisions having lots less than 40,000 squarezfeet, and the effect it will have on the presently-accepted criteria for planning future subdivisions. The pur- pose of this letter is to request an interpretation from your office, if possible, for the status of Talus West Subdivision Addition #1 under the terms set forth in the Emergency Order. You will recall that Talus West Subdivision Addition #1 was the first subdivision to be platted with the restriction placed upon it that lots could only be sold and built upon in pairs. Working in con- junction with your office, we agreed that this was a satisfactory solution to the problem of subdivisions being developed at present without the benefit of water and/or sewerage facilities, and that this method of development would encourage and allow the more economical advent of facilities in the future when connecting facilities are available and increased development in the area demands it. We request clarification of two items regarding Talus West Addition #1. The first is, does the double lot concept comply with the requirements of the Emergency Order when the total area of the two lots is 40~000 square-feet or more. The second question regards an extremely important technicality resulting from the criteria which was used in sizing the lots for the subdivision originally. Each single lot in the pair of lots was planned originally to . b, IYMAN 8-HAYES -2- Mr. Rolf Strickland February 16, 1973 Job 3438.1 contain 20,000 square-feet when measured to the centerline of the right- of-way immediately in front of or alongside of the lot. When measured in this manner, each single lot in the subdivision contains at least 20,000 square-feet and, subsequently, each pair of lots contains 40,000 square-feet or more. Our question is, will the lots measured in this manner comply with the Emergency Order, assuming that the double lot concept is accepted? We request an immediate response to this reouest because we have completed the roads in the subdivision, are presently entering into a contract with Chugach Electric for the underground installation of telephone and electrical lines, and are in the first weeks of the sales program for this second phase of development. If you are unable to provide a definite answer to these two questions, will you please inform this office of the necessary steps for obtaining an "all-clear" for obtaining building permits in this subdivision. If you have not already done so, we suggest that you inform the State of the platting method which was devised in order to develop Talus West Addition #1. This method provides for orderly development and requires the submittal and acceptance of soils information provided by registered engineers. The sizing of a parcel for on-site water and sewerage facilities should be determined by acceptable engineering practices and not arbitrarily established at 40,000 square-feet, which deletes the requirements for any engineering at all. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Please advise as soon as possible of your answers. Very truly yours, TRYCK NYMAN & HAYES Dan Chapman, P.~f~. Partner DC:dh CC: Target North, Inc. .. ' , LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORAT;ON ROOM 3OI-AUST~AIASKA BU;[f)ING 360 "K" STREET ANCHORAGE, ALAS KA 99501 September 1, 1972 Mr. Alan Scheen Planning Department Greater Anchorage Area Borough 3500 Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska Re: Deed Restrictions to Talus Wests/ Dear Mr. Scheen: I am enclosing herewith an original document entitled "Deed Restrictions". These restrictions have been drafted for the purpose of assuring %hat the lots in Talus West are sold in pairs and retained in pairs with only one of the pair of lots being developed until such time as the subdivision is served by municipal sewage system. The Deed Restrictions are for the benefit of %he Greater Anchorage Area Borough and can be released only by the Greater Anchorage Area Borough. This document should be recorded at the same time as the plat of Talus West Addition No. 1 is recorded but the hour and minute date should be subsequent to %he time that the Talus West plat is recorded. The Deed Restrictions are self-enforcing. Should any owner of a pair of lots attempt to sell one of the lots to a buyer before the Deed Restrictions have been abrogated by the Greater Anchorage Area Borough a title search would ir~nediately reveal %hat only one of %he pair of lots could be developed. This would kill any attempted transfer of only one lot. In addition to the above, no financing institution would lend money to develp one of the lots illegally because the Borough, as beneficiary of the Deed Restriction, could obtain an injunc- tion against such development. In addition, any of the lot owners in the subdivision could also bring an action in court to enjoin either the wrongful sale or development of %he lots. Mr. Alan Scheen Page Two September 1, 1972 Finally, the Building Department itself would have notice of the Deed Restrictions and would presumably refuse to issue a permit for the development of two of any pair of lots prior to the re- lease of the Deed Restrictions. I am assuming that the Borough is setting up or will set up a system whereby each lot in the Borough will have its own file which will be examined by the appropriate building official before a permit is issued. These three nets should be ample to catch any attempted vio- lation of the Deed Restrictions. Very truly yours, GAD/gd enclosure l AKER, DIC ON, PERRY & JARVI less' na poration ~ 3~00 :TUDOR RO~D ~ANCHORAGE; ALASKA 99507- DEPARTMENt OF ;LAW 279-8686 M E M 0 'R A N D U M TO: Roll StricRtand, DEQ FROM: Eugene P. Murphy, Legal Department SUBJECT: Talus West~ I DATE: August 30, 1972 George Dickson and I discussed the deed restriction today. The deed restriction is adequate and, when properly filed and recorded, will operate to restrict the subdivider and subsequent sellers and buyers. To do now: George will send the executed original to me. I will transmit the document to you so you can file it and we may thus be assured of its timely filing. EPM:pa February 2;?, 1973 Nr. Dan Citapmaa, P.E. Tryck, Nyman and Hayes Consul ting Engineers 7ziO "i" Street Anci]orage, Alaska 99501 Subject: Talus West Subdivision, Addition #1 Dear' fir. Chapman: The Greater Anchorage Area Borough, Department of Environmental Quality has received your letter of February 1~ 1973 regarding this subdivision's compliance with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's emergency regulation. We have met witi~ Kyle Cherry of the State's Regional Office on tilis matter and i~ave transmitted this letter to him for his r~,view and comment. He will be replying to your letter in the- near future in regards to the questions you have posed. Until we receive authorization from the State Department of Environmental Conservation, ti~is Department cannot 'issue permits 'For on-si~ sewage disposal systems in this subdivision, Should you have further questions regarding this matter, please contact tile undersigned° Sincerely, Rolf Strickland, R.S. Ci~ief Sanitarian bb cc: Mr. Kyle Cherry RYCt(, NYMAN & HAYES'~ IItJ II Li !11 IJ LIIUIIILLII ANCHORAGE - HONOLULU Job 3438 April 5, 1972 Mr. Dick Glasheen Planning Department Greater Anchorage Area Borough 3500 Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska RE: Request for Final Approval - Talus West Subdivision, Addition No. 1 Dear Dick: We are submitting herewith for final approval the plat of Talus West Subdivi- sion, Addition No. 1. Tracts B & C on the plat have not been subdivided into lots at this time because of soil conditions revealed by subsurface explorations which were accomplished in accordance with the requirements set forth in the September 13, 1971 letter from the Department of Environmental Quality to all Engineering Firms in the Anchorage area. The results of the subsurface explora- tions and exhibits prepared in compliance with the September 13, 1971 letter have been furnished to the Department of Environmental Quality and we nave met with them to obtain their concurrence with this second phase of development in the Subdivision. Copies of correspondence from the Department of Environmental Quality are attached herewith. You will note that we are not following the recommendations stated in the Department of Environmental Quality's letter. We are aware of the opposition to subdivision development in the hillside areas. We request, however, that final approval be granted on the basis of continuing the development of the subdivision in accordance with the approved preliminary plat. Please advise if we may present further information at this time regarding the subdivision. Very truly yours, TRYCK, NYMAN & HAYES D~Ch p p~tne~pman~ P '~ DC:dh Attachment cc: Target North, Inc. ;/ ) ~rgh lO, 1072 ~ " ;, a ..,:,, r .... ]y SOUPC3 '-'" ' ' 1. Uelt ~-~,',r'-lata available to us d~os not ),rc~clud~: 'the ?o~qihilitv i".',~t SoF~t lot ow~crs ¥;itl not b,:: able- to fiqd 2. Tire ~ro,2osgd individu~l we~l locations as ShONn on the subdivisi~: m~W, 4aL~:~ I-.27-77 ~r~: v(ry clause tm (:4ck Consef!uently, pumpagc may r¢~slIlt in Nell trlt. erfercf)ce, 3. The scaCtcre:} dovelopl'~:nk of some l¢'~i individual wells throughout: the parcel greatly tpcreases the ~otenti~l of c~ntamin2tlor~ fror~ various sources within ~h{.: subdivisioh and further, the mi~locatton of Just one well has th(: wa~er suK. ply and waste dlsp(~sal development plan. A single ,,~e)l Iocatmd On the northeastern bouhda~y of ~he subdivision s.I)division, suqQest the dew:lop~';e~t of -~ si~,~le water sup?ly w~ll to serw thc entire subdivisimn. Thc well should br.. locat(~d in the ~;ortheaster~ ,~>ortioF~ of the subdivision to take fha be~t aJvantage of the l)oor to gait aquifer underlyi)~g the subdi- v(ston area. W~) sug(lest t~qe e~act location be determined via test wells. Dan Chapman March 10, 1972 Page Two ~aste Oispos¢,l Facilities ~ewer ~tthtn the foreseeable ¢uture. On-~lte sewage disposal will have to be considered a con~inutn9 use. The soils tests reported from your ore,ce and tho~e blocked out on the pro.. posal show two major areas in which soils are at established minimum ~cc~tahle limitm. This would include Lets 15-17 of glock 3, Lots (~--l~ o~ Block 4~ and Lots 1 & 2 and 22~.26 of Block 5. The above mentioned lots Peoulre the maximum size of se~,page pit for the partlculaP type of ~tructure developed on these lot~. Per this re~son: the above ~enttormd lots cod~. requirements for the location of seepage pits. This ~m~ld inctud~ th(~ r6qutre~ent that on all lots within tl~e subdivision. ~h~>re shall be the o~tginal seepage pit location r, ance. Th~ soil c(mdftions in thc remaining portion of this subdivisim~ are of a mare suitable (~ature t(~ relation to for oxt~de(, ~rganism tr~vel distanc~s throughout the soil. F~)urFmll~: E.K. ~ay - ~ . '~ . Environ ~mnial t;rotn~ ~ ~a:er Poltutlon. I,-, ,,"~ c,,c~' '~'.,. .::, Alaska~' an4. r .... r ..... in the "Public: Health r'(~F, orts (Volume 79 ~:arch I757) r~ported bacterial .or~anfsm survival times ~' this ',-hlicatien for .d),,~er i~w~s~!ga~ton shoul~ you so 'F~)~ ~he;:ome~:o.q fa, ferrari to above certainly indicates a m~ed for extrem~ cautio~ i~ developm~F~'L of subdivtsio~s v~here such on-site ~ste disposal faciliti~.~s are progosed. It furthar indicates a ~(:~ed for rather large lot siz~ to accm~mo~tate the sub!oct pro~os~d subdivision. iklter~)Ate A * That e~ch lot be adequately sized to provide: ?~-~'~6,~'~'~"~?ir,~ use of on--sit~ ~.~c~lities. The actual minimal lot size ~oul~~ de?end upon whether or eot public water ,,~as ~rovided, ~ more detailed investigation of the proposal with sa~y. ~n Chapman )~arch lO~ 197~ Page Three Alternate B ~ That Addition ~1 to this subdivisiml b~) delay~:d 'q'n"~fi-~bTl-eT~-('on until such a time that public sewer becomes awilahle to serve this area. Alternate C - That a public water supply be provided for this 'iFffcq' -qsT6T; i~ connectto~ with a properly designed waste wi ti~In this In summary, ~t is the recommendation of the Defar~men~ of virom~enta) Quality that a single community water well a)~d (~istributio~ system be provided with it~ ~:roposed locatior~ as s~:lla~ out in the 2bov;~ portion of the letter. It further recomtqcade~i that tf maxt~um occ~u~ancy of thi~ subdi- vision is exn~cted 0riot to the availability of public se~er~ (:hat seriou~ con~tderat!en bo (~ivm)~ to the incl~!sio~ at this Should you have a~y Qu,-~stions reqardi)~ our review of informatiow~ ~rovi~!ed on this s,Jh~tvtsior~, please cOl)tact the Si ncc~r(~!y, ~olf )::. Strtc{!an~i~ P.S. 9ssisi:ant Pi reci:~r cc:: C.?. Ju<~ ins UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY b~ater Resources Division 218 "E" Street, ~ Skyl ine Bldg. Anchorage, ~Alaska 99501 February 25, 1972 Mr. Roll R. Strickland Assistant Director of Environmental'Quality Greater Anchorage Area Borough 3500'Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska Dear Mr. Strickland: We have received your letter of February 2, 1972 in refe~n~e to water well development,~Talus West'Subdivision'(proposed) l~:Sec.22, T.12 N., R.3 W;, adjacent to Huffman road. Our review indicates ' that it would be best'to:develop one or more community wells in the 50'to 150 gpm yield range. 0ur data suggests that the.north, east portion of the subdivision is the:most promising area to drill such wells. The proposed individual well locations as shown on the subdivision map dated 1-27-72 are very close'to each other~ Consequently pump- age may'result tn well interference. Our records indicate that yields from waterlwells are poor in section 22. If individual'wells are drilled by future lot o~mers it is probable that some owners may beunable to-find sufficient water for their needs.' For'these'reasons; it would be ~ise'to insure completion of an adequate supply well or ~ells,'prior to sale of lots; Sincerely, W. W. Barneell Asst; Subdistrict Chief ~HO~AG~ AREA BOROUGH February 2, 1972 Mr. William W. Barnwell Assistant Sub-District Chief ~ater Resources U.S. Geological Survey A08 W. 2~ld Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99B01 9/ Subject: Water Well Development, Talus West Subdivlsion (Proposed). Dear Mr. Barn~ell: We have received the attached sketch of the pfbposed subdivision showing the locatioT~ of each well and seepage pit. Also enclosed are thirteen soils logs which the engineer states are representative of the site. would appreciate your evaluation and comments concerning the development of individual water wells as proposed in this sketch. ! am particularly concerned about the location and develo~ent of individual wells, as proposed on this sketch, in comparison with one community well and the resultant effect on the underground water supply. Another major concern is the mintnml distance illustrated between several adjoining water wells. In many cases, there is less than forty feet between these wells. This subdivision has been submitted to the Planning Department for approvnl and will be Eefore tile Planning Commission in the near future. Your early comnents based on the presently available d~ta ~ould he 9raatly appreciat- ed. We also wish to express our appreciation for your comments, specifically in regards to the data we sent you on Mount Spurt Estates Subdivision. Your comments, along with our additional data, has helped us greatly in making a final decision as to the ultimate development of water and sewer systems in this particular subdivision also. ~incerely, Rolf R. Strickland, R.S. Assistant Director St JllrRi'CK, NYM~i~ & H,,AYE~ ANCHORAGE - HONOLULU Job 3438 January 28, 1972 Mr. Rolf Strickland Assistant Director of Department Environmental Quality Pouch 6-650 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 RE: Location for Water and Waste Disposal Systems Talus West Subdivision, Addition No. 1 Dear Mr. Strickland: Following our meeting in late October, 1971, we proceeded to prepare the exhibits attached herewith. These exhibits present a plan for locating wells and drain fields on the lots encompassed in this addi- tion to the Talus West Subdivision. The soils logs and classifications attached herewith were prepared by Alaska Test Lab. You will recall that at our initial meeting in Octo- ber, only 10 of the 13 test holes had been obtained. 0nly the soils identified in Test Hole No. 8 exceeded the 250 square feet per bedroom requirement for effective absorption area. As a result of our meeting, we obtained information from three additional test pits, two in the immediate area of Test Hole No. 8 to attempt to determine the limits of the marginal soil. As a result of the additional Test Holes No. 12 and 13, we have excluded the area designated on the attached exhibits from being platted into lo~s in this subdivision addition. Cold wea- ther prevented us from excavating additional test pits in this area. The plan shows locations for drain fields, the size of which are based on the information derived from the test holes and the assumption that four-bedroom houses will eventually be constructed on the lots. The small-scale plan on the map shows an arbitrary division between the square-footage requirements for minimum effective absorption areas used in sizing the drain fields. A major portion of the property re- quires an absorption area of 600 square feet or less, and in these areas the construction of seepage pits or a combination of pits might prove more economical than installing drain fields. The decision iTRYC~K, NYMAN & HAYES Department of Environmental Quality Anchorage, Alaska January 28, 1972 Job 3438 whether to use drain fields or seepage pits should be made on an individual lot.basis as lots are developed. At our meeting, we reviewed the comprehensive information you had in your office regarding the availability of adequate water sources in the area, and you advised us that an adequate water supply should be no problem and that further investigation would not be required. We request approval of the information submitted herewith as a neces- sary step in obtaining Planning Commission approval of the proposed addition to Talus West Subdivision. Please advise if we can answer any questions or furnish any other information regarding the subject property. Very truly yours, TRYCK, NYMAN & HAYES Dan Chapman, DC:dh CC: Target North, Inc. 1840 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska lot FROM: GREATER ANCHORAGE AREA BOROUGH INITIATED BY: ~ DATE OF MEMO: / ~/~ DATE ANSWER TO: DEPARTMENT, ./--~?~-c~ REQUESTED: R E CR~[,&~E ~ ~'.~. AUG 2 ~ 197~ REQUESTED ACTION SCHEDULE F~R INFORMATION ONLY ~;~ PREPARE BACK-UP INFORMATIO ;~~~ ¢~ CALL ME BEFORE YOU ANSWER ........ ~ ~'e~CRATION ~ NEED YOUR RECOMMENDATIO OTHER ¥1ARA~I~I~(R,DICRSO~ & PERRY. 279-$59l DEED RESTRICTION WHEREAS., TARGET NORTH, INC., is the owner of the following described real property: Lots 15 through 30, Block 3, Lots 3 through 6, Block 4, Lots 1 through 20, Block 5, Lots 6 through 7, Block 6, Lots 1 through 6, Block 7, TalUS ~ West Subdivision, Addition No. recorded in the Anchorage, Recording Third Judicial District, Alaska, and office, ~{EREAS, it is the desire and intention of the owner to sell the property described above and to improve on it mutual, beneficial restrictions under a general plan of development for the benefit of all the lands herein described, the future owners of those lands and for the benefit of the Greater Anchorage Area Borough; NOW THEREFORE, because of onsite sewage disposal problems the following lots must be conveyed and retained in pairs and developed 0nly with one single family dwelling for each pair of lots until Such time as the subdivision is served by a municipal sewage System and this restriction duly revoked as~ provided herein: Block 3 Block 4 Lots 15 and ].6 Lots 17 and 18 Lots 19 and 20 Lots 21 and 22 Lots 23 and 24 Lots 25 and 26 Lots 27 and 28 Lots 29 and 30 Lots 3 and 4 Lots 5 and 6 Block 5 Lots 1 and Lots 3 and~4 Lots 5 and 6 Lots 7 and 8 Lots 9 and 10 Lots 11 and 12 Lots 13 and 14 Lots 15' and 16 Lots 17 and 18 Lots 19 and 20 t'IA[IAh~A~ER,OICKSO~I&P[~R¥ 279-659! Block 6 Block 7 Lots 7 and 8 Lots 1 and 2 Lots 3 and 4 Lots 5 and 6 This restriction is to continue until revoked. Revocation may only be by document executed by the Director of Public Works the Greater Anchorage Area Borough or its successor in interest, which document must state, in essence, that this subdivision is served by municipal sewer. Enforcement of 'this restrict:i.on be by any of the owners of the above described lots and/or by the Greater Anchorage Area Borough. TARGET NORTH, INC. STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) On thJ. s.':~/~3d~Y of ~/~ .... ~?., ,~ ;.~ , 1972, before undersigned Notar~'~lic, personal~y appeared WARD A. of TARGET NORTH, INC., and he acknowledged to me that he · the foregoing instrument as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein set forth, and stated he was authorized to sign the same on its behalf by resolution of its Board of Directors. WITNESS ray hand and official seal the day and year hereinabove written. '~'~ARY POBLI~ in and for Alaska' My Commission Expires: /~/~