Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDENALI VIEW General Information (18)William L. McNall H. Frank Cahill Sandra J. Wicks McNall & Associates, P.C. Attorneys 921 West Sixth Avenue Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2044 Telephone (907) 276-2535 Telecopier (907) 279-8527 Francine D. Harbour Of Counsel Thomas Brown Legal Assistant RECEIVED November 4, 1997 Jim Cross, P.E., Program Manager On-Site Water Quality Municipality of Anchorage DHSS P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 Re: NOV 6 1997 Municipality of Anchorage Oept, Health & Human Services Well-Monitoring in Subdivisions adjacent to Denali View Our File No. 10141.04 Dear Mr. Cross: This is my second letter to you regarding Skyline View Corporation, and Arleen and Paul Myers, the developers of Denali View Subdivision. The Myers submitted the preliminary plat application for Denali View in May 1997. The Myers have repeatedly agreed to requests by Community Planning and Development to waive their rights for a prompt decision on the plot, pursuant to Anchorage Municipal Code 21.15.115(B). Recently, the application review process has apparently ground to a halt over the need for an acceptable process for testing or modeling groundwater adequacy in the proposed subdivision. The Myers and their agents have worked with you diligently since April 1997 on initial testing, and again since July on further testing that you requested, which required the participation of owners of neighboring properties. You have advised the Myers repeatedly that you would obtain the participation of the neighbors for a reasonable test, and you have orally agreed to various testing plans, but have failed to finalize any test or modeling plan. Furthermore, you have been unable to obtain the participation of the neighboring homeowners. In accordance with your recommendations, the Myers have drilled two wells, performed a pump test, and then drilled a third well. All the wells shows adequate water for the subdivision. Nevertheless, you have avoided making a final recommendation to the Platting Board to approve or disapprove the subdivision. lim Cross, P.E. November 4, 1997 Page 2 of 2 The Myers' previous agreements to waive their right to a decision, pursuant to AMC 21.15.115(B), were based largely on your requests, and on your representation that you would obtain cooperation of local residents in a reasonable test plan. The Myers understood that if you could not obtain such cooperation, you would agree to a test involving only the Denali View wells, to an evaluation based on modeling. You have orally approved three separate plans during the past three months, prepared by the Myers' engineers at considerable cost, but apparently because you have been unable to obtain the cooperation of neighboring homeowners, you have failed to finalize the approval of any test or modeling procedure which would permit a determination of the adequacy of Denali View water supply. It appears that, notwithstanding the good faith cooperation of the Myers, and your efforts to date, a majority of neighboring homeowners are absolutely unwilling to take any action which might result in the scientific determination whether the groundwater use by the 11 homes planned for the Denali View Subdivision would affect their water supplies. The Myers acknowledge that there is political opposition to the development of Denali View by neighboring homeowners, and do not dispute that such political opposition can be considered in the platting approval process. However, such political opposition should not be allowed to preclude the determination of the simple scientific question whether the development of 11 houses using wells in Denali View will "unduly affect" the water availability of neighboring homes such that a permit should be denied pursuant to AS 46.15.080(a)(1). The Myers' engineer, Dee High, has met with you repeatedly on this matter, as recently as October 10, and you have been unable or unwilling to provide final, written approval of any testing or modeling to determine the answer to the question. On behalf of the Myers, I hereby request, that On-Site Water Quality provide immediate approval of an appropriate plan or modeling procedure for determination of the affect of Denali View Subdivision's development on neighboring water supplies, or, alternatively, an immediate recommendation of approval of the Denali View plat based on the initial testing. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, McNALL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. H. Frank Cahill HFC/cb MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Department of Health and Human Services P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 Date: November 5, 1997 To: Elaine Christian, Director, DHHS Thru: Lura Morgan, Ph.D., Manager, Environmental Services Division;/1 Fro.m: 4~rfes Cross, PE, Program Manager, On-Site Water Quality Sublect: ~, Health Authority Approval Status with the Alaska DEC Health Authority Approval Certificates (HAA's), which are assurances of the adequacy and safety of on-site wastewater disposal systems and wells, are currently issued by the DEC statewide, and by the MOA within the Municipalityof Anchorage. The following is an outline of repercussions resulting from the DEC's decision to stop issuing Health Authority Approvals on December 1, 1997: The existing procedure within the state is that single family, multi-family, and commercial buildings with on-site wastewater disposal systems, in areas outside of the Municipality of Anchorage, receive HAA's from the DEC. Within the Municipality of Anchorage, multi-family and commercial buildings with on-site wastewater disposal systems receive HAA's from the DEC, and single family homes receive HAA's from DI-IHS. Due to the unavailability, after December 31st, of HAA's for all buildings throughout the rest of the state, and for multi-family and commercial buildings within MOA, mortgage underwriters will no longer require the HAA certificates for new mortgages and refinances. They are replacing the HAA certificates with either an engineer's report, if there is some sign of a problem, or no certification at all. The On-Site Wastewater Technical Review Board is currently discussing options for dealing with this change. The Board has sent a letter to Janice Adair, Director of Environmental Health at DEC, asking DEC to reconsider its plan to stop providing HAA's after December 1, 1997. A letter also was sent to lenders and realtors around the state asking for support on the Board's position. The Board has also drafted a change to the Anchorage Municipal Code which would mandate HAA's within the Municipality for single family homes. Further discussions on this code change will occur at the Board's November meeting. Health Authority Approval Statns with the Alaska DEC Page 2 It appears now that the only way for HAA's to be continued for multi-family and commercial buildings within the MOA is for DEC to delegate responsibility for these systems to MOA. Discussions on the feasibility of DEC's delegation and MOA's acceptance of responsibilities have taken place, but to date, no concrete action has happened. A Memorandum of Understanding between the DEC and the MOA has been initiated, but DEC personnel have informed us that they are moving forward with changes to their on-site regulations, with a projected completion date of January 1998, prior to any further action with the MOU. Code changes which would incorporate the multi-family and commercial systems would be necessary for the MOA to accept responsibility. No code changes are required at the state level to delegate this responsibility. NOV-04-189? 10:04 MCNRLL&ASSDCIATES 2?9 8529 P.01/03 William L. MoNaII irL Frank Cahill Sandra J. Wicks Mc. Nail & Associates, P.C. Attorneys 921 Wmt Sixth Avenue Suite 100 Anehoraae, Ataska 99501-2044 Telephone (907} 276-2535 Fax (90/) 279-~$27 Franelne D, Harbour Of Counsel Thomas ]Brown Legal Assistant RECEIVED Date: To: From: FAX COVER SHEET Fax #: Total Pages Sent Including Cover Sheet NOV 4 1997 MESSAGE: Momc.pah[y ol Anchorage Oept, Health & Human Services File #: Original Sent Yes ~(~' ,.. By Mail No Please call 276-2535 if the fax you receive is incomplete or illegible. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The do¢uments ae~:ompanyin$ ilks far. shana tr~iou may ~a~n ~fa~nfioa that ~ pdv~, eonfiden~, ~d ~te~d~ o~y for r~pt by ~d for the ~ of~e ~t~d~ ~ipient who is/are the ~an(s) u~ above, If you a~ no~ ~e n~ ~on(~), you a~ heruby notifi~ ~t ~ ~losl~re, eopyhlg or ~tfibu~oo, or the ~ia8 of ~y aefioa bas~ on the eonl~n~ of th~ ~m~ion ~ s~fi~fly prohZit~, ~cept for ig ~rgt ~d ~m~ate d~veO (o (he rglpieal(a) THANK YOUI NOW-B4-199? 10:0~ MCNALL&ASSOCIATES 279 8S27 P.0270~ William L. McNaI! H. Frank Cahtll Sandru J. Wlek~ McNall & Associates, P.C. Attorneys 921 West Sixth Avenue Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2044 Tehphone (907) 2q6-~3~ Telecopier (907) 279~527 Francine D. Harbour Of Counsel Thomas Brown Legal Assistant November 4, 1997 Jim Cross, P.E., Program Manager On-Site Water Quality Municipality of Anchorage DH$S P,O, Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 Re: Well-Monitoring in Subdivisions adjacent to Denali View Our File No. 10141.04 Dear Mr. Cross: This is my second letter to you regarding Skyline View Corporation, and Arleen and Paul Myers, the developers of Denali View Subdivision. The Myers submitted the preliminary plat application for Denali View in May 1997, The Myers have repeatedly agreed to requests by Community Planning and Development to waive their rights for a prompt decision on the plot, pursuant to Anchorage Municipal Code 21.15. 115(B). Recently, the application review process has apparently ground to a halt over the need for an acceptable process for testing or modeling groundwater adequacy in the proposed subdivision. The Myers and their agents have worked with you diligently since April 1997 on initial testing, and again since July on further testing that you requested, which required the participation of owners of neighboring properties. You have advised the Myers repeatedly that you would obtain the participation of the neighbors for a reasonable test, and you have orally agreed to various testing plans, but have failed to finalize any test or modeling plan. Furthermore, you have been unable to obtain the participation of the neighboring homeowners. In accordance with your recommendations, the Myers have drilled two wells, performed a pump test, and then drilled a third well. All the wells shows adequate water for the subdivision. Nevertheless, you have avoided making a final recommendation to the Platting Board to approve or disapprove the subdivision. Now-tuber 4, [997 The Myers' previous agreements to waive their right to a decision, pursuant to AMC 21.15.115(B), were based largely on your requests, and on your representation that you would obtain cooperation of local residents in a reasonable test plan. The Myers understood that if you could not obtain such cooperation, you would agree to a test involving only the Denali View wells, to an evaluation based on modeling. You have orally approved three separate plans during the past three months, prepared by the Myers' engineers at considerable cost, but apparently because you have been unable to obtain the cooperation of neighboring homeowners, you have failed to finalize the approval of any test or modeling procedure which would permit a determination of the adequacy of Denali View water supply. It appears that, notwithstanding the good faith cooperation of the Myers, and your efforts to date, a majority of neighboring homeowners are absolutely unwilling to take any action which might result in the scientific determination whether the groundwater use by the 11 homes planned for the Denali View Subdivision would affect their water supplies. The Myers acknowledge that there is political opposition to the development of Denali View by neighboring homeowners, and do not dispute that such political opposition can be considered in the platting approval process, However, such political opposition should not be al lowed to preclude the determination of the simple scientific question whether the development of I1 houses using wells in Denali View will "unduly affect" the water availability of neighboring homes such that a pein'tit should be denied pursuant to AS 46,15.080(a)(1). The Myers' engineer, Dee High, has met with you repeatedly on this matter, as recently as October 10, and you have been unable or unwilling to provide final, written approval of any testing or modeling to determine the answer to the question. On behalf of the Myers, I hereby request, that On-Site Water Quality provide immediate approval of aa appropriate plan or modeling procedure for determination of the affect of Denali View Subdivision's development on neighboring water supplies, or, alternatively, an immediate recommendation of approval of the Denali View plat based on the initial testing. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, McNALL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. H, Frank Cahill HFC/cb TOTRL P,03 William L. McNall 1t. Frank Cahill Sandra J. Wicks McNall & Associates, P.C. Attorneys 921 West Sixth Avenue Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2044 Telephone (907) 276-2535 Telecopier (907) 279-8527 Francine D. Harbour Of Counsel Thomas Brown Legal Assistant October 17, 1997 Jim Cross, P.E., Program Manager On-Site Water Quality Municipality of Anchorage DHSS P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 RECEIVED OCT 2 7 1997 Municipality of ,qnC/~ora e Dept. Health ~,Hum~ ~, g '"'~" oerVices Re: Well-Monitoring in Subdivisions adjacent to Denali View Our File No. 10141.04 Dear Mr. Cross: At the request of developers Arleen and Paul Myers, I have reviewed a letter directed to Mr. Dee High dated October 13 from some of the residents of Scimitar, Chugiak Park Estates, and Petersgate Subdivisions, and their proposed agreement form authorizing Mr. High to monitor their wells during test pumping of Denali View wells. The purpose of the well- monitoring project is to evaluate whether the development of on-site water supplies for Denali View Subdivision will unduly interfere with water quantity in neighboring subdivisions. In my opinion, the agreement form proposed by the homeowners does not reasonably protect the developer, the hydrologist, or the engineer in charge from potential claims which such homeowners could make as a result of the test monitoring. The professionals have reasonably and properly insisted on a "hold harmless" clause protecting them and their agents from liability for their non-negligent u~ of the neighboring properties for the well-monitoring project. Since this extra testing and well-monitoring was designed specifically to meet objections by these homeowners to an existing hydrology study provided by the developers, the homeowners should be willing to make the level of effort needed to establish the well- monitoring. I understand from the Myers that, even with Mr. Williams' letters, there are not enough participants for a complete test. Very tntly yours, McNALL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. H. Frank Cahill HFC/cb H. Ffznk Clhill Sandr:~ J. Wi¢i~ Mc,Nall & AMociates, P.C. Attorneys West $1.xth A'~enul }'r~,nc~ne D, Harbour Thom~ Brown FAX COVER SHEET O.,e: qlzJ. q"'l To: ¢Ja,,;I c,, co~ao Total Pages Sent L,~cJudmg Cover Sheet Time: MESSAGE: Pies.se call 276-2535 if the f~.x you receive is incomplete or illegible. YOU: ~ L. Mc. Jqa~l McNall & Associates, P.C. Attorneys 921 Wut $1~h A,v~ue Suits 100 Twlwpho~e (90"0 2"7~ Frlnctne D. Harbom' Of Ceumel Th~mm Brm, u ~ s~ma~ Augus~ 29, 1997 Re: Denali View Subdivision Our File No. 10141 Dear Ms. Selicreg$: Tlgs office rcpleseuls Paul and Arleen Myers, and the Skyline View Corporation. the developers of Denali View Subdivision in the Peters Creek a~-ea of ~he Municipality of Anchorage. In May 1997, the Myers mbmitted a prelim~aty plat application for the sulxtivision of a 37.4/acre p'an~l (now dc~n'bed as Unit 3,.Trnct 1, Scimitar Subdivision) into an 11 lot subdivision to be known as ~ View. The proposed lots ',viii avcragc thrcc acres Following public ~ of ~he proposed subdivision, several residc~ of subdivisions sd~acen~ m (a~d ~merally down stope from) d~e proposed Denali View ~ubdivi$iou i~lica~ed their disapproval of ih~ pmpos~ subdivision to Rm pi_..i~_~ authoti~. Om of these residents was Sharon Minsch, a rmtl c~a~ agent and homeowner in ~he atra, who serves as ~ the proposed developm~ wilt reduce bo~h waler av~ilabiUty and water quality for adjacent homeowners. F. ssentially all homes in the area ate served by on-site water and wastewamr Sheila Selk, ress August 29, 1997 Page 2. of 2 disposal (generally wells and septic tanks). A few residents that their wells have run city under certain ci~,m~tances, and slightly elevated nitrate levels (well below legal lim~) have been In response m these concerns, the Myers hired Bri~ot Envirom~en~al Services Corporation to evaluate and assess the water supply and quality i~t of the proposed subdivision on nelghbori~ walls. After test pumping a well in the proposed Denali view Subdivision, and observing the effect on wells in thc sun'ounding at-ca, Bristol Environmental Services concluded that ample quanfi~s a~e available for the proposed subdivision, without significant effect on most surrounding homeowners. The repo~ noted that wells of some of the eleven homes in the new subdivision may tap a bedrock aquifer, which could cause some aquifer. The report concluded this will not "unduly affect thc ext,~tmg homes such tidal a permit for a water appropriation for the new wells should be denied pursuant to AS d6.15.0~o(aX1). It is my understating ,hat a wal~r survey of dm ~ by Terrasat, Inc. has been completed at the reqtmst of local residents, and offered no scientific evidence to dispute this essential finding. Only anecdotal evidence has been offered m refute the Bristol Enviromnental report. Although Den~i Vie~ l~s been prese~ed to th~ platting bo~d on font prior o~_~_ n_~on,~-, ~.~ but tee plnttin~ bo~d has not taken a vote on the pl~t. The Myet~ have asr~ed to several ~ Most recently, the Myra und~t~d tha~ staff had indicated its totem to recommend approwl ~ of the pl~t, but yoll ~ pm~t~iy ~d die. ted ~ to recomn~nd }'et nnod~r At some point, as I am sure you understand, justice delayed may be justic~ denied. The biyets a~e unwillin~ to stipulato to ~ postponmnents of'~t~e consideratimx of ~ plat. Thc proposed sulxtivision will permit only eleven houses to be built; this is just ten more than would be permitted by the existln_q land use. Of tho~ ten, it is clear that son~, at least, will ~ able to utiliz~ the gravel sand aquifer having no aff~ct on dowu slol~ homes. At least one such well has already been drilled on a Denali View lot. Tbe~ is no reason to believe rlmt others could not be drilled. Iu shoxl, t~ is evet~ reason to expect that this new subdivision, comprisin~ neatly forty a~re~, will result in fewer thlm nine new wells servins single-family homes, mppin~ into the bedrock aquifer which might affect down slope home~. Sc~kragg 29. The Myetl have pou~ed teas.of-thou.lands of dotlars (nto ea~iae~rb~ ~d hydm- teologlcal studies of tt~e l~)posed site. No scientific evidence has supported the purely personal objections of a few of the aei~hborh~ homeowner's. The Myers have rc[~.atcdly responded [o $,~ff rcquesu for [ufonnadon on a 'good.faith basis, but are concerned ttmt Communi~ Pl~"i'~E aM Development is no lonser ~ Sood-failh ~eque~ for infomudon, ba[ Es, iastead, simply ~ the projec~ hi re, pome to political pressure from a few homeowners in thc a~ca. The Myen ~xe ~o lonser su~ what specific problems preveltt staff from ~ccommcndin~ approval. They are ao lon~e~ sure that the problems r~c s~aff is aaemp~in~ to address are wi~hln municipal jvzisdictton (the state has aircady indicatad approval). The Myers intend to request that gle platfiag board take some action on th~ Denali View Subdivision on i~ September ~ mee~ln_e; with or wkhou~ staff approval. Thc Myers believe thcy have done cvet~r,.hing lzasol~le within their powe~ to colllply widl municipal requirements, such tha~ there is no jusl causc for withholding staff approval. Very truly yours, McNALL & AS$OCIATF-.S, P.C. BI~: _ . H. Frank Cahill HlFC/cb TOTP~- P. 04