The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutT12N R3W SEC 33 Lot 225 (# 1977-118) S-3512 FROM: GREATER ANCHORAGE ARE BOROUGH i Appeal Case INITIATED BY: ~0].f~$~.,[.(~[~]~[id..~.~,¢~.~.,"~'/~ ,~V~.~ DATE OF MEMO: ..10/25/74 ...... DATE ANSWER TO: DEPARTMENT ......... ? '][.i~t'ln'JTIg .__. REQUESTED: RECEIVER Paul.Camm ~ ~.~)~,~ ~ REQUESTED ACTION SCHEDULE FOR INFORMATION ONLY O PREPARE BACK-UP INFORMATION FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION ~ CALL ME BEFORE YOU ANSWER FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ~ NEED YOUR RECOMMENDATION OTHER ~e ~ish ~o~have~he ,enclosed information ~entered J nto, .the, ~ecord. on.,.,~h e ,subject ~i~ M~.. ~lemome..Georges~appea] SIGNATURE ko DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL Mr. C. P. Judkins Director, Environmental Quality Greater Anchorage Area Borough 3330 C Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 AU6 6 I,.,f3 ~BEATER ANCHORAGE AREA BOROUGH Deal- Mr. Judkins: I am writing to provide several interpretations of the new Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Wastewater Disposal Regulations which were effective August 10, 1973. These are pro- vided as documentation of our recent meeting where I believe most of these points are covered. It is only practical that all your presently outstanding wastedisposal permits be processed under the rules and regulations that were in effect at the time these permits were issued. Failure to do so would result in considerable hardship to people who have gone along inc~good faith and were meeting existing requirements at the time the permits were issued. We have no objection to your permitting installation under the standards that were in effect at that time. A holding tank is to be considered as any other sewage disposal system and we will require that 100 ft. be maintained between the holding tank and any private well. As the Greater Anchorage Area Borough, Dept. of Environmental Quality has an effective ongoing permit program with regard to on-site sewage disposal, I would waive the plan submission re- quirements for any develop~ent where a collection system is not involved. This would mean for example that a 4 Plex covered under your existing permit program would not require the submission of engineered plans but would be covered by the soils testing and inspection requirements of your department. If a collection system is involved, for example where more than one building is served by a system, then the engineering plans will be required. We will be glad Mr. Judkins August 14, 1973. to review any consideration for variances at the proper time. At this time this department will accept the Dept. of Environmental Quality's review to satisy 18 AAC 72.060. This is in regard to submissions for subdivision. I would propose that on the first couple that are handled under this program that we review jointly with Mr. Strickland the subdivisions and determine that your program is in line with the department's thinking. I can forsee no great problem in this respect as your progn'amvery closely approaches this now. Very limited additions will be necessary to your requirements to make it meet the requirements as set out by 18 AAC .060 (d). We view this joint review with Mr. Strickland as a necessary exercise to insure that policy de- cisions are consistent by both agencies. We do not expect to issue any letters of approval ~?or review any subdivisions on our own providing that the pro- gram as carried out by your department satifies the requirement and intent of Sec. 18 AAC 72.060 (d). With regard to 18 AAC 72.020 (b) the 200 ft. distance had reference to distance of the sewerage system from the property line. It is recognized that due to large areas and geometrical configurations problems may arise. We are in a position to review any situation which you feel might require variances. I feel this covers most of the major points in our discussion. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I shall look forward to hearing from Mr. Strickland to confer with him regarding your subdivision requirements at a time convenient to him. Regional Environmental Engineer Received: ' ' ' ' Initie. h ' - ~' ;' 'J ,',~ No, Ap~...al "'~ Ord,' No: Introd: P,H.' Action: _ TO: OCT 1 ! ,. (Dreater Anchorage Area Borough Clerk's Office. Greater Anchorage Area Borough Platting Board Case S-3512 SRA 490-V Anchorage, Alaska 99507 October 11, 1974 This letter is an appeal of Platting Board Case S-3512 which approved the subdivision of ~.L.~o_Lot 225, Sec. 33, T12N, ~3W, S.M. I would preface my objections with some background information about myself. I am the owner of B.L.M. Lot 226, Sec. 33, T12N, R3W, S.M. which borders the subject lot on the west side. I am a graduate Geological Engineer from the University of Alaska and am a Registered Professional Civil Engineer licensed to practice in the State of Alaska. Professional ethics preclude my presenting this case ac a registered engineer as I am obviously not a disinterested party. I object to this grounds. The State of proposed subdivision of Lot 225 on several Alaska has promlig'ated varicus statutes, regulations, v~.e Do.-ough to fo~'~m~ate an~ e~.~-'.- : The State has authorized own cDvironmental health ~ :~:~'(:,. are aFs sv. ringent or - case has the State -~.'~s !ess stringent t.kan '~ Legu!ations when-- -.-:.~..ic:. of thi: 3c t install a septic tank, package plant or soil absorption system in such a manner that a water supply is in danger of becoming contaminated. Unless the department requires further separation because of poor soil conditions, the minimum separation (2) between a septic tank, package plant, or soil absorption system and private water well shall be 100 feet, measured horizontally, regardless of-property lines or',ownership.'' Title 18 AAC 72.060(d) states "If on-site water supply or sewage disposal is proposed for public or private property subdivision Qr development, the required submission of plans for sewage disposal and treatment shall contain but not be limited to the following information: (5) location of existing water sources, on£site disposal systems, sewerage systems, treatment works, and bodies of water within 600 feet showing the location of on--site water sources and sewage disposal systems in relationship to water sources and sewage disposal systems on adjacent lots,· including both initial and replacement soil ab- sorbtion systems;." Tk,' ~orou~h staff /-. 3~3('~,!_~g the application failed to investi- .... _oc ~lon of existing wells, on- -:.~'r ~'3~:'~ ~:~.~: within 600 feet of the pro.- ~.,~ .-'~'hcre' are several water t. Of ~Kimary concern 6f lot ~26 wh±ch a~e ,.o~,~¢.¢3 ' 'b].&nkcts & good o',-:.'-, :,' -3- ThC attached survey plat was obtained from Borough records which were presented as back-up for this proposed subdivision. This plat does not contain the required information. I have drawn in two 100' radius circles from the approximate well locations. These circles are only approximate but are based 6n information contained in Borough records. .You will also note. on the plat the location of a test hole pre- sumably made to test the suitability of the soil in that location for subsurface wastewater disposal. You will note that location is within 100 feet of my well. Title 18 AAC 72.020 (j) states "No person may construct, install permit, allow, or use a septic tank or package plant with soil ab- (4) The department may require that soil tests and borings be sub- mitted and certified by a disinterested registered-professional engineer or geologist." The soil conditions mn this would be required to determlne the absorption. A soil test was Ordinance No. 22-68, ~tates.in par~ th~ ? t~..~ of %.rend;nas, of :~ ~ f zcsults of pcr,.~ ~ area are marginal an5 : rr ~'2. "' ~t suitability of '~-h~. ~, /.~'.r effective Ar!.rclt-, {ii., -~:-=~ -4- Title 12 AA2 36.190 states that "Reports issued bY testing laboratories shall be prepared by or under the supervision of a registered engineer and signed or sealed by him whenever such re- reports go beyond the tabulation of test data (composition of material, breaking stress, etc.) by (2) expressing engineering judgment in the form of recommendations derived from the results of the test;..." The report was signed by a Gary F. Player who is not listed in the Directory of Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors published by the State Board of Registration for ArchiteQts, Engineers and Land Surveyors and current as of May 30, 1974. Mr. Player, quite legally and properly only reported out the "composition of material" encountered without making any recommendations which require professional licensing. of this can be found in the transcript of the Platting Board m~eting.of October 1 and 2, 1974 whereat members of the Borough staff made the recommendation to the Platting Board that there was.sufficient room on the proposed subdivided lot to construct an adequate subsurface aD~crpt:.on field based on the soils report. ---o?::..d~-tlons are required to be made by ~n.3 .~ka~3. be s!g-ned and sealed by Such conclusions and a registered profe~siona3. him~ it is my con~iJoo~ ~ only parti'a~iy- complies with include the required pqrcol~stion t+ -: .:eco~endations can be._derivcd r-'. sicned an~.s~aled by & ra~-3- -5- leach field could not legally be constructed due to its close proximity to existing water sources. My limited experience with the soils on my property confirms that they are very erratic from one spot to another. I have for example found two areas on-my'property where'the clay runs from 6 to 14' feet with no (ZERO) percolation. Considering the erratic nature of the soils and considering that some of these soils are unsuitable for subsurface absortion fields, another test hole should be required at the location where the proposed absorption field would be installed. The soils report indicates that ground water was encountered at separation from the lowest part of the discharge pipe for the soil absorption system to the water table, as measured during ~he season of the year with maximum water table elevation shall be four feet or greater. Borough O~din~ncc ~o. ,,~--o8, Article VI, Sec. 9i71, Item -.g,~:.-"'s. ce disposal fields hereinafter -:.nc requirements: (i) They . ,-~- .... du_~ng-any s ~- of %%he .trench ~" A .... a ~7~artment. sta-ff t,~ ~ 7, Page 12, s~.at~! c~onstruc~ed s%;.?- -6- with the topographic map submitted with the soils test report and obtained from Borough records nor is it in agreement with my per- sonal observations. The lots slope to the south. Lot 225A becomes swampy at the south property line. This further reinforces the need for a test hole in the area actually planned for disposal. The logical development of the property might dictate housing construction along the northern part of the lot especially since preliminary groundwork has reportedly been done at that location this summer. This would force the location of the disposal field to the southern-third of the lot. This area is low lying and groundwater may even be encountered at less than 9' This concerns me on two counts. First, if this is a perched water table, it is entirely possible %hat Sufficient percolation could. not be obtained to sustain the prolonged operation efa sub~,urface absorption system. Second, if it is not a perched'water tab!c tLen I question if the 4' separation can be maintained between th~ %~au~r and the lowest point of the system as required by.both S,,.t,.~ ~.:~. ?~'~:ough regulation. This entire review has not taken ~nv, c ..... _... .... ~-. o f ~exi s.t ing~-roundwat e~ ~res erve s~ t,~ - no=~ contending that one more well up_.b~t~.many_ of _the existing~ 2~i. oD to date~ 'These peop~e..haJ~, f Borough r~cords do not co~t .?uld evaluate th~, -7- you guarantee us all that there will be sufficient water to sustain ou~ wells and continued development and 'subdivision in the area? There are other factors of an engineering and a legal nature that could be outlined for your consideration. However, those already outlined pose an interesting problem. Admitedly this application was for subdividing one lot into two lots not an application for a building permit. Existing Borough practicer however,, is to review these platting change applications to determine if it is feasible to develop the property in conformance with existing laws, ordinances and policies. It would be a shame for some- one to subdivide this lot, have a house designed and then be told that he could not build on it because of inadequate soil conditions for an ~absorption field or for some other reason. Or what about the ~erson who might purchase such a lot and find out he could not build on it until community sewer and/or water were constructed? Or what about the propsective buyer who goes to the Borough to check out this lot? He wi?5. fin~ out. that it has been "thoroughly reviewed" by staff, that kaz given a do pass recommendation to the Platting Board, and ......... ~ Board approved the subdivision after 'careful co~- -8- of time, and overworking of a few hard working people. The fact re- mains, however, that some poor soul is going to buy that lot feeling that the Borough's review was complete enough to assure future approval of a building permit for a well.and septic tank; when, in fact, insufficient information exists to arrive at that conclusion. You have the opportunity to prevent such a travisty by first assuring that the lot can be used for its intended purpose before approving the sub- division. I have tried not to convey the impression that this lot cannot legally be developed, but rather have tried to impress upon you that there are going to be some problems requiring more consideration than is apparent from my review of Borough records and from what was pre- sented to the Platting Board. I have also pointed out what may be legal proklems with the procedures being followed. Are you as a body or as indivduals willing to guarantee the owner c~ future owner of that lot that he can build a home there~ sin? a w'~z.~ ~nd gel adequate water, construct a legal sewage sysLem o~ ~-:~=~ you are doing the Mallonees a disservice by approvln? ~" ~c:~ and-~ivin~ them false hope. -.~'~-wt will have water, be able to dj: -9- zoned R-6 which requires a minimum lot size of 54,450 sq. ft. Lot 225A, including half of the adjacent right-of-way to the north, contains 54,450 sq. ft. Lot 225B, including half of the north and east adjacent right-of-way, contains 54,450 sq. fro Both lots being equal to the minimum area requirement, meet the R-6 zoning require- ment.'' I question the legality of including adjacent right-of-ways in the lot size. According to the attached plat, a 33' ROW exists on both the north and east boundaries' of the existing lot. Lot 225A would contain approximately 49,005 square fget, while lot 225B would contain 39,204 square feet; if the adjacent right-of-ways were not included. That is substantially less than the 54,450 square feet re- quired for R-6 zoning° I object ~o the prooeedings~of th~ P~atting Board on: S~veral grounds. First, insufficient time was permitted for interested parties to review the case and prepare testimony. When I returned home from work on Friday, September 27, 1974, the attached notice of public hearing was in my mail. Considerin? the hearing was scheduled four days later, two of which were a w~'c?~?,'~ ~!.en ~orough and other offices con- ':hing. the =-ssued -were closed, .thi.s - ~ -~ ---Ji~ -w~iC~ "to :revle~ a- ~ituati~n .... .... t~- - 2_. h ......... : - . - 'Dm e~erin,':'~ r' -10- Third, the case in question was ~not heard until 1:30 A.M. on October 2, 1974, which is a rather unreasonable hour for working people to be attending a meeting. I do not feel the Board, staff, or those testifying were mentally sharp enough at that hour to'pro- perly evaluate the case. Fourth, the Chairman failed to adequately explain the right to appeal prior to hearing any testimony and when he did explain the appeal rights, he only specified that the appeal had to be filed'within 10 days. He failed to appraise the public that the appeal had to be signed by the owners of at least 20% of the land area within 300' of the property in question. Neither was the public informed that only those testifying at the Board hearing could testify at the Assembly hearing. Neither were we informed that no new ~es~imony could be presented at'the Assembly hearing. I was not informed of these ad- ditional restrictions until I was preparing my appeal for submission to the Clerk's office. I reserve my right to present additional toaif=% ~y in a~d±tion to this written appeal, ..... t~ appea~ovour-action throuch- to call a~dltlun~_,.-"~-"~' -il- government for the expertese necessary to evaluate these factors and to protect our interests. I will mention only a few of the many aspects of such impact. Continued subdivision of the area which is predominately 2-1/2 acre tracts now could proceed as follows..Property values will increase with a parallel increase in taxes. service for these additional taxes. lots with marginal soil conditions. We will receive no additional Construction will be permitted on Septic tank failures will occur and property owners will find it difficult to find-alternate disposal field sites on their smaller lots. Continued pressure from developers may result in the zoning being downgraded to permit smaller lots served by co~unity sewer and water. Even without this pressure from deve- ~.op~rs, tn~ p~upi~ i~ ~i~= ~ will b= £~=d i~h~ c~,.,,~..iL~ and water due to the overdevelopment in marginal soil conditions. Water supplies will start to dwindle forcing the installation of community ~,;tor service. The cost of serving 2-1/2 acre or even 1-1/4 acre tracms -. f- o..,m_n_~¥ sewer and water will be prohibitive to the average owner in the area. Most of us could not afford ti_e -12- of the tremendous rewards of rural living.' We do not want to be forced into leaving the area in order to'pursue our lifestyle. The Borough has a chance to do something about this now but if they continue to promote a develop develop develop attitude, the process described above cannot be stopped even if you wanted to. It can be prevented now but it can not'be stopped later. It is requested that the Platting Board's approval of this subdivision be overturned and rejected. This is to certify that I am the owner of BLM Lot 2~ , T12N, R3W,S.M.; that said lo't lies within 300 feet of BL~'4 Lot 225, T12N,R3W, S.M.; and that I support the appeal of the Platting Board's decision to permit BLM Lot 225, T12N, R3W, S.M. to be divided into two lots. Date This is to certify that I am the owner of BLM Lot ~ , Tt2N, R3W,S.M.; that said lot lies within 300 feet of BLM Lot 225, T12N,R3W, S.M.; and that I support the appeal of the Platting Board's decision to permit · BLM Lot 225, T12N, R3W, S.M. to be divided into two lots. Signature This is to certify that I am the mmer of BLM Lot Z~/ , T12N, RSW,S.M.; that said lot lies within $00 feet of BLed Lot 225, T12N,R3W, S.M.; and that I support the appeal of the Platting Board's decision to permit to be divided into two lots. BLM Lot 225, T12N, R3W, S.M. Date / /Sxg~£u%e ~C~w~ v v v - . / C~e~cr A.cher~ge A~e~ PLAN~ ! l~ Df' 500 I~a~t .[udcn 1,.oad B..ncherag, e, Alaska 99507 S-3512 - The Greater Anchorage Area Borough bas received a petition from Rudy }[allonee to resubdivide ! lot into 2 lots containing approximately 2.5 acres. Tile petition area Js located approximately 1/8 mile northeasn of the Old Seward ltighway and 1/8 mile south of Rabbit Creek Road, at the southwest corner of the intersection of Dora Avenue and Loc Leman Lane. ~]ese lands are prescnn]y designated: B.L.M. Lot 225, located in the SE1/4, Sec. 33, T12N. R3W, S.M., Alaska, and are proposed to be designated: Lots 225 A and 225B, bv DOi~% mng~neers. A public hearing ~.:ii1 bn held on this matter on October t, 197~., at 7:30 Poll., at the City Council Chambers ~loan~.e~, ~.', ~.~ ~=~- ment), Loussac Librar5% 427 F Street,--Anchorage, Als. ska, at which t'i'me all interested parties'will have an opportunity to be keard before, the Platting Authority. You are J. nvited to make your feelings known on this ~nattar Drier to tke imarS.~g by completing tke ~ol].owing fo~,-~, and returning this notice to the Greater Anch- orage Area Borough Planning~ Deoartment, 3500. '~ao~ ~ .... Tudor ~.~oae, ~-nchorage, Alaska 99507-'.Telephone 2~9-8686, e.':c. 217~ N~E ..... .aPO. DRESS LEC~AL DESCRIPTION 1 ;a.M IN FAVQP, OF T~!E~ PETITION__J_ ~. i ', z:'~ OPPOSED TO THg PETITION __. ':°Oi',~S OR COMI;IEN'f$.z_ ...... : .... GREATER ANCHOF~\GE AREA BOROUGH pLATTING BOARD AUTHORII% MEMO RAN D U M DATE: TO: FItOM: SUBJECT: September 27, 1974 Platting Board Authority Planning Department Staff PLATTING BO~ARD AUTHORITY MEETING OF OCTOBER t, 1974 ~OctobJr 1, 1974 S-35 [2 - The Greater AnchorageintoArea 2B°r°ughlots containing~haSy 1/8receivedmile northeasta petitiOnof 2.5fr°mthe Rudy Mallo-----~.~ee to re~odivide 1 lot approxi~tely acres. The 'pe~icion area is located approxim~ate]_ Old s~ward Highway and 1/8 ~le south of Rabbit Creek Road, at the southwest corner of the intersection of Dora Avenue and Loc Lo~n Lane. presently desi~ated :andB'L'M'mre Lot 225,~olOCat~dbe desi~ated :in th~ SE1/4,Thesesec'lands33' T12N,are R3W, S.M., Alaska, proposed Log~ 225 A and 225B, by-DOWL Engineers. ~ ~. ~s zoned R-6 which re~uireS~, a minim~ lotto sizethe .north,°f 54,450conta~sq.[nsft- S~Tm. ~e area ~225A, including half of the ad0acenttright-°f-way 54,450 sq- ft. Lot. 225 B, including half of the north and east adjacenn right- of-way, contains 54,450 sq. ft. Both loiS being equal to the minimum area r~quirement, meet the R-6 zoning requirement- Lot 225B contmins an existing ~-, ~e ~wo lots are flat excep~ fo~ a i5.' to 20' drop sou~h of Dora Ave. Dora Ave. is a 25'- 30~ gravel road that is in good ~ondition. Loch~ Lomand Lane is a 12~.-15~ gravel road that_ ~is .in poOrfor DoraC°nd~i°n" Ave.' and" has"' "the"'~l '~{_ ..~'- .~ ..... " ~N~YSIS ~ FI~INGS: A T.P.I.V. is being requeste~ utility have D.E.Q. support oE ~ublic Works. Chugach Electric~eando pthe Telephone subdivision reouested a n~bez of utility easements ~ro_osed RECO~D~NDATION:._ Approval of the plat subject t~ ~esolving utility, easementS- ~ ' a ~e. with sui6able fin~zng mnu ......... phone Number~/~ ~q~/~) ~ ~ 1 Description of Property Involved: Le~a LOT~ ~~ ~LOCK .. subdivision~.~ [~ ~ ~'~ ...... Use of Proper%y SiTE PLAN IS REQUIRED, -This is a request for a variance from Sec.tion . ..~P~ti~-~s -- GREATER ANCliORAGE AREA F:-'~FTING BO~D AUFHO~'.ITY APPLICATION FOR VARi~ --DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE A, -Fhe exfsting situation is: Date Received -- DISPOSIilON Receipt No, Case No, Hearing Date. Approved _ ,_ Denied_ ._ Ccnditions~ (See Minutes) Date of Appeal_~ - ' Hearing Date. Approved~- Conditions Letter Sent Denied · (See Minutes) ..... ~-.Jbuu 150' Vacation of Lore Read ' ~ .' - '~'-' vacation~ ~"1 h~v.~ ilo o~)~tlon~ tb .,.. "d:* h~.~ no ob,jectio?,s b~ the vacation '~" S~3317 ~'"" Road, ..... ,,lgh aad 'Jilson Subdivisions tle have no objecsions so the vacation. Eagle Crest Subdivision ~--~dlZ 3L, i Loz~ 220A and ~b ... 2. i...~-~ ' .... ~"~" Of ~"' .-. · · ..... ~'~-.- ' '- b,~'J '2.."] io~s. ':~ Tl,12 that all CO~iCICiO:l~ rrsa,~l,,~ sollb -' ~' "','? S,~ndi .... ,e Su..,aivision, Lots . t~at 'M1 c6n~i~ions ~re sqrc.a~le TOt ~.~_~1,% our " -.-.~,L.~CAI.S~J~ w]'l.1 ensuru..o~,]y. On · . ~ ~ ~-~ h~ ~ '~1i~ ..,- a,e--~epx'e~-u~- pUG - ; %_Z -2 -.' - ' TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City o'F Anchoragd ME} ORANDUM GREATER ANCHORAGE AREA BOROUGH Planning Department City of Anchorage Telephone utility Lots 225A & 225B, BLM Lot 225 -- S-3512 DATE: September 16, 1974 The City of Anchorage Telephone Utility has field checked the above described property and recommends the following: Easements required to ser~e and to cover existing pole line~ as sh~n on the attached plat. . : RLM/LVM/mn /~ICI:,9. RAi;F, A[.ASLA-!)95!)2 Leon] This ~orm Re'~or'ts Soils Lnn.__~ ....... .......... tercolat]on Test qeoth Feet 1 -- Was Ground Hater Encountered? IF Yes, A~. what Denth? iJ '. I ~ I ~ l"l I ' J' 'I i /t/ I 1 ~ . · ~ ~ - ':.~..~'. - -. -i ! I '.l ~16Z~ CREEK RO~B P~ge 12 ~rdinance No. 28-68 Subsurface Disposal Fields. (a) All subsurface disposal fields hereinafter constructed shall comply with the following require- ments: (i) They shall not be used in heavy clay or other impervious soil formations or in low swampy areas or where the ground water during any season of the year will be within 4 feet of the bottom of the trench. (ii) Minimum absorption area, total bottom area of trenches, of the absorption field shall be determined from the results o'f percolation tests conducted in accordance with Appendix B of the National Plumbi'ng Code, 1962 Revision. ihe minimum absorption area required shall be d~'~ermi~ed '[:rom ~ne following table: Minimum Area ~.~ ~-- ~o Fat~-.one?.~R~qui.~ed-.i~ Squa.re ~ ~ '~ P6'ri~i:~'~-' '.'.~'-e-e~c R6.~Sl'e-eplng-~':- l'l 5