HomeMy WebLinkAboutTALUS 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: /~/~