The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGLENN VIEW ESTATES WEST PH 2 S-10392Glenn View states West Phase 2 S Case: 5-10392 06/07/00 08:11 FAX 9072697650 DEC D;¥&'~¥;¥ l~001 DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL I-LEALTH DRINKING WATER and WASTEWATER PROGRAM 555 CORDOVA STREET ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 http://www.state, ak.us/dec/home/htm Telephone: (907) 269-7696 Fax: (907) 269-7650 Mr. Rex Turner President Arctic Devco, ]ne. Palmer, Alaska 99645 May 27, 2000 SQhject: Proposed Subdivision, Glenn View Estates West; ADEC Project Number: 504; Review Dear Mr. Turner: This letter is in referenced to all the information that has been submitted to this office regarding the above-referenced project. I have completed my review of all the submittals and other reference materials regarding groundwater movement, impacts to local ground water from on-site wastewater disposal fields, and nitrate loading. Based on this review, I have the following comments. ~: I have discussed the issue of the surface water (stormwater) runoff, with Mr. Robert C. Palmer, Stormwater Treatment Plan Reviewer for the Municipality of Anchorage. From our discussions, it appears that the concerns regarding the possibility that stormwater runofffrom the proposed subdivision could impact the water quality of the source well for McKinley View Estates Class A public water system have been addressed. Determining the possible impacts to the local ground water from the discharge of wastewater from 37 additional wastewatar disposal systems and how this relates to McKinley View EstateslClass A public water system source well is still difficult to determine. No where in the State Drinking!Water Regulations is there a requirement for owners of Class A public water systems not to use water froth a shallow aquifer. The State Water Quality Regulations are written to protect all gr°und water. To chang~ the classification of a shallow aquifer to allow it to become contaminated is a very long and costly process. However, with out the cooperation from the owner of the McKinley View Estates Clas~ A public water system source well, I have to provide Mr. James Cross, P.E. Program Manager for the. On-Site Water Quality Program with my comments based on the provided information. My comment~ to Mr. Cross will cover the fact it the extent of the impacts is still difficult to determine, however, without the needed cooperation with the owner of the Class A public water system source well, it appears that the impacts may be limited. Thank you for your cooperation and coordination with this Department. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Post-It'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 I# of pages Sincerely, Keven K Kleweno, P.E. Environmental Engineer 06/07/00 08:12 FAX 9072697650 DEC DW&WW ~002 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DRINKING WATER and WASTEWATER PROGRAM 555 CORDOVA STREET ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 http://www.state.ak, us/dec/home/htm Telephone: (907) 269-7696 Fax: (907) 269-7650 May31,2000 Mr. James Cross, P.E. Program Manager On-Site Water Quality Department of Health and Haman Services P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1195 DRAFT Subject: Proposed Subdivision, Glenn View Estates West, ADEC Project Number 504 Dear Mr. Cross: This letter is in response to the numerous submittals and meetings that concerning the above- referenced subdivision and the impact to the existing McKinley View Estates Class A public water system source well. I have reviewed information provided by several Professional Engineers and Hydrogeologists covering the stormwater ruoff and the impacts to the ground water fi:om an additional 37 wastewater disposal systems. Based on this review and the numerous discussions w/th the noted engineers and hydogeologists, along with.you, I have following comments. Concerning the possible impacts to the noted source well fi:om stormwater runoff from the proposed subdivision, I meet with Mr. Robert C. Palmer, Stormwater Treatment. Plan Reviewer for the Municipality of Anchorage to discuss several solutions. Based on recent telephone discussions and a letter dated May 15, 2000, it appears that Mr. Palmer has addressed the impacts to the noted source well from stormwater runoff. The State Drinking Water Regulations does not prevent the owner of Class A public water systems fi.om using water from a shallow aquifer. In fact, beth the State Drinking Water and Water Quality Regulations make very difficult to contaminate any aquifer in the State of Alaska. Trying to determine the impact to ground water when additional 37 homes, connected'"to unlimited amount &water, discharge domestic wastewater into the ground via on-site wastewater disposal systems is still difficult to determine. Then add the lack of cooperation of owner of the Class A public water system source well, to determine the stratigraphy and depth of the different aquifers, it appears to be almost impossible to determine the extent of the impacts. I would expect an increase in the'overall trend of nitrate levels found in McKinley View Estates Class A public water system source well as both subdivisions are completely development. Again, the extent of the increase can not be determined from the existing data'. 06/07/00 08:12 FAX 9072697650 DEC D',Y&'~¥~¥ 1~]003 James Cross Page 2 06/07/00 Although, the developer did not work with the Drinking Water Protection Program and the ' owner of the existing public water system by providing time and professional assistance during the completion of the assessment or complete a source water assessment of~he existing public · water system. The information provided by the developer's consultants did show that there is a possibility that the impacts from the proposed subdivision would be limited. We did not request the developer to look into the possibility that the wastewater discharges from the ex/sting subdivisions would impact the source well .As a result, I have no other comments to say expect that there appears to be a possibility that the ~mpacts from the proposed subdivision will be limited. However, there is a possibility there will be an impact, but the extent of the impact is difficult to determine. One solution would be is to allow limited development in the proposed subdivision to start. Then wait until the Alaska Drinking Water Protection Program completes their assessment of contaminant risks and identifies areas around the existing public water system where protection efforts will be most effective. If the assessment agrees with the information provided by the developer's consultant, approve the complete subdivision. If not, schedule a meeting with ail impacted parties to discuss possible solutions. The assessment for McKinley View Estates Class "A" Public Water System should be completed within the next 12 months. I must emphasize that there are no easy answers or recommendations for this project. We both can agree that there are fewer and fewer large areas within the Municipality of Anchorage that can be developed without impacting an already existing facility (public water system) or group of people. The proper information, such as water quality and quantity, must be collected and reviewed prior to development to protect public health. . . Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this project. Please call me if you have any questions. ' Sincerely, Keven K Kleweno, P.E. Environmental Engineer ~D ENGINEERING 20441 PTARMIGAN BLVD. EAGLE RIVER, AK 99577-8736 (907)696-6111/FAX (907)696-8111 April 3, 2000 Mr. Keven K. Kleweno, P.E. Alaska Department of Conservation Division of Environmental Health Drinking Water Program 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501 RE: Glenn View West Subdivision - Drainage Model Dear Mr. ,I~le~no: ~/ At t~e request of the developer we have conducted a drainage model for the referenced development for both a fully developed and undeveloped scenario utilizing Iludrain vs. 2.1. We have attached the results of the model with basin maps for your review. The parameters for the model were extracted from the Municipality Design Criteria Manual including the 10 year storm and rainfall pattern adjusted for this area. Results: Undeveloped Basin Area (acres) Peak Flow (cfs) Total runoff volume (cf) 22.88 .08 202 Fully Developed Basin Area (acres) 12.63 Peak Flow (cfs) .014 Total runoff volume (cf) 1558 aaThepeak flow velocity was reduced with the application of a check dam at the end of the easement prior to discharge off the property. 7he total runoff volume is retained in the 2400 cf storage area within the 300 easement resulting in inimal runoff leaVing the property. Absorption rates base don percolation sting indicate that approximately 288 cf/day would be absorbed by the storage and ditches. Additional check dams/storage would minimize the volume RE: Glenn View West Subdivision - Drainage Model April 3, 2000 Page 2 of 2 through detention, absorption and velocity prior to leaving the property however, this program can not efficiently model multiple storage areas and check dams and doesn't take soil absorption into account. Based on the above it would appear that the outflow from this property would be the same or less between the undeveloped property and the fully developed property, as long as the storage areas and check dams are properly constructed. Please contact me, if there is any additional information which you need. Respectfully submitted, KI~I~ Engineering Encl.: As noted Cc: Rex Turner Ken Lang, P.L.S. (c) ILUDRAIN --- URBAN DRAINAGE AREA HYDROLOGIC SIMULATOR Version 2.1 Updated Sep 1988 Copyrights = Hydroware-1987 & C.E. Software-1987 IMPLICIT HYDROLOGIC ROUTING METHOD ACTIVATED Glenn View Est. West - Basin #lA Undeveloped drainage basin GVW21 RAINFALL PATTERN 0.000 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.022 0.035 0.087 0.060 0.031 0.018 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 USER-DEFINED Histogram of Distributed Rainfall Time since start: 0 36 72 108 144 180 Mn Accumulated rain: 0 0.102 0.211 0.483 0.592 0.694 In Percent of storm: 0 14.67 30.46 69.54 85.33 100.0 % RUN NUMBER BASIN AREA TIME INCREMENT SOIL TYPE ACRES MINUTES 1234=ABCD 5 22.88 5.0 2 TOTAL RAIN FREQUENCY DURATION AMC IMP ABS PER ABS INCHES YEARS MINUTES PCT INCHES INCHES 0.69 10 180 100. 0.10 0.20 .... BEGIN BPJkNCH 1 - REACH 0 .... INPUT HYDRO HAS PEAK OF 0.09 CFS AND VOLUME = 208 CU FT 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.022 0.035 0.087 0.060 0.031 0.018 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 - B-R i - 0 .................................................... LOCAL AREA : CPA = 0.00 SPA = 0.00 CGA = 22.88 UPSTREAM AREA : CPA = 0.00 SPA = 0.00 CGA = 22.88 RAINFALL FACTOR = 1.000 BASE FLOW = 0.00 CFS SOIL TYPE = 2 REACH : LENGTH = 300 FT SLOPE = 1.00 % GRASS FLOW : LEN = 1000 FT SLP = 3.000 % ROUGH = 0.0300 ENTRY = 52.04 MIN PEAKS(CFS) : INLET = 0.000 DESIGN = 0.087 OUTLET = 0.080 VOLS : ROUTED = 202 GROSS 0 %PAVED = 0.00 ................... DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS ................... PIPE : DIAMETER = 12 INCHES ROUGHNESS = 0.0120 DESIGN : CAP = 3.857 CFS VEL = 4.911 FPS TRV = 2.480 MIN ROUTED DESIGN HYDROGRAPH 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.022 0.035 0.080 0.060 0.030 0.018 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 OUTFALL HYDROGRAPH IN CFS RUNOFF VOLUME IN CU FT = 202 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.022 0.035 0.080 0.060 0.030 0.018 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 THE JOB IS FINISHED ..... '~ ..................... ~ [ ~ T 'i' F ] r · - ! ! ! ! ! ! i (c) ILUDRAIN --- URBAN DRAINAGE AREA HYDROLOGIC SIMULATOR Version 2.1 Updated Sep 1988 Copyrights = Hydroware-1987 & C.E. Software-1987 IMPLICIT HYDROLOGIC ROUTING METHOD ACTIVATED Glenn View Est. West - Basin #1 Full development draiange basin GV~N30 RAINFALL PATTERN 0.000 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.022 0.035 0.087 0.060 0.031 0.018 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 USER-DEFINED Histogram of Distributed Rainfall Time since start: 0 36 72 108 144 180 Mn Accumulated rain: 0 0.102 0.211 0.483 0.592 0.694 In Percent of storm: 0 14.67 30.46 69.54 85.33 100.0 % RUNNUMBER BASIN AREA TIME INCREMENT SOIL TYPE ACRES MINUTES 1234=ABCD 6 12.63 5.0 2 TOTAL RAIN FREQUENCY DURATION AMC IMP /kBS PER ABS INCHES YES-RS MINUTES PCT INCHES INCHES 0.69 10 180 100. 0.10' 0.20 BEGIN BRANCH 1 - REACH 0 .... INPUT HYDRO H_AS PEAK OF 0.09 CFS ~ VOLUME = 208 CU FT 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.022 0.035 0.087 0.060 0.031 0.018 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 - B-R - 1 0 .................................................... LOCAL AREA : CPA = 0.63 SPA = 1.89 CGA = 6.32 UPSTREAM AREA : CPA = 0.63 SPA = 1.89 CGA = 6.32 RAINFALL FACTOR = 1.000 BASE FLOW = 0.00 CFS SOIL TYPE 2 REACH : LENGTH = 300 FT SLOPE = 0.50 % PAVED FLOW : LEN = 750 FT SLP = 2.750 % GRASS FLOW : LEN = 250 FT SLP = 3.000 % ROUGH = 0.0300 ENTRY = 4.98 MIN ENTRY = 34.87 PEAKS(CFS) : INLET = 0.661 DESIGN = 0.721 OUTLET = 0.014 VOLS : ROUTED = 1558 GROSS = 1351 %PAVED =100.00 SURCHARGE DUE TO STORAGE OF 2400001 F3 MAXIMIIM DISCHARGE = 0.014 CFS MAXIMUM STORAGE = 1400 CU FT ................... DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS ................... PIPE : DIAMETER = 12 INCHES ROUGHNESS = 0.0120 DESIGN : CAP = 2.727 CFS VEL = 3.473 FPS TRV = 5.460 MIN ROUTED DESIGN HYDROGRAPH 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 '0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0 014 0 014 0 014 0 014 0 014 0 014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0. 014 0. 014 0. 014 0. 014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0 014 0 014 0 014 0 014 0 014 0 014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0. 014 0. 014 0. 014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0 014 0 014 0 014 0 014 0 014 0 014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 O. 014 O. 014 0. 014 0. 014 O. 014 O. 014 O. 014 O. 014 O. 014 O. 014 0. 014 O. 014 0. 009 OUTFALL HYDROGRAPH IN CFS RUNOFF VOLUME IN CU FT = 1558 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 ...... 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.0]4 Received ~ar-29-00 19:45 TL~£R CONST. from 907 ?45 8335 ~ TRE^$URE BAY PRINT page 2 F~x;907-?45-8~5 Hat 29 '00 18:02 P. 02 ., J, A,l¥1.~z. Consult!,z, la~, Mr. Re~ I~ T~ point of~m ~ lhi~ ~ tm tl~ M~KtnI~ Ulilifi~ (MU) well lo~! ~xlm~tely 2001~ w,~ ot'Ol~ View E~atee We~ ~mbgi~ig~a. "l~e ~ AM ~own ~tr~te ~mrl~¢~ R6cei~ved blar-20-00 19;45 page 3 TURNER L~NST, from 907 745 8335 4 TREASURE ~AY PRINT Fax:gOT-7~5-8~55 Nar ~9 '00 18:02 P.O~ W~ ~e ~ly ~t~ ~v~y fl~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ not s~, ~b~ ~ ~e MU Wall Comtmofio~, Details of MU ~ Ooa~ruogOa ~re ~ laOS. Should I~df well show R~ceived Mar-29-eO 19:a5 , -. TL~NER CONST. from 9e7 745 8335 ~ TREASURE BAY PR NT Fax:907-745-8~35 Mar 29 '00 18:0~ P,O~ page 4 4/ 4 . J,~. Mu~t~r ¢onmultin~. Invesggagon$ ~34110, sc~a 1:2.1,000, 6 Auchor~,e, Alaska~ Otom~l..wmr oc, oum~ ~ move~a~ Ahaka Divi~o. efOeolo~,at HAR-29-O0 WED 10:41 AH ALASK~ GEOLOGICAL ~UKVEY ~RX NU, 8U/qblbUbU V. U~ ?ublic-Da~a File 86-77 KESULTS OF AN AQUIFER TEST AT PETEK$ CREEK, M~JNICIPALIT¥ OF ~C~ORAGE, ALASKA J.A. MUNTER 1 Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys Augus: 1986 THIS REPORT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED FOR TECI{NICAL CONTENT (EXCEPT AS NOTED IN TEXT) 0g' FOR CONFORMITY TO THE gDITORIAL STANDARDS OF BGGS. 794 University Aven~e. Basement Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 ADGGS, B.O. Box 772116, Eagla River, Alaska 99577 INTRODUCTION During April 1986, 13 private domestic wells at Peters Greek, Alaska (within the Munioipality of Anchorage), were shown to be contaminated by benzene end other aromatic hydrocarbons from an unknown source (Bennett., 198~). As a result, the Municipality of Anchorage hired a private contra=tot to design snd conetruct a temporary above-ground water system to serVe residences in the affected area. The source of water for the temporary sye~em was tentatively identified as a water well that served the PeTers Creek Trading Post business complex (fig, l). On April 30, [986, e contractor for the ~micipality of Anchorage and the Division of Geological and geophymical Surveys began planning a cooperative aquifer test to be i~itia[ed the following day utilizing the Trading ~ost well as the production well. Six nearby wells were selected as observation wells, with permission of the well owners (fig. l), The objectives of the test were to assess the' capacity of the Trading Post well to produce water, estimate the effects of pumping the Trading Pos~ well on the abll$~y of surrounding wells ~o obtain water, and assess whether use of the Trading Post wel~ to supply the temporary water s~stem would affect the migration of the contamina~ed groumd water, located abou£ %-mile away, TEST DESCKIPTION A drillers leg of the Trading Post well indicated tka~ a 10-ft length of 100-slot screen (0.1 in. screen openings) had been installed in the well at a depth interval of 171-181 ft. On May 1, 1986, the well was found to be 180 ft deep, and had a static water level 13~ ft below ~he land murface. A 5-horsepower submersible pump was installed iu the 6-in.-diam. well, with the pump o~enings set ac a depth of 174 ft. Discharse from ch~ well was MAR-29-00 NED 10:41 AM ALASKA GEOLOGIORL SURVEY FA× NO. 8074515050 r, u4 61o · 61= 24'~O' · 61° 24'00' 8a,~-n U~ Geological 8urvoy An;borage B7 NE and NW quadrangles, ~o~le 1:25000. AkAS~A ~ .... A~PROXI~ATE LIMIT OF ~ONTA" APPROXIMATE MEAN STUDY AREA OECLINA'i'ION. 1979 :~ CALE 1'. 12.000 0 1000 ~OOO F E,~.T 0 CONTOUR INTERVAl.. 5 METERS DATUM MEAN SEA LEVEL P LOCATION OF OBSERVATION WELL WITH WELL NUMBER LOCATION OF TRADING PO~T WELL Fisure I. Locations of selected wells at Petars Creek. - 2- I'[HK-~-UU H~U ~U;q~ H~ HLH~H b~ULUbI~HL DU~V~ PH~ HU, ~UlqOI~UOU r, UO controlled through a valve, and the flow rate was measured with an in-line turbine-style flutterer, a~d verified with a bucket a~d watch. With the pump installed in the well, the water-level measuring device could not be lowered deeper than 146 ft, therefore, drawdown and recovery data from the pumped well ~ere not obtained, The test pump was started ac 10;30 am May 1, 1986, and rea for about IO seconds and suddenly stopped. A small amount of silt-laden water was p~oduced. The cause of the pump stoppage was found to be a tripped breaker in the power supply from the Trading Post. The pump wes restarted three times, with each start followed ctosely by & trip,ed breaker and pump shutdown. The test pomp then failed to start, presumably because of an excessive amoun~ of aedimeu~ in the pump. A second pump was installed in ~he well with aa intake setting 165 fe below land surface, The pump was started at a ra~e of about 10 gallon~ per minute (gpm) at 12:15 p.m, Between 12:15 p.m. and 3:38 p.m. the flow rage'was gradually increased to a maximum rate of 32 gpm, with several brief shutdowns caused by a ~ripped breaker. The amount of ~ediment produced by the well gradually decreased as pumping progressed, but observable amounts persisted. A lack of progress in being able to increase the pumping ~ate beyond 32 gpm without tripping the breaker resulted in a decision to remove the second pump and ie~tal~ a third pump at the same depth. The third pump ~as operated at a gradually increased rate of 8 to 19 gpm from 4;26 to 5 p,m,, at which time the breaker tripped again. It was concluded that the excessive lead o~ the power supply, which was causing ~he breaker to trip, was caused by the passage of an excessive amoun~ o~ sediment through the test pumps. 3 I~flK-~-UU W~g IU:q~ fl~ flLfl~fl ~EULU~IUHL ~UKVET Pfl~ NU. ~UlqblbUbU K, UV The fourth pump installed in the well at an intake depth of 156 fc had worn impellers which allowed the passage of sed£ment-laden water with rmlativeiy little increase in power ~onsumption. The flow rate with this pump was greduail? increased from 12 gpm to 60 gpm at IZ:dS a.m., May Z~ 1'986, where it was maintained until noon of tha~ day. Although pumping levels in the production well were no~ obtained, co£al drawdo~n ~ust have been less chae the the ~mtal available dra~own of 17 ft, resul~in~ in a specific c~paelty greater than 3.5 gpm/ft of drawdown. At the end of ~he pumping period, waRer from cha well was free of visible sediment, AQUIFER A~ALYSIS Six observation wells monitorsd during =he aquifer test are located 500 to 1400 f~ from the Trading Post well (figure 1, tableD. A review of ~he water-level data collected prior to 6 p.m., May 1. 1986, failed to identify any positive wa~er-level response a~ributable to the pumping at the Tra~ing Post well. Uater-level measuremen~ activity was suspended prior :o the installation of ~he fourth test pump because th~ likelihood of successfully pumping the Tradin~ Post well a~ a rate of 40 gpm or more appeared ~o be low, Water-level data were collected in four of the six observation wells on Hay 2 to determine ~f significant drawdowns had occurrsd~ and if so, ~o collec~ recovery ~ata, Wa:er-level~ measured prior to noon, May 2, were all slightly higher thaa measurements made about 24 hfs earlier (Table 2), which was indicative of a background trend of in¢~easing water levels. No conclusive evidence of drawdowm caused by overnight pumping of the Trading Pos~ well could be discerned. MAR-~8-UV WEB 1U:~3 AM ALASK6 G5DLUGigAL ~URVEY FAX NV, VUlqblbUbU ~, VI Table [. fi&ute [. Casing Eeight (it above land surf&ce) Laod Surface well Altitude* Number above sea level) Dep%h to Water Time of Well below top Measurement Depth of easing) (ADT) (it) 337 2 141.01 12:[5 p.m, 5-0[-86 195 140.95 11:31 a.m. 5-02-86 2 337 3 155.19 [2:[5 p.m. 5-01-86 L79 3 342 3 139.95 12:16 p.m. 5-0~-86 ~75 139.87 tlr50 a.m. 4 345 ! 108,90 12:15 p.m. 5-O1~g6 184 5 354 } 127.70 12:15 p.m. $-01-86 127,54 11:59 a.m. 5-02-86 6 350 3 93.55 12:15 p.m. 5-01-86 93.46 11:47 a.m. 5-02-86 *estimated from 4 ~C-¢ontoer-interval ~opegraphi¢ map, scale 1:2400. Upon cessa£ion of pumping, the water-level in well 1 (figure 1) rqse a total of 0.03 ft within about 20 minu~e$. The precision of wa~er level measurements at Well I was about ±0.01 ft and ~he water level was s~eady prior to noon and after [2;20 p.m. (~able 2), strongly s~ggesting tkat wa:er-level recovery actually occurred a~ Well I in direc~ response to the termination o~ pumpins at the Trading Post well. Although the da~a are insufficient ~o analyze quan:itatively, ~hey provide an indication that a relatively productive aquifer is present in the vicinity of the Trading Post well. In fact, ~sin§ a minimum specific capacity of 3.5 gpm/it of drawdow~ and 30 ft el available drawdown, a minimum well yield of about 100 gpm can be projected for the Trading Post wall, assuming ~het sedimen~ production from ~he well would not lnhibi~ pumping. ~AR-29-O0 WED 10:43 AH ALASKA dEOLOGICAL SURVEY FAX NO. S074515U50 ~, uu Table Z. Water level data collected at Well I (sea figure 1), May i-2, 1986. May 1 Depth to Waccr Time (ft below top of scsi. 9:29 AM 141.02 9:47 141,03 10:25 141.0I 10:30 141.01 12:15 PM 141.01 I:00 141.00 1;30 141.08 1:55 141.00 2:15 140,95 2;25 140.93 3:38 140.92 4:08 140.9~ 5:08 140.95 9:49 AM 140.97 9:54 140.97 10:33 140.95 t0:50 140,95 1i:31 140.95 12:01 PM I40.94 12:02 140.93 12:03:46 140,93 12:04:30 140.92 12:05:30 140.9Z Depth to Water Time = (ft, below top.of c~sing) 12:06:25 PM 140.92 12:07:30 140.93 12:08:20 140.92 12:09:20 140.92 12:I0:40 140.92 12:12:20 140.92 12:14:30 140.92 12:15:40 140.92 12:16;20 140.91 Z2:17:00 140.91 12:18:15 140,90 12:19:20 140.90 12:20:30 140.90 12:21:30 140.90 12;23:00 140.91 12:24:30 I40.91 12:27:00 140.91 12:30:00 140.92 12:33:00 140.90 12:34;00 140.90 12:37:00 140.91 12:42;00 140.90 . 12:48:00 140.91 12:58:30 140.91 13:10:00 140.90 13:21;30 140.91 The available dace indicate that shor~-term water-level declines could be expected to result from pumping the Trading Post well at a rate of 60 gpm or lass are small. The declines woul~ ucc be grea~ enough co significantly affect the opera.ion of local domestic wells, nor would they significantly affect existing §roun4-wacer gradients in the vicinity of the benzene-contaminated ground water. Thus, movement of the contaminan~ plume would not appear to be affected by use of ~he Tra4ing Post well at a rats of ex~rac~ion less than 60 gpm. Additional water-level, ~ater-use, and water-quality data are requi:ed to further characterize movement of the contamlnaRt plume. -6- ~R-29-00 NED ]0:44 ~ AL~8~R GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Subsequen~ to. the May- ~-2, 1986', aquifer test ac the Trading Post well, the Mun~clpaltty of Anchorage began to uc. ilize-the Trading Post well and a second well (call¢~ the Oberg Field well) as sources of water for a public water ~ys~em serving t~e area of contaminated ground'water. The Oberg Field well is located about 500 feet nor:hwesu of the Trading Post well. 0n May 12, 1986, the well was found to be 184 feet. deep with a static water level feet below the top of the casing and was test pumped for 44 minutes ar a maximum rate of 58 gpm with a maximum drawdown of 6 feet (J. Sullivan, writtet~ comm., 1986). The analysis described in th~s report regarding the potential effects of utilizing the Tradieg Post .as a public ~upply well i$ likely also to apply to the 0berg Field well because the two wells appear to tap the same aquifer. R£FER~;CE$ CITED Bennett, Ed, 1986, Peters Creek well ~es:s show petro pell~tzon~ Chugiak-Eagle River Star, v.16, no. 17, p. 1. -7- ~fl~-Z~-gU NEO ]~:fl! fir flLR~KR UEULUUI~RL ~UR¥~¥ ~R~ NU, ~U/qblbUbU r, u~ Public-Da=a File 86-77 RSSULT$ OF AN AQUIFER TEST AT PETERS CREEK, MUNICIPALITY OF ~NCHORAGE, ALASKA By 1 J.A. MUNTEK Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys August 1986 THIS REPORT HAS NOT BEEN RgVIEWED FOR TECHNICAL CONTENT (EXCEPT AS NOTED IN TEXT) 0g FOR CONFORMITY TO THE EDITORIAL STANDARDS OF DGG$. 794 University Avenue, Basement Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 ADGGS, P.O. Box 772116, Eagle River, Alaska 9957? INTRODUCTION Durimg April ~956, 13 private domemtic wells at Paters Creek, Alaska (within the Municipality of Anchorage), were shown~o be contaminated by benzene and other aromatic hydrocarbons from an unknown source (Bennett, 1986). As a result, the Municipality of Anchorage hired a private contraator co design 8nd construct a temporary above-ground water system ~o serVe residences in the affected area. The source of water for the temporary system was temtatively identified as a water well ~hst served the Peters Creek Trading Post business complex (fig. [). On April 30, 1986, a contractor for the ~nieipality of Anchorage amd the Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys began planning a cooperative aquifer test to be i~itiated following day u~ilizing the Trading ~cst well as the production well. Six nearby wells were selected as observation wells, wi~h permission of the well ow~e:s (fig. l). The objectives of the :est were to assess ~he' capacity of the Trading Pos~ well to produce Wa~er, estimate the effects of pumping the Trading Post well on the ability of surrounding wells to ob~ai= water, and assess whether use of ~he Trading Post well to supply the temporary water system would affee~ the migration of the contaminated ground water, located about k-mile away. TEST DESCKIPTION A driller~ log of the Trading Pest well indicated that a 10-ft length of 100-slot screen (0.1 in. ~¢reen openings) had been installed in the well at a depth interval of 17~-181 ft. On May 1, 1986, the well wac found :o be ~80 fc deep, and had a s~aci¢ wauer level 139 ft below the land ~urfaee, A ~-horsepower submersible pump was installed in the 6-in.-diam. well, with the pump openings set at a depth of 174 ft. Di$cha~se from the well was MA~-~V-UU HSD 1U:fll ~M ALASKA GKOLOUIVSL ~UKV~Y b'A~ NO, VU/flVlbVVV $1o Gl' Perm' Creek ~o '~ '' 'S ~'r / , /02 --. · '~' '1" ,' ' :.' ...... I ~ il. ,' . .... ,. '~°° ' I;O'; 10 ,?/: J. :' ' .... --~. / ........ ,,. \ , / Cam ,fid .. · ... ' :~: . "n..' ,,'// '~' Grour '.' · .... .,/ ~ ~ ~ EXPLANATION ..., APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF CONTA- " L ~1/~ .,*" "INATED GROUND WATER APPROXIMATE M;AN ~ LOCATION OF OBSERVATION WELL STUDY ARE~ DECLINATION, 1979 WITH WELL NUMBER SCAL; 1:12.000 P 0 1000 2000 FEET O LOCATION OF TRADING POST WELL o 2~o 4~o 6oo M~ERS CONTOUR INTERVA~ 5 DATUM MEAN SEA LEVEL Figure l, Locations of selacted wells aC Petars Creek, i-', Vq 61' - 2- cent:oiled through e valve, and ~he flow rate was measured with an in-line turbine-styLe flowfazer, and verified with a bucket and watch. With ~he pump installed in ~he well, ~he water-level measuring device could not be lowered deeper than 146 fi, therefore, drawdown and recovery data from the pu~ped well were not obtained, The test pump was star:ed a= 10;30 am May 1, 1986, and ran for about I0 seconds and suddenly stopped. A small amoumt of silt-ladem water was produced. The cause of the pump stoppage was found to be a tripped breaker in the power supply from the Tradins Post. The pump was restarted three times, with each s~ar~ followed closely by a rrippe~ breaker and pump shutdown, The test p~mp ~he~ failed to s~art, presumably because cf am excessive amount of sedlmeo= in :he pump. A second pump was installed in ~he well with an in~ake se~ting 165 ft below land surface. The pump was s~ar~ed at a ra~e of abeut 10 sallons per minute (spm) a~ 12:15 p.m, Between 12:15 p.m. and 3:38 p.m, the flew rate was gradually increased co e maximum ra~e of 32 gpm, with several brief shutdowns caused by a tripped breaker. The amount of sediment produced by the well gradually ~ecreased as pumping progressed, but observable amounts persisted. A lack of proire§s in being able to increase the pumping rate beyond 3Z.gpm wi:hour tripping ~he breaker resulted ~n a decision =o remove the second Dump and install a third pump at the same depth. The third pump ~as opera=ed at a sraduaily increased rate of 8 to 19 gpm from 4;26 ~e ~ p,m., at which time :he breaker ~ripped again. It was concluded ~hat [h~ excessive load on the power supply, which was causing :he breaker to trip, was caused by ~he passage of an excessive amoun~ of sndimem~ ~hrough the test pumps. The fourth pump installed in the well at a~ intake depth of 156 f~ had worn impellers which allowed the passage of sediment-laden water with relatively little increase in power conmumption.. ~'he flow rate with this pump was gradually increased from 12 gpm to §O gpm at IZ:~ a.m., May 2, 1986, where i~ was maintained until noon of that day. Although pumping levels in the preductioe yell were not obtained, total drawdo~m mue~ have been less than the the to~al available drawdown of 17 f~, re~ul~Eng in a specific cspacity greater ~han 3.5 gpmff~ of drawdown. At the end of ~he pumping period, water from tho well was fre~ of visible sediment. aQUIFER A~ALYSIS Six observation wells monitored during ~he aquifer ~es~ are located 500 to 1600 ft from the Trading Post well (figure I. table I). A review of water-level da=a collected prior to 6. p.m.. May l, 1986, failed =o identify any positive water-level response attributable to the pumping at the Trsding Post well. Water-level measuremen~ activity was suspended prior to the installation of ~he fourth tes~ pump bee~ume the likelihood of successfully pumpin~ the Tradin~ Post well a~ a rata of 40 gpm or mor~ appeared ~$ be low. Water-levsl data were collected in four of the six observation wells on May ~ to determine ~f significant drawdo~n~ had oscurred, and if so, to collect recovery data. Wate:-levels measured prior to noon, May 2, were all slightly higher than measurements made about 24 hfs earl/er (Table 2). which was indicative of a background trend of increasing water levels, No conclusive evidence of drawdown caused by overnight pumping of ~he Trading Pos~ well could be discerned. - 4- Mfl~-~V-UU NEg IU:fl~ BM flLA~Kfl ~5ULUUIUAL SURVEY FA~ NV, ~U/qbibUbU r, Table 1. Summary of observation well daga. Well locations are show~ in figure [. Land Surface Wall Altitude* (f~ ~umber above sea leve%) Casing Height Depth Co Water Time of (ft above land (fg below top Measurement surface) of casin~) 337 2 141,01 . 12:L5 p.m. $-0L-86 140.95 11:31 a.m. 5-0Z-86 155.19 12:[5 p.m. 5-0£-86 3 342 3 139.95 lZ:16 p.m. 5-01-86 139.87 11:50 a.m. 5-0Z-86 4 345 I 108,90 12:15 p.m. 5-01486 5 354 3 127.70 12;15 p,m. 5-01-86 127.54 11:59 a.m. 5-02-86 6 350 3 93,55 12:15 p.m. 5-01-86 93.46 11:47 a.m. 5-02-86 *estimated from 4 fi-contour-interval ~opographic map, scale 1~2400. Vail Depth 195 179 145 ~09 Upon cessa£ion af pumping, :he water-level in well 1 (figure I) rqse a total of 0.03 ft within a~out 20 minutes. The precision of water level measurements at Well 1 was abeut ~0.01 ft and the water level was s~eady prior to noon and after [Z;20 p,m. (~able 2), ~trongly sugges~ing that wa~er-level recovery actually occurred at Well 1 in direct response te the termination oi pumping at the Trading Pose wail, Although the dace are insufficient eo analyze ~usntitstively, they provide an indicstion that s relmtively productive aquifer is p~esent in the vicinity of the Trading Po~t well. In fact, using a m~imum specific capacity of 3.5 gpm/ft of drawdow~ and 30 ft of available drawdown, a minimum well yield of aboug 100 gpm can be projected for the Trading Post well, assuming that sediment production from ;he well would not inhibi£ pu~ping. NAR-29-O0 WED ]0:42 AH ALASKA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FaX NO, UUCqblbUbu r, ua Table 2. Water level data collected at Wall I (see figure 1), May 1-2, [986, . May 1 May ~ Depth to Water Depth to Water Time (ft below top of caein$) Time (ft, below top cf casing) g129 AM 141.02 12:06:25 PM 140.92 9:47 141,03 12107130 140,93 10125 141.01 12108120 ~40.92 10130 141.01 12109120 140o92 12115 PM 141.01 12:I0;40 140.92 l:00 141.00 12=12120 140.92 1;30 141.08 12114130 140,92 1~5 141.00 12:i5:40 140,92 2:15 140,95 12116:20 140.91 2;25 140.93 [2117100 140.91 3138 140.9~ 12118115 140.90 4:08 140.99 [Z:19:ZO 140.90 5:08 140.95 12:20130 140.90 12121130 140.90 Ha~,~ 12123100 140.91 12~24130 140.91 g:49 AM 140.97 1Z~27100 140.91 9:54 140.97 12130100 140.92 10:33 140.95 12133100 140.90 10:50 ~40.~} 12134:00 140.90 11:31 140.95 12:37:00 i~0.91 12101 PM 1fi0.94 12142;00 ~0.90 . 12:02 140.93 12:48100 140.91 12:03146 /40,9] 12158:30 140.91 12:04:30 140.92 13:I0100 140,90 12105130 140.92 13121130 140.91 The available data indicate that short-term water-level declines could be expected to resulg from pumping th~ Trading Post well at a rata of 60 gpm or less are small. The declines would no: be grea= enough to significantly affect the ope~a~ion of local domestic wells~ nor would they significantly affect existing ground-wa~er gradients in the vicinity of the benzene-contaminated ground water. Thus, movement of ~he contaminant plume would not appear to be affected by use of the Trading Post well at a rate of exCractio~ less ~han 60 gpm. Additional water-level, water-u~e, and water-quality data mre required to further characterize movement of :he contaminant plume. -6- POSTSC~IP~ Subsequent to the May [-2, 1986, aquifer test aa the Irad~ng Post well, ~he Municipality of Anchorage began to utilize the Trading Pos: well and a second well (called the Obey§ Field well) as sources of water for a water system serving ~he area of contaminated ground water. The Oberg Field well is located about 500 feet northwea~ of the T~ading Fost we%l, Om May 12, ~986, the well was found to be 184 feet. deep with a static water level 150 fee£ below the t~p of the casing and was ~es~ pumped for 44 minutes at a maximum rate of 58 gpm with a maximum drawdown of 6 fes~ (J. Sullivan, written comm., [986). The analysis described in this report regarding the potential effects of utilizing the Trading Post as a public ~upply well is likely also to apply to the 0berg Field well because the two wells appear to tap the same aquifer. ~gFERL'NCE$ CITED Bennett, Ed, 1986, Peters Creek well ~es:s show patro pollution: Chugiak-EaE!e ~fver Star, v.i6, ~o. 17, p. I. -7- 05/07/99 12;o0 FAX 907 343 4220 CommuniTy Plannlnz ~ CROSS ~ 012,'o12 Platting Board S~rnmlary of Action May $, 1999 Page 11 d. S-10437 Glenn View Subdivision - vacation only Approval of the vacation of a portion of the section line easement along the eastern property boundary subject to: 1) Filing a suitable replat within 18 months. 2) Resolving the need for 20-foot trail easement(s) a/ong the east boundary of the section line reservation, G. PERSONS TO BE HEARD H. REPORTS 1. Chair 2. Secretary 3. Community I. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Adjourn at 12.00 PM. Request for Comments on' Subdivisions - April 16, 1999 Page 2 S-10434: S-10435: S-10436: S-10437: S-10438: S-I0439: Kincaid Heights Addn #1 Lots 12 - 14 Information to satisfy the requirements specified by AMC 21.15 and AMC 15.65 must be submitted for each lot of this proposed subdivision. This information must include, but may not necessarily be limited to: 1. Soils testing, percolation testing and ground water monitoring must be conducted to confirm the suitability for development using on- site wastewater disposal systems. Ground water monitohng must be conducted during high water season in either the fall (October) or spring (April - May). 2. Areas designated for the original and replacement wastewater disposal system sites must be identified and must meet all criteria specified in AMC 15.65, including slope and slope setback requirements. 3. Topographical information must be submitted. Hokama Heights Addn #2 Information to satisfy the requirements specified by AMC 2 I. 15 and AMC 15.65 must be submitted for each lot of this proposed subdivision. This information must include, but may not necessarily be limited to: i. Soils testing, percolation testing and ground water monitoring must be conducted to confirm the suitability for development using on- site wastewater disposal systems. Ground water monitoring must be conducted during high water season in either the fall (October) or spring (April - May). 2. Areas designated for the original and replacement wastewater disposal system sites must be identified and must meet all criteria specified in AMC 15.65, including slope and slope setback requirements. 3. Topographical information must be submitted. 4. Supporting documentation on water availability must be provided. Slivertip Addn #1 No objections. Glenn View Estates West, Lots 1 - 37 No objections. W.G. Pippel Subdivision 1951 Lot IA Block 2 No objections. Mercedes-Benz Subdivision Lot 13A No objections. VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EASEMENT APPLICATION Municipality of Anchorage DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 A. Please fill in the information requested below. Print one letter or number per block. 0. Case Number IFKNOWN). Street Address 1. Vacation Code OFFICE USE REC'D aY: VERIFY OWN: AFFIDAVIT:. POSTING: Tax I.D. Number Abbreviated Description of Vacation (EAST 200 FEET SOME STREET). Exieting Abbreviated legal description (T12N R2W SEC 2 LOT 45 OR SHORT SUB BLK 3 LOT 34). 4. Petitioner's Name (Last- First). olol, 1,14 1 IIIIII 5. Petitioner's Representative. Address: City: ¢~ Zip Code: 6. Petition Area Acreage. State: ~ Phone No. -(8¢~ - ~,~% ~' 7. Proposed Number Lots. Address: City: ~~,~t~ State: Zip Code: 8. Existing Number Lots. 9. Written Justification. 10, Grid Number. 11. Zone. 12. Fees ,~'~.oo 13. Community Council ¢'~1,~h,~¢~¢~- i hereby certify ii;at (I am) (I have been authorized to act for) the owner of the properly described above and tbat I desire to vacate it in conformance with Chapter 21 of the Ancborage Municipal Code of Ordinances. I understand that payment of tbe basic vacation fee is nonrefundable and is to cover the costs associated with procecsing this application, that it does not assure approval of the vacation. I also understand that additional fees may be assessed if the Municipali~'s cost to process this application exceed the basic fee. I fudher understand that assigned hearing dates are tentative and may have to be postponed by Planning Staff, PlaEing Board, Planning Commission, or the Assembly due to administrative reasons. ~0-019 (Rev. gt~)' Cront *Agents must provide wri~en p~f or authorization. C. Please check or fill in the following: 1. Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Classification · ~D/Residential -3 Commercial '3 Parks/Open Space ~ Transportation Related Marginal Land Commercial/Industrial Public Lands/Institutions 2. Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Intensity: Dwelling Units per Acre: Alpine/Slope Affected Industrial Special Study Special Study Alpine/Slope Affected 3. Environmental Factors (if any): a. Wetland 21 1. Developable 21 2. Conservation 3. Preservation b. Avalanche '3 c. Floodplain '3 . d. Seismic Zone (Harding/Lawson) -3 D. Please indicate below if any of these events have occurred in the last five years on the property. 21 Rezoning ~/Subdivision 21 Conditional Use C1 Zoning Variance Case Number: Case Number: Case Number: Case Number: '3 Enforcement Action For 21 Building/Land Use Permit For Legal Description for Advettising. F, Attached written statement in accordance with AMC 21.15.130.B. stating reasons in support of the vacation. G. Checklist Waiver Copies of the Vacation Request ;~Reduced Copy of Vacation (8 1/2 x 1 1) '-~"Certificate of Plat ~/'Fee Zt'/Topo Map 4 Copies =~'/Soils Report 4 Copies '~"/Ae rial Photo :~Housing Stock Map ~f/Zoning Map :~//Water: :~ Pdvate Wells .~/sewer: . ~/~ri~/ate senti8 ~3 Communi.~, Well :3 Co~m-ni~ ,~ublic Utility Public Utilib/ C ESTATEs I ,. k, S U B O i ~ Z9 C ~ Glenn View West 500 Dar'iI Ave, Anchorage, Regi~-ered Land survey~ ' POLLY CIRCE CIRCE L McKINLEY VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION J II