19-103336FILE
CITY OF
Federal Way
Centered on Opportunity
July 15, 2019
Mr. Homer Anders
Anders Land Surveying
29601 3M Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Re: File No 19-103336-AD; PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS
Gilmer Property and Potential BLA, 537 SW 3120, Street, Federal Way WA
Dear Mr. Anders:
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www. cityoffederalway.. com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
This letter is a follow-up to our meeting on May 21, 2019, and your May 30, 3019, letter to me and Planning
Manager Doc Hansen in the City of Federal Way Planning Division. At our May 21, 2019 meeting, city staff
offered to conduct a cursory review of a proposed Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) for the Gilmer Property
at 537 SW 312th Street. Your May 30, 2019, submittal includes a letter describing several complex issues,
including, but not limited to: boundary line adjustments; property disputes; land survey discrepancies; record
of survey; unrecorded Plat of Mirror Lake; and proposed property line agreements between various parties.
City staff had anticipated that you would submit a draft of the BLA map document for our cursory review,
prior to submitting a formal BLA application. Since you have not submitted a draft of the BLA map, in order
to further assist you in preparing a code compliant BLA application, city staff offers the following comments
on the information and documents you submitted on May 21, 2019:
■ The submitted information is not a draft of the BLA map document; therefore, we cannot
provide technical comments on this information as a BLA.
• The Record of Survey is not a BLA.
• The city is not reviewing the submitted land survey as the city does not have a Licensed Land
Surveyor on staff. Any survey information on a future BLA map needs to be stamped and signed
by a surveyor licensed by the State of Washington. Legal requirements of the survey
document/map are the responsibility of the Licensed Land Surveyor.
• A BLA cannot result in creation of any new lots, and a BLA cannot compound or create any
non -conforming development, such as nonconforming building setbacks, etc.
■ A BLA that divides Lot 6 of Mirror Lake Unrecorded Plat and attaches portions of Lot 6 to the
adjacent Lots 5 and 7 is achievable through a city reviewed and approved BLA.
■ To achieve the BLA which attaches portions of lot 6 to the adjacent lots 5 and 7, a formal BLA
application and accompanying materials in accordance with Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC)
Title 18 needs to be prepared and submitted to the city. In summary, the BLA application must
be prepared and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor, The BLA application must include and
',Mr. Homer .finders
Page 2 of 2
July 15, 2019
address all items on the enclosed BLA Handout and enclosed Public Works BLA Review
Checklist, and include but not limited to the following: Master Land Use Application (MLUA);
BLA map; lot closure calculations (signed and stamped); current title report for all properties;
BLA application fee; and signature of all property owners on the BLA map.
• If the BLA also proposes to adjust the property line between Lots 7 and 8, that could be
accommodated on the same BLA, or on a separate BLA. Any changes to lot 8 would require
signature of the owner of lot 8.
• City staff is not involved in any boundary / property line disputes. Any property line disputes are
a civil matter.
• City staff is not involved with any agreements between property owners.
■ City staff is not reviewing or making any judgement on the 1930's era Unrecorded Plat of Mirror Lake.
• City staff has no comment or judgement regarding your comment about "probable as staked
lines" referenced in your letter.
• Your red -line comment regarding "area to be transferred back after 11, Boundary Line
Agreement and Recorded as a Record of Survey" has no bearing upon a BLA application. One
intent of the BLA may be to resolve property line disputes between property owners, but the city
is not involved in such private property issues.
Following city approval of any BLA, and prior to the BLA recording, the King County Assessor's Office also
reviews and signs the BLA map, including legal description review, property line review, etc. In order to avoid
potential survey and legal description discrepancies, city staff encourages you to request the King County
Assessor's Office to conduct a pre-screening of the BLA map, prior to final city approval of the BLA map.
If you have any further questions or need additional information, you may contact me at 253 835-2652, or
'im.harris i offederalw .coin.
Sincerely,
Harris
Senior Planner
rnc: Master Land Use Application
BLA Handout
Public Works Dept. BLA Review Checklist
c: Doc Hansen Planning Manager
Gary Gilmer, 537 SW 31211, Street, Federal Way, WA 98023
19-103336.00-AD D- I.D. 79374
Pi *w.� E ! ` L s r i' n ,�l t`otit p �A �`r �` F
ro
`
'ao
cnkt
"Po r e r Pole {7 rr*
Madersrored
.� 1 yet Leeds OmN. w� / ' I ►I
� r
. ! y'.A •� R� �► � �C� r i � I � ,
�. t� D Q
"fir ®OI/
i I
s
IL
Jigs. fpe
' f
DST� � V
w% i ,,• "+ • N r- c Q� : � f t p xIa is
1 ••Q 4 � .� �P i.^ O ,b- �
�!. ` k % fJ
` L ►� 3 "� N .7
o
t _ �"
�nl ti4 ,Z � i 0
>.. + t tee C f Ire v D O r
5e10 eta v �D. ti� `' '4 t` co)rG
fob �. G;bo i W
+t� ° ❑ ;
' � • d1O�E.
i
\ �1� ri i #442
' ft
46, 4e �?
& O Q
. cj 41r44
cop
c�2 , v�\\ � �. ��='or a ►,ram � W p� f!
(/, �
N
IP
• 4a \\ t 40-. 4, !yf a r D
wQD • o g V.
lb
Qa " `shot a •.
Ao as � rr o � o
t
L�� ` S19s3,30f fe^ce a
� 6 �f �:i Ed' as
f ¢. Lot Lot
1` OA
a
ANDERS LAND SURVEYING
29601-3RD Ave. South
Federal Way, Wa. 98003
(Tel. = 253-941-4160)
Job No 897 Date: May 30, 2019
City of Federal Way
Planning Department
Jim Harris, Planner
Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager
Subject: As per our meeting on May 21, 2019, submittal
Of a 6 Page "Record of Survey" Proposal for
Gary S. Gilmer involving Lots 5, 6,7 and 8 of
Mirror Lake, an Unrecorded Plat and Gilmer
Lots 6 and 7 located at or near 537 SW 312th ST.
Federal Way, Wa. 98023.
Dear Sirs:
As we discussed, we request an "unofficial review" of this
Submitted data for your consideration of how the issues raised
On the survey (NOT recorded yet at this time) to see how you
Believe this proposed agreement on "lines A, Line B and Line C"
MIGHT impact your rules on "Boundary Line Adjustments".
At the time of preparation of this "proposed Boundary Survey",
Mr. Gilmer and Mr. Roper had purchased (together) all of Lot 6
And proposed to divide it into TWO equal areas and attach each
Part to their Lot 5 and Lot 7. They have not been able to
(up to this time) agree on the exact position of Lot 6 on the
ground. Just recently„ I learned that MR. Gilmer had purchased
the part of Lot 6 through a Quit Claim Deed (Auditor's Fee No.
20180709000320) from Mr. Roper. We, (I and Mr. Gilmer) now
anticipate that Mr. Roper will sign the Boundary Line Agreements
for the Lines Labeled as "A, B and C" as well as the owner of
Lot 8 ( Eddie Ianosel-Parcel No. 5559200040) so we can proceed
(Continued on Page 2)
Job No 897 Date: May 30, 2019
(Page 2)
City of Federal Way
Planning Department
Jim Harris , Planner
Robert "Doc" Hansen, Planning Manager
With this proposed Agreement for these 4 Lots as placed and
Labeled as "the probable As -Staked Lines" of the original
Unrecorded Plat of Mirror Lake". As we see this situation,
IF the referenced parties sign this agreement, they will
immediately want some small portions of these agreed lines
To be transferred back in ANOTHER agreement. One such
Small portion is that part cross -hatched In Red to have the
Final agreed line to go down the shown existing cyclone fence.
The Question in this case if this is done, are we doing a
"Boundary Line Adjustment under the City/s regulations, Etc.
If so, can we just reference the Recording of this Survey
(assuming we get the required signatures) and just show the
subject 4 lots on your "Boundary Line Adjustment" form, etc.?
I have not put anything in this letter about why this complex
Situation has come up but there is much important information
On this survey for the WHOLE PLAT of Mirror Lake that I am
Pretty certain has never been properly researched and Recorded
Before. I am going to put my License in Retirement Status soon
And we need to get this situation settled soon. I would be happy
To meet with you at any time to go over those items shown on
This "Record Of Survey" and to get it Recorded into the official
Documents before I retire. Any help you can give us would be
Greatly appreciated.
Since ely Yours,
Omer Anders
Licensed Washington Land Surveyor, LS 16190
I
ANDERS LAND SURVEYING
29601- 3 Ave. South
Federal Way, Wa. 98003
(Tel. = 253-941-4160)
Job No 897
TO WHOM IT CONCERNS:
Date: May 31, 2019
1. The Unrecorded Plat of Mirror Lake located in the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4
Of Section 7, T 21 N, R 04 E, W. M. was surveyed in the early 1930's
And at that time the only distance measurements were made with
Steel Chains of 200 or 300 feet in length. By the time that the King
County Survey Crews (See Field Book No. 763-c, Page 18)
discovered the "incorrect stone" set by the Mirror Lake Subdivision
And "notified them" in Dec., 1942, this Subdivision was most
Likely all ready staked out and even some lots already sold and
Most likely nothing was done after the original staking.
2. In order to get the control for this staking, the survey crew would
Have to measure over 2 miles +- to tie the 4 quarter corners of
This said Section 7. In addition, they would have to measure another
Mile +- along the Easterly line and the Southerly line of the Southeast
1/4 of said section. In addition, they would have to measure another
1300 +- feet =- along the Easterly side of the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 and
another 1300 +- feet along the Southerly side of said Section
Division. This all was at a time when RCW subdivision rules allowed
1 foot of mis-closure for every 5,000 feet measured.
3. At the time of this subdivision staking, standard practice was to set
Wood 2" by 2" wood stakes for MOST of the Lot Corners with only a
Few "control points" being set with Iron Pipes. Staking Diagrams
obtained from King County files only shows a couple of such Iron
Pipes to be set and the One along the Westerly line of Lot 7 does not
Conform with the dimensions along that line A few of those wood
Stakes may have been set with "nail and washers" on the top of the
Stakes for the accurate progress of the staking over some fairly long
Period of time.
(Continued on Pag 2)
ANDERS LAND SURVEYING
2960173 Ave. South
Federal Way, Wa. 98003
(Tel. = 253-941-4160)
Job No 897 Date: May 31, 2019
TO WHOM IT CONCERNS: (Page 2 of continued
comments)
4, In July , 19609 LS Fredrick M. Drake surveyed Mirror
Lake Estates in Vol 65, Page24 which is located on/
Near the Northerly Part of the Westerly line of the
Subject unrecorded Mirror Lake Plat. As per data s
Shown on a "Record of Survey" (Not filed yet at this
Report- awaiting "boundary line agreements" form
Adjacent owners of Lots 6 and 7), this 1960 plat must
Have realized the potential "overlap" with this
Unrecorded plat in that he staked the 1960 plat some
3.24 feet "Easterly" (At the Southwest corner of his
Plat) from the true 1 / I Oh Line.
5. As per all Notes on the "Anders Survey for reaching a
Boundary Line Agreement ONLY on Lots 6 and 7 of
This Unrecorded survey of Mirror Lake, ALL who
Read this "To Whom It Concerns" is strongly advised
NOT to use any of this information without having your
Own Survey and your own Advisors. As per Notes 1
and 2, Page 1 of the "Anders Survey", all data was
Developed for the exclusive use of the Client who
Is Gary S. Glimer
RECEIVED
OCT 21 2ma
A� Y &A" -/ /C-, //7/,l,')
IVJT"( A0AC1V41e1Vr nz iv 5e i; ;,45f
333z 5- 8r3 .4ke,5-
A68,<-z,Vz L✓A ?go0,3
From: Homer Anders
Sent: Wednesday; Oc���j �1i�7V�19��;29
PM
To: robert.harnsen@cityaffe alopment
ament
Cc: jim.harris@cityoffederalway. om
Subject: October 08, 2019 Meeting and Application of RCW 58.17.255 to a BLA In City of Federal Way
Robert "Doc" Hanson, Planning Manager, Community Development Department
Thank You for Meeting with me on October 08, 2019 to discuss the above referenced
Revised Code of Washington State and the Previously supplied copy of the Federal Way
Code. At first Glance, the City code appears to be the same as the State Code but upon
Close examination of the two, the EXACT WORDING is not the same (See Attachment)
Although the final results may be the same the State one uses "proposed subdivision or
Short plat" while the City one uses the words "final plat'. I was not really aware of this
At the time of our meeting. However, our discussion centered around whether this
Concept as relating to "adverse possession considerations" on a proposed Boundary
Line Adjustment (BLA) would be applicable to such a submission to the City. As I
Understand what you said, you believe that your code (and by obvious extension) would
ONLY apply to full subdivisions and/or Short Plats and NOT to the BLA's because the full
Subdivisions would only be concerned about the outside PERIMETER of said divisions
While the BLA is only concerned about the adjustments of "interior lines" of that
Proposal. While I understand that the State cannot dictate to the Cities what they will do
Or interpret in these cases and that each City in the State can also use different
Interpretations from each other, I would like to point out that the City of Auburn
Under BLA 15-0003, Recording No. 20150812900007 (ROS 329, Pages 329, 044-045)
Allowed this to be done on the perimeter of that BLA (a fence that encroached by
Approx. 0.5 feet on the North to Approx. 1.8 feet on the South).
As you will recall, we (I and You and Jim Harris and two of my Client's
Gary Gilmer and Steve Sawatzky) met at City Hall to discuss these issues witch
Have held up their abilities to adjust some of the lines of their respective
Properties because of such "adverse possession considerations" (one is because
Of "errors" in the original "unrecorded plat' and the other is because of
Differences in numerous Recorded Surveys with some amounts of either
Built fences and/or `occupation item". At this time, neither of these client's
Have been able to secure written settlements with adjoiners and they would
Like (maybe even "Need") to be able to Record this data as a BLA in such a
Way that neither "minimum lots area" nor "building set -back lines" would be
Compromised IF "the worse case scenario resulted". In the case of the "difference
In Recorded Survey Measurements", the Client and I have proceeded to file "Record of
Survey" at King County. In the other case (the "unrecorded plat") we have NOT
Yet "Filed a Record of Survey" but if necessary, this should be done very soon
(I am retiring very soon and will not have a State License to proceed). Of Course,
The client would rather have only one "Costs" and that is as a Boundary Line
Adjustment and needs to be able to Record as such through the City Approval
Process. We ask that you re -consider the application of the RCW to any
BLA that is submitted to the City (I understand that ALL OF The Application Fees
For a BLA is $2835 (includes fee to the Fire Department and the Water & Sewer
District).
Thank You,
Homer Anders, Washington Licensed Surveyor (LS 16190)
Sent from Mail for Windows 10