02-05-2004 Council Work Session - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#2549 220 Big Island - Dock Request Page 4 Discussion Staff spent an afternoon on the Island in late March to view the access locations. Photos were taken and an attempt was made to determine the boundaries of each of the two larger accesses ("C" and "D" on Exhibit D-1). Staff was unable to locate comer pins, hence the City has hired a surveyor to mark these access boundaries. We anticipate he will be out on the Island the week of April 10-14; no word as of this writing. However, the comments in the table above are based on our inspection. Only two of the eight platted access locations, C and H, are readily suited for motor vehicle access (across the ice in winter or from a barge in summer); the others have topographic limitations, and in the case of "F" there remains a question of whether the right-of-way reaches the shoreline. Accesses A and B are relatively remote from all but the northerly inland lot (Scheftel, parcel 3 on Exhibit D-1), and would not seem to provide a reasonable access point for the Lovelace site (parcel 2). Access C is wide enough to handle docks for each of inland parcels 1 and 2 without limiting vehicular usage when necessary. The only issue at access C is that due to the ice ridge between the shore and the wetland behind it, a dock section parallel to the shore may be necessary to provide walking access to the flat landing area (see Exhibit D-2). Access D (Bay Place) is similarly wide enough to handle two docks for the inland lots. The shore has a slight rise so a low stairway would likely be needed. There is no visibly defined walking corridor within this access, but rather it appears to be maintained as lawn for the cabin on inland parcel 3. Access D is used by the owner of parcel 3 for a dock via City Resolution 2038. Access D could provide suitable dock access for additional inland lots 4 thru 8, although more than 2 docks or slips may require special LMCD approval. Access E would require development of a 10-15' high stairway, and therefore is not readily functional as a dock site. Access F has some potential for access, but is relatively remote in both distance and topography from the only inland lot it might serve. Access G has a steep but pedestrian-friendly path leading to the cabin on the adjacent property’ to the south, but is remote from most of the inland lots that might need dock access. Access H is the narrowest of all platted accesses in Morse Island Park and cannot ftinctionally support a dock while still providing emergency or occasional vehicular access at the same time, and would also not meet LMCD dock setback regulations. Staff would not support provision of a dock at access H for this reason. Finally, for the same reasons the City ordinances for the ‘mainland’ prohibit accessory structures on lots without principal structures (i.e. security, site control, and maintenance) it is appropriate to have assigned dock access points located as near to the inland lot they serve as possible. \\ i u