Laserfiche WebLink
#2549 <br />220 Big Island -Dock Request <br />Page 5 <br />Staff Recommendation <br />It has been staffs intent to not only reach a conclusion on the Lovelace request but to provide some <br />direction for future access requests. Based on our review of the access sites, the topographic and <br />other limitations of each site, and the locations of the inland lots which may request access in the <br />'5 ,;: .. _futQre, staff reeommends as follows: • --~-· •·· ·• · ~j J<.,., ..__ <; i./4-fy-1, / a.,.,/_ I.() .') <br />( l. Inland parcel~ 1 ,~?.2._(Schef!el, ~~~-et.a~e~-S.h?.1:,1~--~~ _a!lC?~ed ~-ocJ<:,,a~~~J~at _~~~~~~.~ q_'. <br />........._____ 2 ~--· --Inland parcel 3 should continue to be allowed a dock access at Access D. <br />3. Inland parcels 4 thru 8 should be assigned future access at Access D if they request it, subject <br />to LMCD regulations. <br />4. Inland parcel 9 could be served by a dock at either Access Dor Access E; Eis closer but <br />presents more topographic difficulties. <br />rs." Accesses A, B, F, G, and H do not readily lend themselves to providing dock access to inland <br />L lots and spould therefore remain dock-free. <br />6. Access H has a recent severe erosion problem which needs to be addressed, and may result <br />in gating or closure of that access by the City for all but emergency and incidental service <br />vehicle uses. <br />I have also included a draft version of the proposed Comprehensive Plan language discussing Big <br />Island for your review -it may add to your understanding of Big Island issues. <br />Options for Action <br />1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation. <br />2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. <br />3. Recommend something other than staff recommendation. <br />4. Table for further information. <br />,/ <br />,WB>tAC-Cc~ :, <br />(l) c.~ C---//1,,f<.A/'J ,-. ~ \..t:~._i..,} 't IN~ <br />®