3. 1 Staff Report-log house landing5
� �s`�T{ 4
SC /-A� \ DIIA
Staff Report
Date of Meeting: May 3, 2017
To: City Council
From: Neil Soltis, Administrator
Re: Log House Landing Boat ramp
Background: What would be considered the Log House Landing boat ramp is located partially on
City road right-of-way, partially on a combination of park easement and highway easement that
were granted to the City in 1935 and 1936 respectively, and on private property owned by
Summersby River Property LLC. (An excerpt from the Summersby survey follows this report).
Mayor Maefsky received a letter from Edmund Summersby (attached), as the owner of the
property, recognizing that the ramp currently extends onto private property and seeking to resolve
the encroachment issue. In the letter Summersby voices support for the walk-in / carry -in option
and notes that "the encroachment problem can be easily resolved" subject to the condition that the
ramp always be maintained with natural materials for walk-in and carry -in access only.
Further the City has received an email from Stephen Bubul, an attorney working with the Friends of
Log House Landing regarding the Summersby letter and seeking to meet to discuss the
encroachment issue and its potential resolution.
Issue: What direction does the Council with to take with regard to the four proposed options?
Analysis of the Options:
Leave as is — Given the Summersby letter the City would need to determine the extent of the park /
highway easement and to find a method to restrict access from the ramp onto the Summersby
property. This would significantly reduce the width of the area at the bottom of the ramp and
would require a much more severe turn for vehicles backing down the ramp with a trailer. Due to
the past use of the private property, I believe it would be incumbent on the City to work with the
property owner to revegetate the portion of the private property that was utilized as the ramp.
Improve the ramp —The plans as previously approved and the revised plans that were under
consideration cannot be constructed in the area within the easements without a redesign. If this
option were supported by the Council the City could seek either 1) determine the extent of the park
/ highway easement and look to redesign the project within the confines of the easement area or 2)
pursue legal options based on the past use of the property by the public. The City Attorney can
provide an assessment of the feasibility and prospects of the City in this regard.
Designated as walk-in / carry in — This option could entail either 1) working with Summersby to
extend the area covered by the easement to include the ramp as it is currently being used or to a
mutually agreeable boundary or 2) to determine the extent of the park / highway easements via
survey and restrict the use to the area that is within the easements. If this option were selected the
City could seek to participate with other governmental agencies on the revegetation of the ramp
area; however, it is likely that the ramp or portions of it would need to be temporarily closed for a
time to provide an adequate grown -in period for any vegetation that is planted recognizing that the
vegetation will be subject to flood events until it is well established. If this option were to be
selected I would recommend the placement of foldable bollards at the top of the ramp that are
locked and keys provided to the Fire Department and Sheriff Department for emergency access.
Close the ramp — Unless the easements were to be vacated, the ramp with the exception of the
Summersby portion is within both park and highways easements held by the City. The City could
also vacate portions of the roads in which case the portions vacated would be split by the adjoining
property owners. As with other options the City could seek to participate with other governmental
agencies on the revegetation of the ramp area.