Laserfiche WebLink
0*0 # ♦ <br />Resolution No.1028 <br />Page 2 <br />t ^ ; <br />r ’ <br />L <br />3. The present channel depth of less than half that <br />required in the permit constitutes an obstruction to <br />navigation by the public. <br />A. Current DNR rules as a matter of general policy <br />disfavor dredging and channeling in public waters but <br />make express exception for maintenance dredging of <br />channels to existing boat harbors, 6 MCAR 1.5022 B.2.b., <br />and further reflect a policy to protect the existing <br />natural character of public waters and their existing <br />shorelands, 6 MCAR 1.5022 A. <br />5. The Council has repeatedly made findings that any <br />dredging is detrimental to the lake,- but previous <br />dredging permits have been approved by the City Council <br />for maintenance of riparian rights. While the applicant <br />has other riparian shore, the shoreline is extremely <br />shallow requiring an unusually long dock to reach <br />navigable water depth. Use of the harbor for boat <br />docking rather than construction of a long dock on the <br />shallows lakeward from other riparian access of the <br />applicant mitigates intrusion of visible man-made <br />improvements on the lake and avoids a navigational <br />impairment on the main lake. <br />T^te existing harbor and channel constitute a pre­ <br />existing non-conforming use and the request for <br />maintenancA dredging thejrefore constitutes niaintenance <br />of a non-conforming use rather than .its enlargement or <br />replacement and therefore complies with City ordinances <br />governing non-conforming uses. <br />7. The applicant proposes to accomplish the dredging <br />Freshwater Biological Research Foundation report <br />on dredging in Lafayette Bay, Lake. Minnetonka, dated <br />October 30, 1978, Si^ates that "clearly, suction <br />dredging for channel maintenance is much less deleterious <br />to the body o.f water than traditional dredging practices". <br />*;