Resolution 1028 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� Resolution No. 1028 - ' Page 2 � � . • ' 3. The _present channel depth of less than half tbat . required in the permit constitutes an obstruction to� naviga tion by the public. . 4. Current DNR rules as a matter of general policy disfavor dredging and channeling in public' waters but make express exception for maintenance dredging ,of . � channels . to existing boat harbors, 6 MCAR 1 . 5022 B. 2.b. , - and further reflect a policy to protect the existing natural character of public waters and their existing shorelands , 6 MCAR 1. 5022 A. - . 5. The Counc-iI has repeatedly made findings that a� - � � _ ' dredging is detrimental to the lake; but previous ' ' dredging permits have been approved by' the �ity Council , for ma�ntenance of riparian rights . While the applicant . has other riparian shore, the shoreline is extremely • shallow requiring an unusually Iong dock to reach navigable water depth. Use of the harbor for boat docking rather than construction of a long dock on the ' shallows lakeward from other riparian access of the � applicant mitiga tes intrus ion of•vis ibl e man-ma de • improvements on the lake and avoids a navigational impairu�ent on the main lake. - - 6. The existing harbor and channel constitute a pre- - - � existing non-conforming use and the request for � inaintenance dredging therefore constitutes maintenance of a non-conforming use rather than its enlargement or replacement and therefore complies with City ordinances governing non-conforming uses. c 7. The applicant proposes to accomplish the dredging by means o,f suction dredging with on-site disposal or • clam shell dredging with off-site disposal. A. Freshwater Biological Research Foundation report ' on dredging in Lafayette Bay, Lake. Min.netonka, dated October 30, 1978, states that "clearly, suction dr�dging for channel maintenance is much less deleterious • to the body o.f water than traditional dredging practice's".