Laserfiche WebLink
Reso to ion No. 1028 <br />Page I <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 />4. 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 chara..:ter 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 apprcwcd 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 />6. The existing harbor and channel constitute a pre- <br />existing non -conforming use and the request for <br />maintenance dredging therefore constitutes maintenan— <br />of a non -conforming use rather than its enlargement or <br />replacement and therefore complies with City ordinac.ces <br />governing non -conforming uses. <br />7. The ap ant proposes to accomplish the dredging <br />by means of I suction dredging method. <br />A. Freshwater Biological Research Foundation report <br />on dredging in Lafayette Bay, Lake Minnetonka, dated <br />October 30, 1978, states that "clearly, suction <br />dredging for channel maintenance is much less deleterious <br />to the body of water than traditional dredging practices" <br />