11-17-2025 - Agenda Packet Planning Commission - Full Packet

Home Browse Search

MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY OF WATER QUALITY OF LIFE Neither of these shoreline improvements are proposed solely as a shoreline stabilization measure. As a result, neither readily conforms to, or is evaluated according to, the rule's standards for stabilization design. These two design elements intend to serve a public purpose of expanding access for fishing and other recreational uses. It is important that the design be tailored to fulfill the desired public purpose while minimizing impact on natural shoreline and the riparian environment. Based on estimates derived from the current plan sheets, the County proposes to replace approximately 240 linear feet of existing riprap east of the boat launch, with approximately 190 linear feet of granite steps and approximately 50 linear feet of fishing piers, with the four fishing piers estimated to be 12 feet in length and 8 feet waterward. Since the purpose of this design is not to stabilize the bank against wave forces and shoreline erosion, the proposal is properly reviewed under Section 8 of the rule - Standards for Other Installations. While this section specifically references boat ramps and boating access structures, it also pertains to other structures, and the recreational access purpose of the steps makes it apt to consider the design under the same balancing framework as indicated for boating access more specifically. This is how MCWD has applied the rule to public access steps previously, including at Arden Park in Edina, which used select placement of limestone steps to provide access to Minnehaha Creek. Section 8 limits the width of shoreline access structures to 15 feet, and volume to 80 cubic yards below the OHW. The design also must avoid environmental impact, and safety or navigational hazard. Therefore, we would recommend that the County supports its application with the following types of information: 1. Background data and justification for the intended design a. E.g., data on the demand or projected demand for public fishing access at this location, possibly including fisheries data, as well as design standards or practices to support this level of demand. 2. Targeted locations for fishing access via steps a. E.g., review design alternatives more limited in width and amount of fill, for example interspersing hardened features with bioengineering, vegetated banks, and more naturalized shoreline designs to maximize natural setting while meeting public access and use needs. b. Documenting existing conditions for aquatic and riparian habitat within the project area. 3. Scaled cross sections and floodplain cut and fill calculations, to demonstrate no net fill. Similarly, as we reviewed during our meeting, there are several open questions regarding the vertical fishing piers. As you relayed during the meeting, these piers would consist of concrete box culverts tipped on their sides and would encroach into Lake Minnetonka more than the existing We collaborate with public and private partners to protect and im prove land and water for current and future generations. ....................................................................................................................................................................................... _...._ _..____..._ --_ _.. _ _ _ _. _ _..____ __._..__ .. _. _...__. _ _..____ _...--- ...................................................................................................................................................................................... . ...................................................................................................................................................................................... . 15320 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN 55345 • (952) 471-0590 • Fax: (952) 471-0682 • www.minnehahacreek.org 101