Loading...
20210130_Mside P2 Report_s PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA ii CONTENTS BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN ................................................................................................................................. 2 PHASE 1: SHARE INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................. 4 Survey ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 “Walk the Line” Activity in Weber Park ............................................................................................................... 5 Virtual Public Meeting ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Communication with Key Stakeholders ............................................................................................................... 6 PHASE 2: PRESENT INITIAL CONCEPTS .................................................................................................................... 7 Videos ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Virtual Public Meeting ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Communication with Key Stakeholders ............................................................................................................... 9 PHASE 3: PRESENT REFINED CONCEPTS .................................................................................................................. 9 “Halloween-Themed” Activity in Weber Park ...................................................................................................... 9 Virtual Public Meeting ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Communication with Key Stakeholders ............................................................................................................. 12 MAJOR THEMES ................................................................................................................................................... 12 APPENDIX A – MEETING NOTICES ......................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS ............................................................................................. 19 APPENDIX C – FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE SCENARIOS ............................................................................................. 28 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY PROJECT: MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT BACKGROUND The Morningside neighborhood has several low or landlocked areas that are prone to flooding, and many homeowners experience varying levels of flooding when there is a significant rainstorm. Flooding can occur due to water flowing over the land surface, through groundwater seepage, and as a result of sanitary backflow (Figure 1). Figure 1 – Causes of Flooding Source: Barr Engineering, Morningside Flood Infrastructure Technical Memo, September 2020 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 2 The Edina City Council recently adopted a Flood Risk Reduction Strategy identifying four areas of work: • Infrastructure • Regulation • Outreach and Engagement • Emergency Services Anticipated roadway reconstruction in the Morningside neighborhood in 2022 and 2023 presents an opportunity to explore infrastructure-based solutions to managing flood risk in the Morningside neighborhood. This is the first project to engage a neighborhood and plan flood infrastructure under the new strategy. The result of this work will be a recommendation to the City Council on infrastructure scenarios to address some of the flooding issues in the Morningside neighborhood in conjunction with the future roadway reconstruction projects. The City of Edina contracted with Barr Engineering to conduct technical studies, model water flow, and develop and evaluate multiple options for reducing flooding risk through infrastructure in the Morningside neighborhood. The technical report can be reviewed at www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/morningside. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN The City of Edina developed a public participation plan (Figure 2) for both informing Morningside residents and property owners about flood risk and engaging them in the development and evaluation of infrastructure options for reducing flood risk. The plan acknowledged that any decisions would be made by the Edina City Council and identified the following key stakeholders: • Morningside Neighborhood residents • Morningside Neighborhood Association • Park and Recreation Commission • Energy and Environment Commission • Planning Commission • Avail Academy (formerly Calvin Christian School) • Minnehaha Creek Watershed District • City of St. Louis Park • City of Minneapolis PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 3 Figure 2 - Public Participation Approach Objective The City will share flood risk information and the City’s Flood Risk Reduction Strategy. Staff will inform people of actions they can take to reduce their own flood risk. Staff will inform people of the project and process. The City will present initial concepts and receive feedback. The City will gauge community values and the tradeoffs people are willing to consider. The City will refine concepts based on feedback and present them for more feedback. Staff will describe how feedback was used. Staff will make a recommendation to Council. Council decides. Staff will communicate the decision to the public. Staff will archive the project and process online. Anticipated Outcomes People are risk aware. People have access to information about how to reduce their exposure and vulnerability to flooding. People know how and when to provide feedback. People have access to information. People have the ability to provide their feedback. People have access to information. People know how initial feedback was used. People have the ability to provide their feedback. The recommended concept-level design is influenced by community values. People know what decision was made. People can view the information, process, and decision on the BetterTogetherEdina webpage. Timeline Summer 2020 Fall 2020 Winter 2020 Spring 2021 Spring 2021 Source: City of Edina, Public Participation Plan, Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project, approved April 21,2020 Close the loop Make a decision Present Refined Concepts Present Initial Concepts Share Information PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 4 The public participation plan included five key steps that are concurrent with steps in the technical analysis and design phases of the project. These steps and the public participation objectives of each phase are shown in Figure 2. The purpose of this report is to document the public participation activities and the resulting input for Phases 1-3. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the strategies used to engage people in the Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project during 2020 were modified to use primarily online tools (www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/morningside) and virtual meetings. In-field activities that were designed for social distancing were also used along with email, social media, and direct mail correspondence. Public Participation in Phase 1-3 activities is summarized in Figure 3. Figure 3 - Public Participation in Phases 1-3 Note: Data is from project start through January 18, 2021 PHASE 1: SHARE INFORMATION The purpose of Phase 1 public participation was to build an understanding of the complexities and history of flooding and flood risk in the Morningside neighborhood, as well as to gain an understanding of people’s concerns and to answer questions about flooding, flood risk and the process being used for the Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project. A web page – www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/morningside - was established to provide ongoing information about the project, provide access to project documentation, and provide an ongoing means for people to share their opinions through an ideas board, an interactive map, and a survey. In addition, a virtual meeting was held on June 3, 5-6:30 p.m., and a socially distanced “walk the line” event was held in Weber Park. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 5 SURVEY An online survey was conducted on www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/morningside to gain a better understanding of people’s experiences with flooding and things they had done to reduce flooding on their properties. While only eight people responded to the survey, almost all of those people had experienced flooding in the Morningside neighborhood. • Yard flooding was the most common type of flooding, followed by street and basement flooding. • A quarter of respondents experience flooding more than once a year and a quarter experience flooding every year or every few years. • Almost half of the respondents said they have a plan for flooding, but they would not feel prepared. • The most common strategies that people installed on their properties to help with flooding were gutters and downspouts, landscaping, regrading, and sump pumps. “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY IN WEBER PARK An outdoor activity that people could do independently was set up in Weber Park for approximately three weeks in late June 2020. The purpose of this activity was to provide information about the causes of flooding, the types of flooding, the Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project, and what people can do on their own properties to reduce flooding. QR codes were provided so that people could provide real time comments or take the survey by linking directly to www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/morningside. The displays were spaced apart so that people could be socially distanced while viewing the displays and participating in the activities (Figure 4). This event was announced through social media and the project website. The field experience was also replicated in an online interactive story map. Details of the exercise are provided in Appendix B. Figure 4 - "Walk the Line" Field Activity PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 6 VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING A live virtual public meeting was held on June 3, 2020, 5-6:30 p.m. via WebEx/YouTube. The purpose of this meeting was to provide information to people about flooding in the Morningside neighborhood (causes, types, history, frequency, etc.) and to provide an opportunity for people to ask questions and provide comments about the Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project. Notices about the meeting were sent to almost 700 addresses in the Morningside neighborhood (see Appendix A), and the meeting was also publicized through social media and the Better Together Edina website. Key stakeholders were notified of the meeting and asked to share information about the meeting with their constituents. During the meeting, people were also directed to the project webpage if they wished to provide additional comments and were given the opportunity to meet individually with staff about concerns that they had about a particular property. Questions and comments received during the virtual public meeting are summarized here. The presentation can be viewed on the project webpage. • Concerns were expressed about the amount of recent redevelopment in the neighborhood and an associated increase in impervious surfaces and runoff. Staff commented that impervious cover is more of a historical driver of flood risk in the neighborhood and climate change and aging infrastructure are the biggest current drivers. Properly managing drainage with impervious cover is most valuable for smaller, more frequent storms. For larger storms, increases in impervious cover were less important. During heavy rain events, pervious areas such as lawns become saturated with water and then experience runoff that is similar to impervious areas. • There were questions about flooding experiences on specific properties. Staff talked one-on-one with these individuals following the meeting. • Information was provided about planned street construction projects in the neighborhood. • A question was asked about whether properties or yards would be acquired to provide the necessary flooding infrastructure. Staff responded that the city does not expect to acquire property or easements for flood infrastructure. The work will focus on existing streets, rights-of-way, easements, and parks. • One person commented that temporary flooding of streets and parks would be acceptable if it did not increase flooding risk for permanent structures. • Several clarifying questions were asked and responded to regarding climate change, frequency of flooding, terminology, and flood protection actions that homeowners can take. COMMUNICATION WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS In addition to the activities described above, city staff met with individuals upon request. City staff met with both Susan Lindgren School and Avail Academy to review the flood risks for each property and gauge the willingness of each to be included in the planning for flood PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 7 risk reduction scenarios. Both schools are amenable to planning and interested in the project benefits of each scenario. City staff maintains frequent contact with the Morningside Neighborhood Association, in particular about upcoming events. The Association has been helpful in getting the word out about these events and places to get information about flooding and the project. The City also provided flood data that could be downloaded and viewed using Google Earth prior to the second live virtual public meeting. https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside/news_feed/view-flood-data-on-google- earth During Phase 1, Barr Engineering and the City met with a panel of experts for an Estimate- Talk-Estimate (ETE) or mini “Delphi” meeting to vet developed scenarios and to propose new or refined concepts for the community to consider. This group included representatives from the cities of Minneapolis and St. Louis Park and from four local engineering consulting companies. The first meeting of this group was held on July 29, 2020. The discussions at this meeting resulted in technical refinements of flood reduction scenarios that were subsequently presented to a City Council workshop held on September 1, 2020, and at the virtual public meeting held on September 3, 2020. PHASE 2: PRESENT INITIAL CONCEPTS During Phase 2, efforts continued to build understanding of flooding in the Morningside neighborhood. In addition, several scenarios for managing flood risk were evaluated. Flood infrastructure elements were presented at a virtual public meeting on September 3, 2020, 5-6:30 p.m. VIDEOS Two videos were produced, published on YouTube, and linked on the project website. These videos included: • A video that explains how and why flooding occurs including the types of flooding, flooding frequency, terminology and contributing factors. • A series of videos from the stormwater model showing neighborhood flooding for varying design storms. VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING A live virtual public meeting was held on September 3, 2020, 5-6:30 p.m. via WebEx/YouTube. The purpose of this meeting was to provide information to people about the various flood infrastructure elements that were being considered to reduce flood risk in the Morningside neighborhood and to provide an opportunity for people to ask questions and provide comments. Notices about the meeting were sent to almost 700 addresses in the Morningside neighborhood (see Appendix A), and the meeting was also publicized PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 8 through social media and the project website. Key stakeholders were notified of the meeting and asked to share information about the meeting with their constituents. People were directed to the project webpage to provide additional comments/questions and were given the opportunity to meet individually with staff about concerns they had about a particular property. Questions and comments received during the virtual public meeting are summarized below. The presentation can be viewed at www.BetterTogetherEdina.com/morningside. • There were questions about flooding experiences on specific properties. Staff talked one-on-one with these individuals following the meeting. • Where does the Weber pond outflow to and can the capacity of that area be increased? Weber Pond has one outlet pipe that runs north, then east through Minneapolis to Bde Maka Ska. Although a bigger pipe is technically feasible, the cost as well as the transfer of risk to the City of Minneapolis, which has its own flooding problems, makes it unworkable. • 41st Street right-of-way does not continue between Kipling and Grimes – that was turned into private property some time ago. That is correct. • Does the City of Edina own the Susan Lindgren land area west of Monterey? This property is owned by the St. Louis Park School District. • Should the City prohibit new construction on lots that are high risk (red on map)? This is a regulatory issue that is not part of the infrastructure project. When properties redevelop, there is an opportunity to reduce vulnerability to flooding. • Will residents be able to discharge sump lines into the sewer system in all options? Sump pump drains should be connected to the stormwater system – it is illegal to connect them to the sanitary sewer system. There is a factsheet available about this topic at www.EdinaMN.gov/flooding. • Some of the options look very expensive. Will these expenses be borne by residents through assessments for street reconstruction or is this a budget item for the city? The sanitary sewer, municipal water, and stormwater utilities all have designated funds from quarterly utility bills. The special assessment is for the roadway reconstruction. Because the flood infrastructure will be paid from the stormwater utility fund, the City does not foresee the project impacting special assessments. • Are there ways to add fill to a property to reduce flooding without negatively impacting the flood areas? This depends on the property. Every grading permit (over 10 cubic yards) is reviewed for stormwater flow paths and flooding potential. • How does the city interact with builders to be more water removal conscious by providing down spouts directed to rain gardens or deep into the groundwater? The City interacts with builders through the plan review and permitting process. • How does the current economic situation affect the road reconstruction timeline? The street reconstruction project is continuing as planned. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 9 COMMUNICATION WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS During Phase 2, city staff continued to meet with individuals upon request. City staff continued to have discussions with both Susan Lindgren School and Avail Academy as well as adjoining cities to review the flood risk infrastructure scenarios. City staff kept the Morningside Neighborhood Association informed about upcoming events. The Association has been helpful in getting the word out about the project. During Phase 2, Barr Engineering and the City met again with the ETE panel of experts for an Estimate-Talk-Estimate (ETE) – only the representatives from the cities of Minneapolis and St. Louis Park were able to attend – on November 9, 2020. The purpose of this second meeting was to update the group on refinements to scenarios and seek comments on the refined concepts and concept-level cost estimates. This review led to additional refinements in the flood reduction scenarios, which were shared with the public during a live virtual public meeting held on December 9, 2020. PHASE 3: PRESENT REFINED CONCEPTS Following the completion of Phase 2, attention was turned to refining the various concepts into several flood risk management scenarios. These scenarios were documented in several one-pagers (see Appendix C) that were posted on the project website. A Halloween-themed field activity (with social distancing) was held in Weber Park on October 31st, and a live virtual public meeting was held on December 9, 2020, 5-6:30 p.m. “HALLOWEEN-THEMED” ACTIVITY IN WEBER PARK An outdoor activity that people could do physically distanced was set up in Weber Park on October 31, 2020. This included several display boards of the one-pager materials (see Appendix C) as well as tables with individual bags of candy, copies of the one-pagers, and contact information. Staff was available (with masks and social distancing) from 1-3 p.m. to explain the scenarios and answer questions. The purpose of this activity was to provide information about the scenarios that were tested and collect feedback. QR codes were provided so that people could make real time comments or leave comments online by linking directly to the project webpage. The displays were spaced apart so that people could be socially distanced while viewing the displays and participating in the activities (Figure 5). The displays remained available for public viewing in the park for approximately three weeks. This event was announced through social media and the www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/morningside website. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 10 Figure 5 - Halloween-Themed Field Activity PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 11 VIRTUAL PUBLIC MEETING A third live virtual public meeting was held on December 9, 2020, 5-6:30 p.m. via WebEx/YouTube. Following the live virtual meeting in September, scenarios were tested and modified based on public feedback. The purpose of the meeting was to share the refined concept, describe how feedback was used, and provide an opportunity for people to ask questions and provide comments. Notices about the meeting were sent to almost 700 addresses in the Morningside neighborhood (see Appendix A), and the meeting was also publicized through social media and the project website. Key stakeholders were notified of the meeting and asked to share information about the meeting with their constituents. People were directed to project website to provide additional comments and were given the opportunity to meet individually with staff about concerns that they had about a particular property. Questions and comments received during the virtual public meeting are summarized here. The presentation can be viewed at www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/morningside. • Some participants indicated they like the idea of expanding Weber Pond and improving Weber Park and the trails. • Some people expressed a desire to protect wildlife and trees and had questions about the potential impacts of the proposed scenario. • Concerns were expressed that reducing flood risk on some properties would not increase flood risk on other properties. Staff responded that a key design goal of scenario development was to make sure that no homes would have increased risk. They were able to meet that design goal for each of the three levels of effort. • It was suggested that adding street inlets would better utilize existing pipe flow capacity and reduce water and ice build-up from sump pumps. Staff responded that additional outlets to optimize use of pipe capacity were included in the recommended scenario. • A question was raised about whether excavation would occur on private property. Staff responded that all excavation would occur on public lands. • There were some questions about why Crocker was selected as the preferred alignment. Staff responded that Crocker is preferred because 1) there is an existing pipe on Crocker that would need to repaired and there are some cost savings if an existing pipe can be upsized, 2) there would be better opportunity to provide more flood benefit in the future if more space were created downstream, and 3) because of the grade of the streets less earth would have to be dug through if Crocker were used. • A question was asked about landscape and property restoration. Staff responded that landscape and property restoration costs would be included in the project. • Concerns were raised about the cost of the scenario and how infrastructure improvements would be funded. Staff responded that cost/funding is related to the desired level of service. This project has helped the city to understand what is achievable, what the cost would be, and what the community would support. The level PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 12 of effort in this neighborhood and citywide has not yet been determined. Community feedback during this process and the Council’s decision in 2021 will guide the service level and associated funding. • There were several questions about specific properties. Staff offered to have individual conversations about specific properties. COMMUNICATION WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS During Phase 3, city staff continued to meet with individuals upon request, and continued to have discussions as needed with key stakeholders. Many of these conversations were captured on the project website. City staff continued to update the Morningside Neighborhood Association about upcoming events. The Association has been helpful in getting the word out about these events and about where to get information about the project. The following meetings have been or will be held prior to presentation of the Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project to City Council: • Morningside Neighborhood Association Steering Committee Check-In – January 4 • Energy and Environment Commission - January 14 • Planning Commission – January 27 • Park and Recreation Commission – February 9 (tentative) • Minnehaha Creek Watershed District – February 16 (tentative) MAJOR THEMES The following are major themes heard from residents during Phases 1-3: • People seem to highly value open spaces and the wildlife they support. They seemed supportive of protecting and enhancing natural areas. Some people expressed support for expanding/deepening Weber Pond, improving/modifying Weber Park, and expanding the trail system. • People are concerned about the amount of recent redevelopment in the neighborhood and the permitting process and requirements for building in areas with flood risk. • People are interested in understanding the causes, frequency and other aspects of flooding and flood risks and are open to doing what they can as property owners to reduce their own flood risk. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 13 • People seem to understand the potential impacts of climate change and expressed an appreciation that this was considered in developing the flood infrastructure scenarios. • People expressed concerns about the acquisition of properties or yards and excavation on private property. There was also interest in property restoration being included as part of project cost. • People do not support infrastructure options that increase risk for downstream properties. • People are concerned about the cost of flood infrastructure and the funding for infrastructure construction. • People seemed supportive of moving an infrastructure project forward. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 14 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 15 APPENDIX A – MEETING NOTICES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 16 APPENDIX A – MEETING NOTICES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 17 APPENDIX A – MEETING NOTICES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 18 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 19 APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 20 APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 21 APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 22 APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 23 APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 24 APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 25 APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 26 APPENDIX B – “WALK THE LINE” ACTIVITY DISPLAYS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 27 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY I MORNINGSIDE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT I CITY OF EDINA 28 APPENDIX C – FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE SCENARIOS Morningside Flood Infrastructure ProjectCHANGE IN HOMES EFFECTED (Each symbol equals 10 homes):ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION FOR DAMAGES NEIGHBORHOOD-WIDE Scenario: Pipe Sizes and FloodwallsFrance Ave SW 44th St Grimes Ave W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dal e A v e SBranson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SW 40th La Eaton Pl Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SW 45th St Oakdale Ave Curve A v e Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Townes R d Littel St Monterey Ave SGlendale Ter Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale A v e France Ave SFrance Ave SFrance Ave SW 44th St W 44th St W 44th St Grimes Ave Grimes Ave Grimes Ave W 42nd St W 42nd St W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SMorningside Rd Morningside Rd Morningside Rd W 40th St W 40th St W 40th St Alden Dr Alden Dr Alden Dr Scott Ter Scott Ter Scott Ter Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dal e A v e S Wood Dal e A v e S Wood Dal e A v e SBranson St Branson St Branson St Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SLynn Ave SLynn Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Inglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SW 40th La W 40th La W 40th La Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Dart Ave Dart Ave Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Curve A v e Curve A v e Curve A v e Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 46th St W 46th St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Townes R d Townes R d Townes R d Littel St Littel St Littel St Monterey Ave SMonterey Ave SMonterey Ave SGlendale Ter Glendale Ter Glendale Ter Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave W 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 40th St W 40th St W 40th St W 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale A v e Oakdale A v e Oakdale A v e Imagery: Hennepin County 2018WeberParkWeberParkMinikahdaVistaParkMinikahdaVistaParkFloodwallIncreased Pipe Size and/or New Storm SewerExisting Park Existing Storm Sewer PipeParcelsLEGENDWith this scenario, the size of the main trunk sewer along West 42nd Street and Crocker Avenue would be increased up to 60 inches. The sizes of some of the lateral storm sewer (e.g., along Grimes Avenue) would also be increased (24 to 48 inches). More stormwater inlets (e.g., catch basins) would be added at intersections and a floodwall would be constructed on the east and south sides of Weber Pond to protect adjacent residential properties. The height of the floodwall would range from 1.5 feet to 7 feet, based on existing ground elevation. The advantage of this scenario is that pipe sizes could be increased during planned street reconstruction in 2022 and 2023 (see www.edinamn.gov/360/Design-and-Construction-Projects for more details) which covers this proposed project area with the exception of West 42nd Street east of Grimes Avenue, previously reconstructed in 2014. Increasing the pipe sizes upstream would help reduce flood risk for some upper portions of the drainage area, but increase risk for some areas farther downstream (transfer of risk). Thus, mitigation (e.g., floodwalls) would be required to help offset some of the flood risk. Floodwalls are expensive, per property protected, and may not be able to defend homes from the groundwater risk that could be associated with high water.Change in risk of damage to homes is based on predictive modeling parameters; however, no home is ever removed from all flood risk.The method for quantifying flood risk considers (1) the probability and magnitude of flood events, (2) the probability of damage, (3) the amount of damage expected if no changes are made, and (4) the damage expected with each scenario. Included in this assessment are damages to homes from surface flooding, indirect flooding (from groundwater), and sanitary sewer backups. (Reduced risk in 118 homes)(16 homes removed from risk)(Increased risk in 16 homes)32%The height of the floodwall at any given location is determined by the ground elevation. Under normal water level conditions, water will not reach the floodwall. Water levels shown are for illustration purposes only and reflect temporary conditions – the depth and duration of high water will depend on the size of the storm. WHAT IT IS:THE DISTANCE FROM THE GROUND TO THE TOP OF THE FLOODWALL WOULD VARY BASED ON LOCATIONWHAT IT DOES:WHAT WE LEARNED:Provide your feedback for these scenarios at: www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsideColColCCCCCCCoCoCoCoColCoCoCollllWavelaWaWaWaWaWaWaWWWWWWWWavelaWWaWaWaWaaavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavWavvvvvvvveveveveveveveeelelandelandelelelelelelelaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalanndananananananandd TedTdddddddddddddddddddddTer Ter TeTeTeTeTeTeTeeTeTeTTTTTTTererererererererererererererWavWavWavWavaveaveaveavevelavelvelvelelaelaelaelaelanlanlanlanandandandandnd Tnd Tnd Tnd TdTedTedTedTeTerTerTerTerererererColColCoCCCColColColColllllColColCoCCCColCoCoColllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiddorningside RdMMMorningside RMorningside RMorningside RMorningside RMorningside RMorningside RMorningside RMMMMMMMRRRRRRRMMMMoooorrrrnnnniiiinnnnggggssssiiiiddddeeeeRRRRdddd tawa Aveawa Avawa Avawa Avawa Avawa Avawa AvOttOttOttOttOttOttOttOttawa AveOttawa AveOttawa AveOttawa AveOttawa AveOttawa AveOttawa AveOtOOOOtttttttttttttaaaawwwwaaaaAvAvAvAvAvAvAvAve eeeLynn Ave Lynn AveynnLLLAAnALyAAAveLLLLLLLyyyyyyynnnnnnnLyLyLyLyLyLyLyLynnnnnnnnnnnAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnAvAvAvAvAveAvAvAve eeedddddddningningningningningningningeorningside RdMMrningside Rdrningside Rdrningside Rdrningside Rdrningside Rdrningside Rdrningside RdMMMMoooorrrrnnnniiiinnnnggggssssiiiiddddeeeeRRRRddddSSSSSSorningside RdMMRMMMMoooorrrrnnnniiiinnnnggggssssiiiiddddeeeeRRRRddddSSSSSSEstimated cost of floodwall:$850,000Estimated cost of pipes:$4.1 Million!;N0 175 350FeetDo you know your home’s flood risk? If not, check it out on the City’s interactive map: www.edinamn.gov/floodingWe want to hear from you! Morningside Flood Infrastructure ProjectCHANGE IN HOMES EFFECTED (Each symbol equals 10 homes):ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION FOR DAMAGES NEIGHBORHOOD-WIDE (8 homes removed from risk)France Ave SW 44th St Grimes Ave W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dale A v e SBranson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SW 40th La Eaton Pl Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SW 45th St Oakdale Ave Curve A v e Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Town es R d Monterey Ave SGlendale Ter Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale A v e France Ave SFrance Ave SFrance Ave SW 44th St W 44th St W 44th St Grimes Ave Grimes Ave Grimes Ave W 42nd St W 42nd St W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SMorningside Rd Morningside Rd Morningside Rd W 40th St W 40th St W 40th St Alden Dr Alden Dr Alden Dr Scott Ter Scott Ter Scott Ter Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dale A v e S Wood Dale A v e S Wood Dale A v e SBranson St Branson St Branson St Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SLynn Ave SLynn Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Inglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SW 40th La W 40th La W 40th La Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Dart Ave Dart Ave Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Curve A v e Curve A v e Curve A v e Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 46th St W 46th St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Town es R d Town es R d Town es R d Monterey Ave SMonterey Ave SMonterey Ave SGlendale Ter Glendale Ter Glendale Ter Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave W 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 40th St W 40th St W 40th St W 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale A v e Oakdale A v e Oakdale A v e Littel St Imagery: Hennepin County 2018WeberParkWeberParkMinikahdaVistaParkMinikahdaVistaParkFloodwallLEGENDExcavationCulvertExisting Park Existing StormSewer PipeParcelsThis rendering is an estimated representation of the study scenario, not a final design concept. WHAT IT IS:Scenario: Flood StorageThis scenario would create additional flood storage by excavating (i.e., lowering) areas on several public properties and some private backyards (as allowed by homeowners). It would also include installation of a storm sewer pipe to connect Weber Pond to newly created stormwater storage and construction of a floodwall on the east and south sides of Weber Pond to protect adjacent residential properties.(Reduced risk in 105 homes)(Increased risk in 5 homes)33%WHAT IT DOES:WHAT IT DOES:Provide your feedback for these scenarios at: www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsideThis scenario would be most advantageous for small storms. The excavation shown does not provide enough storage volume to completely solve the flood problem, but would benefit homes closest to the excavation areas. The floodwall shown would reduce vulnerability of the homes adjacent to Weber Pond during larger storms. This scenario affects the use and appearance of the park, and further evaluation is needed to understand how often the park would flood and what tradeoffs would be acceptable for the active use areas.WHAT WE LEARNED:Do you know your home’s flood risk? If not, check it out on the City’s interactive map: www.edinamn.gov/floodingCONCEPTUAL BRIDGE TRAIL FOR THE PROPOSED EXCAVATED OPEN WATER IN WEBER WOODSThe method for quantifying flood risk considers (1) the probability and magnitude of flood events, (2) the probability of damage, (3) the amount of damage expected if no changes are made, and (4) the damage expected with each scenario. Included in this assessment are damages to homes from surface flooding, indirect flooding (from groundwater), and sanitary sewer backups. !;N0 175 350FeetCCCCCCWaveland TeWavelandWavelandWavelandWavelandWavelandWavelandWWWWWWWWaveland Taveland Taveland Taveland Taveland Taveland Taveland TWWaWaWaWaWavWavWavWavaveaveaveavevelavelvelvelelaelaelaelaelanlanlanlanandandandandnd Tnd Tnd Tnd TTer Ter TeTeTeTeTeTeTeeTeTeTTTTTTTererererererererererererererdTedTedTedTeTerTerTerTerererererCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOAveAveAveAveAveAveAveOakdale AdaledaledaledaledaledaleOakdale Avedale Avedale Avedale Avedale Avedale Avedale AvelOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOaOOOOOOaaaaaaaOOOOaaaakkkkddddaaaalllleeeeAvAvAvAvAvAvAvAveeeeW 42 1/2StW421/2StW421/2StW421/2StW421/2StW421/2StW421/2StW421/W421W421W421W421W421W421 /2 St2St2St2St2St2St2St/W W W W 44442 2221111/////2 222SSSSt tttOOOOOOOOOOOOtOttawa AOOttawa AOOOOOOOtttttttttttttttttOtOOOOttOtOtOttttttttttttttttttttttaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwawaaaaaaaaaaattttttttaaaawwwwaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAAAAALLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOAve Oakdale OOa daOOOOaaaakkkkddddaaaalllleeeeAvAvAvAvvvvveeeeAAAAAAAAAAAAAEstimated cost of floodwall:$850,000Estimated cost of excavation areas:$4.2 MillionChange in risk of damage to homes is based on predictive modeling parameters; however, no home is ever removed from all flood risk.We want to hear from you! Morningside Flood Infrastructure ProjectCHANGE IN HOMES EFFECTED (Each symbol equals 10 homes):ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION FOR DAMAGES NEIGHBORHOOD-WIDE (9 homes removed from risk) *This scenario assumes that homes along Lynn and Kipling would be redeveloped at a higher elevation.Change in risk of damage to homes is based on predictive modeling parameters; however, no home is ever removed from all flood risk.France Ave SW 44th St Grimes Ave W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dal e A v e SBranson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SW 40th La Eaton Pl Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SW 45th St Oakdale Ave Curve A v e Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Town e s R d Little St Monterey Ave SGlendale Ter Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale A v e France Ave SFrance Ave SFrance Ave SW 44th St W 44th St W 44th St Grimes Ave Grimes Ave Grimes Ave W 42nd St W 42nd St W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SMorningside Rd Morningside Rd Morningside Rd W 40th St W 40th St W 40th St Alden Dr Alden Dr Alden Dr Scott Ter Scott Ter Scott Ter Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dal e A v e S Wood Dal e A v e S Wood Dal e A v e SBranson St Branson St Branson St Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SLynn Ave SLynn Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Inglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SW 40th La W 40th La W 40th La Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Dart Ave Dart Ave Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Curve A v e Curve A v e Curve A v e Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 46th St W 46th St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Town e s R d Town e s R d Town e s R d Little St Little St Little St Monterey Ave SMonterey Ave SMonterey Ave SGlendale Ter Glendale Ter Glendale Ter Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave W 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 40th St W 40th St W 40th St W 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale A v e Oakdale A v e Oakdale A v e Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018WeberParkWeberParkPond ExcavationExisting Park Existing Stormsewer PipeParcelsSubwatershedLEGENDPredictive PumpingFloodwallIncreased StormSewer Pipe SizeLand ExcavationRaise HomesExisting Park Existing StormSewer PipeParcelsLEGENDEmergency OverflowExcavationSwaleLower StreetsWHAT IT IS:Scenario: Graded OverflowsWith this scenario, both West 42nd Street and West 40th Street would be lowered up to approximately 2 feet and regraded to route stormwater more directly to Weber Park and Weber Pond. This would limit flow south along Monterey, Lynn, and Kipling Avenues. The ball fields in Weber Park would also be lowered to create additional stormwater storage; these fields would not be playable during a 5-year (or greater) storm. A 5-year storm is defined as 3.6 inches of precipitation over a 24-hour period and has a 20% chance of occurring in any given year. Unlike the pipes scenario, this one would not use the floodwalls to mitigate the risk transfer, so its overall benefit was reduced. This scenario assumes that homes along the west side of Lynn and east side of Kipling would rebuilt at higher elevation through the normal turnover and/or rebuild process, the timeline of which is determined by property owners.(Reduced risk in 54 homes)(Increased risk in 41 homes)10%WHAT IT DOES:Provide your feedback for these scenarios at: www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsideThe large number of connections and other utility conflicts add significant cost and complexity. By itself, this scenario conveys water downstream—which benefits upstream properties but transfers risk to homes downstream. In addition, the location of the graded overflow along West 42nd Street includes a portion of the street (east of Grimes Avenue) was reconstructed in 2014 and is not part of the street reconstruction planned for 2022/2023; therefore, the City would like to avoid additional reconstruction for that portion of 42nd Street. While the lowering and grading of streets does not appear to be a practical option, the overflow swale in the park does present a feasible opportunity for providing a flood-risk-reduction benefit, especially when combined with other flood-risk-reduction components shown in the other factsheets. WHAT WE LEARNED:Do you know your home’s flood risk? If not, check it out on the City’s interactive map: www.edinamn.gov/floodingThe method for quantifying flood risk considers (1) the probability and magnitude of flood events, (2) the probability of damage, (3) the amount of damage expected if no changes are made, and (4) the damage expected with each scenario. Included in this assessment are damages to homes from surface flooding, indirect flooding (from groundwater), and sanitary sewer backups. !;N0 175 350FeetThis rendering is an estimated representation of the study scenario, not a final design concept. CONCEPTUAL SWALE AND TRAIL NEAR BALLFIELDSSSSStTScottScott TSco TSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSooooooooottotttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttTTTTTTTTerTerer TeTeTeTeTeTeTeTeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrccccotoooottttttt tttTeTeTeTeTeTeTeTer rrrColgate AveAveColgate AvevvvvvvvveveveveveveveAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAeeeeeeeete Ate Ate Ate Ate Ate Ate AeteteteteteteteaaaaaaaatttttttggggggggagagagagagagaoCoCCCCCCCCCoCoCoCoColColColCololgolgolgolgolgalgalgalgagatgatgatgatateateateateteteteteAvAvAvAvAveAveAveAveveveveveWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWavelaWavelaWWWWWWWWWWaWaWaWaaavavavavavavavavavavavavavavavWavvvvvvvveveveveveveveeellandelandelelelelelelelaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalanndananananananandd TedTdddddddddddddddddddddWavWavWavWavaveaveaveavevelavelvelvelelaelaelaelaelanlanlanlanandandandandnd Tnd Tnd Tnd TTer Ter TeTeTeTeTeTeTeeTeTeTTTTTTTererererererererererererererdTedTedTedTeTerTerTerTererererereveveeeeeeevvvvveveveveevevevvvvvveveveve*Further project definition and public input are needed before developing a cost estimateWe want to hear from you! CHANGE IN HOMES EFFECTED (Each symbol equals 10 homes):ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION FOR DAMAGES NEIGHBORHOOD-WIDE Morningside Flood Infrastructure ProjectFrance Ave SW 44th St Grimes Ave W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dale A v e SBranson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SW 40th La Eaton Pl Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SW 45th St Oakdale Ave Curve A v e Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Town es R d Monterey Ave SGlendale Ter Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale A v e France Ave SFrance Ave SFrance Ave SW 44th St W 44th St W 44th St Grimes Ave Grimes Ave Grimes Ave W 42nd St W 42nd St W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SMorningside Rd Morningside Rd Morningside Rd W 40th St W 40th St W 40th St Alden Dr Alden Dr Alden Dr Scott Ter Scott Ter Scott Ter Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dale A v e S Wood Dale A v e S Wood Dale A v e SBranson St Branson St Branson St Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SLynn Ave SLynn Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Inglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SW 40th La W 40th La W 40th La Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Dart Ave Dart Ave Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Curve A v e Curve A v e Curve A v e Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 46th St W 46th St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Town es R d Town es R d Town es R d Monterey Ave SMonterey Ave SMonterey Ave SGlendale Ter Glendale Ter Glendale Ter Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave W 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 40th St W 40th St W 40th St W 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale A v e Oakdale A v e Oakdale A v e Littel St Imagery: Hennepin County 2018WeberParkWeberParkMinikahdaVistaParkMinikahdaVistaParkPond ExcavationExisting Park Existing StormSewer PipeParcelsLEGENDPredictive PumpingThis rendering is an estimated representation of the study scenario, not a final design concept. WHAT IT IS:Scenario: Ponds and Predictive PumpingAdditional stormwater storage would be provided through excavation and regrading of the open park space area between Lynn Avenue and Kipling Avenue (north of West 42nd Street). Predictive pumping systems would be installed from that open park space area and Weber Pond to Minikahda Vista Park. Predictive pumping involves anticipating storms (through weather forecasting) and preemptively pumping water out of stormwater storage areas to create stormwater storage before the storm occurs. The accuracy of predicting localized storms is very uncertain.(Reduced risk in 93 homes)(Increased risk in 6 homes)16%WHAT IT DOES:Provide your feedback for these scenarios at: www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsideOne challenge with this scenario is that predicting localized storms to facilitate pumping is very difficult and may not be effective. Without additional excavation, benefits are small and primarily limited to the downstream portion of the drainage area. WHAT WE LEARNED:CONCEPTUAL VIEW OF STORMWATER STORAGE AREA BETWEEN LYNN AND KIPPLING AVENUES (Looking south on Lynn Avenue)The method for quantifying flood risk considers (1) the probability and magnitude of flood events, (2) the probability of damage, (3) the amount of damage expected if no changes are made, and (4) the damage expected with each scenario. Included in this assessment are damages to homes from surface flooding, indirect flooding (from groundwater), and sanitary sewer backups. !;N0 175 350Feetrrrrrrrererer eeeer rrrelellandelandaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalanndananananananandd TedTddddddddddddddddddddddelelelelelaelaelaelaelanlanlanlanandandandandnd Tnd Tnd Tnd TTer Ter TeTeTeTeTeTeTeeTeTeTTTTTTTerererererererdTedTedTedTeTerTerTerTerererererererererererereeeeeelelaelelelelelaelaelaelaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeleelalaelelelelelaelaelaelalaaaaEstimated total cost of this scenario:$3.4 MillionChange in risk of damage to homes is based on predictive modeling parameters; however, no home is ever removed from all flood risk.(0 homes removed from risk)Do you know your home’s flood risk? If not, check it out on the City’s interactive map: www.edinamn.gov/floodingWe want to hear from you! Morningside Flood Infrastructure Project(29 homes removed from risk)CHANGE IN HOMES EFFECTED (Each symbol equals 10 homes):ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION FOR DAMAGES NEIGHBORHOOD-WIDE France Ave SW 44th St Grimes Ave W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SMorningside Rd W 40th St Alden Dr Scott Ter Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dale A v e SBranson St Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St Inglewood Ave SW 40th La Eaton Pl Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SW 45th St Oakdale Ave Curve A v e Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Town es R d Monterey Ave SGlendale Ter Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave W 41st St Ottawa Ave SW 40th St W 45th St Oakdale A v e France Ave SFrance Ave SFrance Ave SW 44th St W 44th St W 44th St Grimes Ave Grimes Ave Grimes Ave W 42nd St W 42nd St W 42nd St Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Sunnyside Rd Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SMorningside Rd Morningside Rd Morningside Rd W 40th St W 40th St W 40th St Alden Dr Alden Dr Alden Dr Scott Ter Scott Ter Scott Ter Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Kipling Ave Wood Dale A v e S Wood Dale A v e S Wood Dale A v e SBranson St Branson St Branson St Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Crocker Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Monterey Ave Lynn Ave SLynn Ave SLynn Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SJoppa Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SKipling Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SNatchez Ave SW 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Inglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SInglewood Ave SW 40th La W 40th La W 40th La Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Eaton Pl Dart Ave Dart Ave Dart Ave Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Oakdale Ave Curve A v e Curve A v e Curve A v e Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave Inglewood Ave W 46th St W 46th St W 46th St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St W 42 1/2 St Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Meadow Rd Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Colgate Ave Town es R d Town es R d Town es R d Monterey Ave SMonterey Ave SMonterey Ave SGlendale Ter Glendale Ter Glendale Ter Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Natchez Ave Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Waveland Ter Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Sunnyside Ave Ewing Ave SEwing Ave SEwing Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SLynn Ave Lynn Ave Lynn Ave W 41st St W 41st St W 41st St Ottawa Ave SOttawa Ave SOttawa Ave SW 40th St W 40th St W 40th St W 45th St W 45th St W 45th St Oakdale A v e Oakdale A v e Oakdale A v e Littel St Imagery: Hennepin County, 2018WeberParkWeberParkMinikahdaVistaParkMinikahdaVistaParkPond ExcavationExisting Park Existing StormSewer PipeParcelsLEGENDPredictive PumpingFloodwallExcavationIncreased Pipe Size and/or New Storm SewerWHAT IT IS:Scenario: CombinationThis scenario combines four approaches: (1) increasing the pipe sizes of storm sewer pipes along West 42nd Street/Crocker Avenue and Grimes Avenue, (2) constructing a floodwall on the east and south sides of Weber Pond to protect adjacent residential properties, (3) installing predictive pumping systems, and (4) excavation to provide additional stormwater storage. Excavation would be in the open park space area between Lynne Avenue and Kipling Avenue and the open area between Susan Lindgren Elementary School and Monterey Avenue. (Reduced risk in 125 homes)(Increased risk in 9 homes)56%WHAT IT DOES:Provide your feedback for these scenarios at: www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsideCarefully choosing the best aspects of each of the previous scenarios maximizes benefits for all portions of the neighborhood, however, the total cost is high.WHAT WE LEARNED:The method for quantifying flood risk considers (1) the probability and magnitude of flood events, (2) the probability of damage, (3) the amount of damage expected if no changes are made, and (4) the damage expected with each scenario. Included in this assessment are damages to homes from surface flooding, indirect flooding (from groundwater), and sanitary sewer backups. CONCEPTUAL VIEW FROM RESIDENCE AFTER WEBER POND EXCAVATION AND FLOODWALL INSTALLATION!;N0 175 350FeetSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSStTScottScott TSco TSSSSSSSoooooooottotttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttTerTTTTTTTerer TeTeTeTeTeTeTeTeeerererererererSSSSccccotoooottttttt ttttttTeTeTeTeTeTeTeTer rrrColgate AveAve Colgate Ave eeeeeeeevvvvvvvveveveveveveveAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAeeeeeeeeteAteAteAteAteAteAteAteteteteteteteaaaaaaaatttttttggggggggagagagagagagaoCoCCCCCCCCCoCoCoCoColColColCololgolgolgolgolgalgalgalgagatgatgatgatateateateateteteteteAvAvAvAvAveAveAveAveveveveveWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWavelaWavelaWWWaWWWWWWavavavavavavavavWavavavavavavavvvvvvvvvelveveveveveveelandelandelelelelelelaaaaaaaaalanaaaaaanandanananananand TedTddddddddTdTdTdTdTdTdTWaWaWaWaWavWavWavWavaveaveaveavevelavelvelvelelaelaelaelaelanlanlanlanandandandandnd Tnd Tnd Tnd TTer Ter TeTeTeTeTeTeTeeTeTeTTTTTTTererererererererererererererdTedTedTedTeTerTerTerTerererererEstimated total cost of this scenario:$9 Million*See the other factsheets for costs related to each component This rendering is an estimated representation of the study scenario, not a final design concept. Change in risk of damage to homes is based on predictive modeling parameters; however, no home is ever removed from all flood risk.Do you know your home’s flood risk? If not, check it out on the City’s interactive map: www.edinamn.gov/floodingWe want to hear from you!