Project Background, Context & Issues Project Objectives City s perspective Resident s perspective Design details

Transcription

1 Chris Denich, MSc.

2 Project Background, Context & Issues Project Objectives City s perspective Resident s perspective Design details

3 Project site is located in the Lakeview Neighbourhood within the City of Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. The Lakeview Neighborhood: Older area within the fastest growing City in Ontario Smaller residential homes on large lots Close to major highways, downtown, transit and Toronto Experiencing redevelopment pressures as older homes are demolished and new larger homes are built in their place The existing drainage systems: Built before current Provincial SWM standards were developed Older ditched system with some traditional curb and gutter systems Stormwater flows are conveyed to outlets along Lake Ontario No water quantity or quality controls Project Vision: Lakeview presents an opportunity to work with the community to develop an exciting new approach to treating stormwater by introducing boulevard LID features into municipal ROWs to improve environmental performance while redefining the steetscape aesthetic and developing a template for future such projects.

4 First St. Third St. 560m 120m

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Third St.

12 Current 6.0m (avg.) widths creates issues for access during winter events due to snow windrows when retrofitted with curbs

13 7.2m widths provides access but is less than current City Standard (8.0m) Selected to reduce impervious cover and allow for additional area for bioswales

14

15 Project Objectives Municipality From the Municipal Perspective To implement environmentally responsible LID practices To improve water conveyance and eliminate standing water, To improve the overall aesthetic of the ROW with attractive plantings where feasible, To minimize the ditch profile for improved maintenance To pilot new LID designs and develop a template for other street redevelopment projects

16 Project Objectives Residents Determined through successive Public Information Centers (PIC), questionnaires and community events

17 Public Involvement Process The Plan Summer 2009 PIC #1 - Pre project initiation to determine level of resident support and design direction Summer 2010 PIC #2 - Presentation of conceptual designs resulting from results of PIC #1, detailed questionnaire, selection of preferred plant material and identification of project champion Spring, 2011 PIC #3 - Public meeting at the home of project champion for the presentation / finalization of planting plans Fall 2011 Construction Kick-off - set construction expectations, address final concerns and discuss maintenance responsibilities

18 Project Objectives Residents PIC #1 June, 2009 Public Responses to Presented Alternatives Alternative Rating Alternatives Support for Environ. Project Grassed Swale Vegetated Swale Ditch Improvements

19 Project Objectives Residents PIC #2 July, 2010

20 Project Objectives Residents PIC #2 July, ) Parking 2) Water Quality 3) Environmental Benefits 4) Prevent Flooding 5) Integration with the Environment 6) Improved Conveyance 7) Integration with Existing Infrastructure 8) Aesthetics

21 Project Objectives Residents PIC #2 July, 2010 No Sidewalks Cost not important Same Driveway width after construction 50% now wanted vegetated swales(grass swales preferred - from PIC #1) Willing to do maintenance (2-4 hrs/month)

22 Public Involvement Process The Reality June 2009 PIC #1 - Pre project initiation to determine level of resident support and design direction Good attendance, positive feedback and direction Adapt Adapt Adapt July 2010 July-Aug, 2010 June 2011?????? PIC #2 - Presentation of conceptual designs resulting from results of PIC #1, detailed questionnaire, selection of preferred plant material and identification of project champion Moderate attendance, positive feedback and direction (9/50, 15 Questionnaires returned) Follow-up questionnaire for residents that did not attend (hand delivered) - Response was lacking (1/50) Integration of project PIC with four (4) Community Meetings held by Local Municipal Councilor Present designs, explain function, listen to feedback Excellent community involvement, same 1 st and 3 rd street residents attended. Public Involvement disappeared - Lack of participation Encroachment issues have delayed construction

23 Using the community input, the design team tackled the technical design issues Project plans and public involvement plans required revising (thinking on your feet) In General Retrofit projects present unique problems The priorities change with each site and during the process itself You can ask for community involvement but you might not get it

24

25

26 Perforated Pipe System Bioswales for filtration and infiltration Perennials or Turf surface treatment selected by the residents

27

28 Chris Denich, M.Sc., Water Resource Engineering Aquafor Beech Ltd., Ontario, Canada