Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCentral Park North Campus Master Plan (2013)Central Park North Campus Master Plan Carmel, Indiana February 12, 2013 page 2 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 Table of Contents Acknowledgements Introduction 3 Planning & Programming 4 Site Analysis 6 Floodplain 8 Existing Building Assessment 9 Program Alternatives 10 Vision & Principles 12 Preferred Plan 13 Design Elements & Systems 24 Implementation & Phasing 29 Appendix 31 Site Aerial Carmel Clay Board of Parks & Recreation: James L. Engledow - President Wendy Franklin - Vice President Richard F. Taylor III - Treasurer Richard Leirer - Secretary Donna Cihak Hansen Joshua A. Kirsh Pamela S. Knowles Jenn Kristunas Linus Rude Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation: Mark Westermeier - Director Michael Klitzing - Assistant Director This publication was made possible by We also appreciate all of the residents of Carmel that participated in the Master Planning process by attending public meetings. CENTRAL PARK NORTH CAMPUS 116th St. 111th St.College Ave.Guilford Rd.Fairgreen Dr.Rosemeade Dr.Ralston Ave.Westfield Blvd. Central park: north Campus master plan | page 3February 12, 2013 Introduction Beginning in 2000 with the Strategic Master Plan, Carmel Clay Parks and Recreation (CCPR) identified Central Park as community priority and catalytic element of community-wide transformation. Central Park was designed in 2002 through a community-based master plan, and the initial phase of construction along with the completion of the Monon Greenway have stimulated and transformed the surrounding area, resulting in residential infill around the park and reconstruction of 116th Street into a multi-modal transit corridor. Phase 1 of Central Park consisted primarily of the extremely popular Monon Community Center facilities, adjacent outdoor water park and the site infrastructure to support these facilities. Miles of trails, prairies, wetlands and the Central Lagoon provided passive outdoor activities to support the Monon Center and serve as a true Central Park with a diverse offering of activities. In 2010, CCPR embarked on Phase 2 of the Central Park Master Plan, by commissioning a Master Plan Update. The Monon Center and water park had been operating successfully for over 5 years and there was a desire to begin activating new areas of the park site, as well as incorporating new program spaces into existing spaces (such as the West Commons as described Existing North Campus from 116th St. in the Master Plan Update). Construction on Phase 2 began in late 2011, and created miles of trails, picnic nodes and support parking in what is referred to as the East Woods Project. East Woods construction was complete at the time of this report and very well received by the community. This report and Master Plan focus on what is referred to as “North Campus” for Central Park. Since the original Master Plan of 2002 and the Master Plan Update of 2010, the North Campus has been lightly addressed and programmed in either of these reports. Currently, the North Campus houses CCPR Administrative facilities, CCPR Maintenance facilities as well as a meeting house that is being used in irregular intervals by various non-profit organizations. A feasibility study for a Dog Park within North Campus was developed by CCPR in 2011, under some contention from the community, resulting in a full Master Plan of the nearly 25 acres that is Central Park’s North Campus. In maintaining the tradition of community involvement in planning Central Park, a series of stakeholder meetings, Park board briefings and open public forums were held to provide input in developing the North Campus Master Plan as presented herein. page 4 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 Planning Process Stakeholder Interviews Public Meetings As with the previous Master Plans for Central Park, the planning process for North Campus was open and transparent involving stakeholders, CCPR Board briefings and public forums for comment on programming ideas and operations. In addition to public input, the plan and report is based on technical data and analysis of the site and further described within this report. Stakeholder interviews began in August 2012, involving groups such as Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of America, Dog Park Advocates, Parks Foundation, neighboring Home Owners Associations, Carmel Plan Commission, Carmel Police and CCPR Staff, among others, to determine how these groups currently utilize the site and identify any programming needs they would desire for future North Campus development. The comments received at these stakeholder interviews were summarized for the general public at open public forums, and additional thoughts and ideas generated from the public were noted. Through these brainstorming sessions, a matrix of programming ideas was generated (in terms of level of development impact to the site) and listed to the right. This list along with supporting images was then presented to the community to develop a preferred program for the North Campus. Development Programs Minimal • Wildlife Habitat • Community Gardens • Botanical Gardens • Orchard • Flexible Open Space • Hiking Trails • Multi-Use Hill • X-Country Ski & Snow Shoe • Fishing • Picnic • Star Gazing Moderate • Day Camps • Overnight Camping • Community Dog Park • Nature Center • Low Ropes Course • Archery • Bocce • Kickball • Council Ring • Neighborhood Playground • Shade/Shelters • Restroom Facilities Most • CCPR Facility Building • High Ropes Course • Regional Dog Park • Zip Lines • Tennis/Pickleball • Sand Volleyball • Banquet Rooms • Outdoor Amphitheater • Indoor Meeting/Rec Room • Teen Center • Mountain Biking & BMX Central park: north Campus master plan | page 5February 12, 2013 Programming Public Programming WorkshopPublic Programming Workshop Program ideas generated from stakeholder interviews and public input were presented at Public Programming Workshop to assist in refining the complete list of program ideas (previous page) into a comprehensive list of programs that should be included in North Campus. Graphic boards with the complete list along with supporting images were presented at the Public Workshop where community participants were directly engaged on what programs they liked, disliked and “must have” at North Campus. Through this workshop, a list of programs that are to be basic to the North Campus Master Plan were developed and listed on the right. In general, the community supported low impact or minimal development of the North Campus. The community also voiced a desire to protect and preserve the large track of woodlands found in North Campus, as it is seen as one of only a few remaining remnants of the original ecology of Carmel that has been preserved from development. Programs that had some support within the community but were not considered basic elements of North Campus are listed under the “Alternative Program” list. These programs were all brought forward into plan alternatives in different arrangements as detailed in the Alternatives section of this report. Base Programs • Creek Preserve & Restoration • Trails • Special Use Camping • Dog Park • Streetscape Enhancements • Flexible Open Space • Picnic • Gardens • Drop-off & ADA Parking • Shade/Shelters • Restroom Facilities Alternative Program • CCPR Administrative Facility • CCPR Maintenance Facility • Nature Center/Meeting House • Police Outpost (Motorcycle & K9) • Parking • 116th Intersection Improvements • Woodland Recreation • Neighborhood Playground • Tennis/Small Court Games page 6 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 Site Analysis suitability analysis Through the inventory and analysis phase, a series of system maps (next page) were generated to guide site development and define sensitive areas for preservation. Through these series of maps, a Suitability Analysis Map was created based on the assessment of the site’s physical conditions listed below. • Floodplain • Wetlands • Poor Soils • Mature & Riparian Vegetation • Steep Slopes • Legal Drain Easements Consistent with the 2002 Central Park Master Plan, each of these physical conditions were mapped into the Suitability Analysis and given a “rating” of one (minimal development restrictions) or two (significant development restrictions). These maps were overlaid and the ratings tallied, resulting in the map above. This map is intended to illustrate areas where development could occur with no or minimal mitigation and areas where development should be discouraged. For the purposes of this map, development is defined as structures with foundations. Low impact construction such as trails, dog parks and open spaces can be integrated throughout the site with minimal mitigation. 25.4 Acres Central park: north Campus master plan | page 7February 12, 2013 Site Analysis soils Site soils were evaluated for constructability and presence of hydric soils. Hydric soils were found in and around the creek bed (indicated in blue above), limiting the type of development that could occur in these areas. slopes Site slopes (exceeding 5%) were analyzed and mapped above (indicated in orange). While slopes over 5% can be developed, the cost and impacts of working within these slopes are higher and have factored into the suitability study on the previous page. CirCulation & Views Circulation patterns and adjacent properties were evaluated in order to define high quality viewsheds and areas adjacent to residential that may warrant buffering. Vegetation Historical information suggests that all North Campus was originally woodlands, however homesteading parcels were carved out along 116th Street creating the (3) north meadows indicated above in tan. The darker green color indicates a high quality remnant woodland while the lighter green shows the remaining woodland canopy of lesser quality. page 8 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 Floodplain BMBLBPBNBOBKBQ BR BJBD BS BE BF BD 116TH WESTFIELDRALSTONDONNYBROOK GLENMANOR FAIRGREENRANGELINEROSEMEADEWOODVALLEYMONONFARMSCREEKSIDE Central Park North Floodplain StudyPreliminary SteadyModeling Results October 22, 2012 Legend Carmel Creek Centerline FIS Cross Section Effective Regulatory Floodway Effective 1% Annual Chance Floodplain Revised 1% Annual Chance Floodplain 200 0 200100Feet FIGURE 1 BMBLBPBNBOBKBQ BR BJBD BS BIBE BF BD 116TH WESTFIELDRALSTONDONNYBROOK GLENMANOR FAIRGREENRANGELINEROSEMEADEWOODVALLEY CREEKSIDE Central Park North Floodplain StudyPreliminary UnsteadyModeling Results October 22, 2012 Legend Carmel Creek Centerline FIS Cross Section Effective Regulatory Floodway Effective 1% Annual Chance Floodplain Revised 1% Annual Chance Floodplain 200 0 200100Feet FIGURE 2 As part of the North Campus master plan, a preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic evaluation of the Carmel Creek Floodplain was performed and developed to determine if Base Flood Elevations can be altered, resulting in more developable land for North Campus as well as providing relief for neighbors within the current floodplain. Preliminary hydraulic modeling of Carmel Creek between 116th Street and Westfield Boulevard revealed the following two main findings: (1) Steady state modeling showed the potential to reduce the effective Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) by approximately 1 foot through the study area, and (2) Unsteady state modeling showed the potential to reduce the BFEs by approximately 4 feet through the study area. Table 1 provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with a detailed study either of these two types of models. With approximately 160 structures within the entire Carmel Creek floodplain and assuming the preliminary results are indicative of the results of a larger scale study of the stream, a significant number of homes could potentially be removed from the floodplain, if an unsteady model is used for the entire reach of Carmel Creek. Full report is in Appendix. Steady State 1D Unsteady State 1D Table 1: Summary of Model Considerations Model Type Advantages Disadvantages Steady State 1D • BFEs could be reduced by approximately 1’ • A steady state model is the IDNR standard, and would therefore be readily accepted for review. • No structures could be entirely removed from the effective floodplain by the 1’ reduction in BFEs Unsteady State 1D • BFEs could be reduced by approximately 4 feet. • Approximately 40% of the structures currently in the floodplain could be removed by the 4’ reduction in BFEs. • An unsteady state model is not the IDNR standard and would require close coordination with IDNR to gain acceptance. • Early discussions with IDNR indicate that using an unsteady state model would require all areas of floodplain west of Interurban Trail be designated as floodway. Central park: north Campus master plan | page 9February 12, 2013 Building Assessment Another aspect of the North Campus Master Plan included an assessment of current conditions, program needs and financial conditions of the Meeting House, Maintenance Facilities and Administrative Building to determine the desired future program and viability of adaptive re-use or space needs of potential new facilities. A preliminary investigation showed no historical significance of any buildings on North Campus. All buildings were assessed for short term and long term repairs and building replacement. Short term repairs recommendations include minor repairs for energy efficiency (windows, roofs, etc.) and hazardous material testing. Long term repairs to the facilities would involve bringing these facilities to ADA Accessibility Standards (ramps, restrooms, entrances, etc.). The Administrative and Maintenance facilities currently are being utilized by CCPR, although inefficiently, and may continue as long as their needs are served through these buildings. Short term repairs are recommended to help minimize operational costs as CCPR continues to use these facilities. Based on the existing condition and the esti- mated costs to bring the condition up to an appropriate standard for continued use, this report recommends CCPR should demolish the Meeting House and construct new. This new fa- cility can meet and expand on uses afforded by the existing meeting house in a safer, more effi- cient structure specifically designed for CCPR’s present and future programming needs. The full report can be found in the Appendix. Future space needs for each of these facilities (if constructed new) are listed below: • Meeting House 2,900 S.F. • Administrative Facility 3,500 S.F. • Maintenance Facility & Yard 21,000 S.F. Existing Site Facilities Meeting House Maintenance Facility Administrative CampusAdministration Meeting HouseMaintenance page 10 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 Program Alternatives homestead inspirationCarmel Creek inspiration Option A3 Option A2 Option A1 Option B1 Option B2 As the list of program elements was defined through the Public Workshop, the design team developed plan alternatives which incorporated these programs in a variety of arrangements and themes. Alternatives were inspired through (2) existing site features, Carmel Creek & parcels for the old homesteads on-site. Community input in general responded positively to the Carmel Creek Inspiration and were indifferent to the Homestead Inspiration series. Detail of Alternative plans can be found in the Appendix. Public input resulted in a hybrid layout of programming elements, shown as the Preferred Programming Plan on the following page. Central park: north Campus master plan | page 11February 12, 2013 Framework Plan Through community input received on the Alternatives, a Preferred Framework Plan was developed (above). The predominant feature of the plan above is the large 18+ acre Carmel Creek Preserve that will include trails, vegetation restoration and opportunities for Special Use Events (e.g. overnight camping). The plan is organized around a common Arrival Zone, flanked to the east and west with flexible Recreation Zones. A 3.5 acre Dog Park is located directly south of the Arrival Zone, utilizing the existing open meadows and woodland edge to create a dynamic Dog Park. Vehicular access to the site is proposed off 116th St., directly across from Fairgreen Dr., with the Arrival Zone providing a vehicular drop-off and minimal parking. A series of shelters and restrooms have been located around the Arrival Zone to support each of the different zones of the plan. The Preferred Site Plan is further detailed in the following pages of this report. Legend Preserve (18.4 AC) Dog Park (3.5 AC) Arrival (1.0 AC) Recreation (2.5 AC) page 12 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 Vision & Principles Throughout the planning and design process for North Campus, it was important that the North Campus be viewed as an extension of Central Park, and not a separate entity. To promote a cohesive park, the Vision Statement and Design Principles laid forth in the Central Park Master Plan of 2002 were considered. Vision statement Central Park will be an environmentally, financially and socially sustainable jewel of the Carmel-Clay park system, fully accessible to the broad spectrum of area residents and providing a broad range of innovative recreational and educational programs, events and features set in a stunning natural setting. design prinCiples • Make it Sustainable • Keep it Bold and Simple • Make it Accessible to the Spectrum • Fill the Calendar • Make it Playful • Keep it Balanced • Make it Maintainable • Keep it Flexible • Anchor the Monon • Complement the System 2002 Central Park Master Plan Central park: north Campus master plan | page 13February 12, 2013 Preferred Plan Following inventory and analysis, programming ideas and spatial organization of programs, a preferred site plan was created (above). The major elements of this plan include the items listed to the right. These areas are further detailed and described in the following pages of this report. Carmel Creek Preserve Central Bark Park The Escape Community Court Orchard Gateway KEY PLAN page 14 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 Carmel Creek Preserve The North Campus provides a diverse mix of woodland communities, open meadows and associated wildlife that is precious to the community. The woodlands specifically have been noted as a unique feature to the site not offered in other locations throughout Carmel. In addition to community support, the existing floodplain of Carmel Creek creates challenges in developing any structures in this area. Therefore, over 18.4 acres of the 25.4 total acres of North Campus were set aside as the Carmel Creek Preserve. KEY PLAN Although no permanent structures with foundation are proposed within the Carmel Creek Preserve, it includes elements such as: • Trails & Boardwalks • Picnic Spaces • Creek Access and Meandering • Vegetation Restoration CARMEL CREEK TRAILS Central park: north Campus master plan | page 15February 12, 2013 the oxbow The Oxbow is a proposed meander of Carmel Creek to provide a unique “island” experience for visitors as well as providing ecological, water quality and stormwater related benefits to the site and neighbors. These benefits would not be whole scale changes to the floodplain map, however will provide relief in smaller storm events. Picnic spaces, interpretative signage and creek access would be included to provide a gathering space on the creek. the outpost The Outpost is located north of Carmel Creek directly across from an existing trail node of the East Woods project. The Outpost would provide picnic spaces, interpretative signage, fishing opportunities, creek access and the potential for infrastructure to support Special Events (fire pits, council ring, etc.) CARMEL CREEK CARMEL CREEK MEADOWCREEK ACCESS CREEK ACCESS OXBOW BOARDWALK page 16 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 Orchard Gateway Due to constraints of the Carmel Creek floodplain, vehicular access to North Campus is restricted to a single access point off of 116th Street, directly south of Fairgreen Drive. The existing intersection is currently uncontrolled. Design of new site access will require coordination and communication with the City of Carmel Plan Commission to determine what impacts additional traffic to North Campus will create on 116th Street, and what improvements would be required at the intersection. Vehicular circulation within the site is limited to a one-way traffic circle with pods of parking on the east and west, with a drop-off to the south. These parking areas can double as bus drop-off and loading zones during peak times for day camps. Soils should be further investigated for use of permeable paving in lieu of impervious pavements, in order to reduce storm runoff. KEY PLAN Central park: north Campus master plan | page 17February 12, 2013 gateway rain garden All stormwater runoff from the impervious paving in this plan would be directed to the Gateway Rain Garden to serve as a functional, sustainable and aesthetically pleasing entrance feature and provide bioretention and filtering of runoff. The rain garden shall be sized appropriately to handle the stormwater demands of the arrival zone. The rain garden would be part of a broader site drainage system within the site that is filtered on its way towards Carmel Creek. solar shades Solar shades (similar to the image on the right) serve dual purposes of generating energy that can be used and stored on site as well as providing shade and shelter for cars or visitors below them. Solar shades should be sited to maximize their potential capture of solar rays. These would serve dual purposes of harvesting energy and providing shade for cars and visitors. orChard gateway As the visitor enters the site, they’re greeted with a large copse of flowering, fruit-bearing ornamental trees, known here as the Orchard Gateway. Species selection shall be evaluated by CCPR prior to any planting. Orchard can be viewed as part of a broader effort to incorporate edible gardens into the park, where appropriate. Fencing, stone columns and park signage are additionally included. Solar Shade Example: Image courtesy of Zam Energy Gateway Rain Garden Example. Image courtesy of City of Portland, OR Bureau of Environmental Services SIGNAGE ORCHARD page 18 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 Central Bark Park KEY PLAN SHELTERFENCED DOG PARK Central park: north Campus master plan | page 19February 12, 2013 Dog Parks have been a program need for CCPR since the inception of Central Park. The 2002 Master Plan identified a location in what is now known as the East Woods for a potential Dog Park. This location was deemed infeasible during the Master Plan Update of 2010, thereby creating the East Woods trails and picnic groves as constructed. The Central Bark Park would be one (1) of potentially three (3) dog parks within the CCPR system. As designed, the entire facility would be approximately 3.5 acres, with an initial 2 acre phase 1 project. Through the community input process, many concerns about the appropriate size and scale of a dog park were raised. Although there is no “standard” size, Carmel’s peer communities’ dog parks were inventoried to provide a basis of design, listed in the tables to the right. design elements Several considerations need to be made when designing and constructing the Dog Park. • Fencing: The Dog Park shall be surrounded with a fence to contain the dogs, and separate small dogs from larger ones. Fencing types are further described in the Design Elements Section of this report • Check-In: This area serves as a paved, transitional point where dogs may be unleashed prior to entering. Electronic pass cards can be used to regulate visitors and generate revenue. • Shelter: A simple shade shelter should be included within the dog park to provide a resting and gathering space for visitors. • Waste: Dog waste shall be disposed of on- site by dog owners. Secured composting systems should be further investigated for use on-site. • Water: A shared water feature has been proposed for the dogs, as a part of the larger stormwater treatment strategy. 2012 Money Magazine Top 10 Places to Live 1 Carmel, IN (80,000) • No Dog Parks 2 McKinney, TX (136,000) • Currently building (1) @ 2.5 acre 3 Eden Prairie, MN (61,000) • (6) Facilities • Avg. Size = 2.5 ac 4 Newton, MA (85,000) • (7) Facilities • Avg. Size = 1.2 ac 5 Redmond, WA (55,000) • (1) @ 40+ acre 6 Irvine, CA (213,000) • (1) @ 2.5 acre 7 Reston, VA (60,000) • (1) @ 0.5 acre 8 Columbia, MD (100,000) • (1) @ 2.7 acre 9 Overland Park, KS (175,000) • No Dog Parks 10 Chapel Hill, NC (60,000) • (2) Facilities • Avg. Size = 1.2 ac NRPA Gold Medal Winners (50K - 100K) 2011 Waukesha, WI • (1) @ 15+ acre 2010 Lee’s Summit, MO • (1) @ 4 acre 2009 Hoffman Estates, IL • (2) Facilities • Avg. Size = 3 ac 2008 Canton, MI • (1) @ 6 acre 2007 Bloomington, IN • (3) Facilities • Avg. Size = 2 ac 2006 Bend, OR • (7) Facilities • Avg. = 3.5 ac 2005 Wheaton, IL • No Dog Parks 2004 Schaumburg, IL • No Dog Parks 2003 Denton, TX • (1) @ 4 acre page 20 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 The Escape KEY PLAN WOODLAND RECREATION SHELTER TRAILNORTH MEADOW Central park: north Campus master plan | page 21February 12, 2013 East of the Arrival Zone is The Escape Zone. The North Meadow and Woodland Recreation provide a more active outdoor program than is currently offered within Central Park. north meadow The North Meadow is a mown and maintained lawn that can be utilized for a variety of programs, such as picnicking, informal sports, special events and staging area for large groups coming to North Campus. The Meadow should be a multi-purpose turf type grass, and developed to be relatively flat (1% minimum; 2% maximum slope) and well drained to prevent water accumulation and muddiness. woodland reCreation The Woodland Recreation zone includes a potential fitness course, low & high ropes course and ziplines on the east side of the proposed trail. These programs were identified in the Central Park Master Plan Update of 2010, but were not implemented in the East Woods project. These programs still received community support through the planning and programming process of North Campus. Operations and liability aspects of these Woodland Recreation elements will need to be further evaluated by CCPR as the design develops. Overnight camping through Special Use Permits have occurred within the North Campus prior to this master plan. This plan notes the camping would occur to the west of the ropes course, but could occur anywhere throughout the Carmel Creek Preserve, in non- sensitive vegetation areas or directly underneath the ropes course. The continuation of overnight camping policy will need to be further evaluated by CCPR as the North Campus is implemented. High Ropes Course Example. Image courtesy of Butler University Low Ropes Course Example. Image courtesy of Butler University Safety Measures Example. Image courtesy of Butler University page 22 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 Community Court KEY PLAN RESTROOMGARDENSPAVED COURTS SOLAR SHADE PARKING Central park: north Campus master plan | page 23February 12, 2013 The Community Court Zone of North Campus serves neighbors and passers-by of the site with a passive garden walk as well as a small paved area for court games or events. This zone is located on active CCPR facilities and operations, making it most likely the last phase of North Campus implemented. See Implementation Section of this report for further description. neighborhood gardens A desired program element from the community was the inclusion of some level of gardens. Within the Community Court, this report recommends a formal Native Plant Garden with berms to create a defined space for leisurely strolls though the garden. At the time of this report, there was very limited demand for working community gardens to harvest vegetables, flowers, etc., but should be revisited as the Community Court plan is implemented, as there was support within the 2010 Master Plan Update for edible gardens. paVed Courts Currently in North Campus, a lone tennis court exists to the south of CCPR’s Administrative Building and receives sporadic use from neighbors knowing of it’s existence. Although there was not an overwhelming need for paved courts within North Campus, the concept of a paved area that could serve at times as tennis courts, gathering space for day camps and other events was supported. The courts have been located on the footprint of the CCPR Administrative Building to minimize the disturbance of natural areas of North Campus. Existing Tennis Court on North Campus Neighborhood Garden Example Orchard Example page 24 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 struCtures Through the programming phase, different architectural styles were presented to the community for comments on aesthetics for North Campus. Buildings and structures of a more rustic nature and natural materials were favored over a sleeker more contemporary style. The recently completed East Woods project contains both picnic shelters and a restroom facility that convey the natural, rustic character the community suggested for the North Campus. As both projects are part of a larger Central Park, this report recommends similar styles and materials be utilized for North Campus, in order to provide continuity throughout Central Park. All structures shall be hard wired to provide electrical power. In addition, the restroom facility shall be connected to public water and sanitary utilities along 116th Street. Sustainable methods such as solar power, composting toilets and others should be considered to minimize operational costs. Systems East Woods Shelter East Woods Restroom Restroom Shelter Shelter Shelter Central park: north Campus master plan | page 25February 12, 2013 Systems trails The diagram above indicates the existing and proposed trail network, connecting the East Woods project into North Campus. Similar materials and design elements that were used in East Woods shall be utilized in North Campus, such as wood boardwalks, aggregate trails (with found timber edging) and trail nodes for resting, gathering and interpretation. East Woods Trails NATURE TRAILS MULTI-USE TRAIL BOARDWALK CONCRETE/PLAZA page 26 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 signage The diagram above indicates the existing and proposed system of signage types throughout the North Campus and East Woods of Central Park. All signage types would be of similar design and materials as existing signage within the park, shown in the images to the right. Central Park Signage Systems INTERPRETIVE SIGNS GATEWAY GATEWAY GATEWAY DIRECTIONAL SIGNS Central park: north Campus master plan | page 27February 12, 2013 restoration The diagram above shows the proposed expansion of the woodlands in dark green. All trees, with the exception of portions of the hedgerows, are proposed to remain. The proposed meander of Carmel Creek provides a unique feature that will assist in flooding issues during small storms. A more detailed vegetation inventory and analysis should be performed prior to restoration work, to determine sensitive and invasive species, areas of pruning and canopy thinning. Restoration Volunteer Example. Image courtesy of Arbor Day Foundation Systems page 28 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 Design Elements FenCing A major design element proposed in the North Campus is a timber rail fence similar to the image on the right. A visual inventory of the character along 116th Street revealed many properties throughout Carmel and the neighboring communities that have utilized this style of fence along the 116th Street Right-of- Way. As shown in the Orchard Gateway Section, this report confines the use of this fence along the ROW to the Orchard alone. This will allow open views into the North Meadow and Community Gardens, and not be viewed as a continual barrier along the frontage of North Campus. As this style does not offer solid containment, a metal mesh is recommended to be included for this fence surrounding the Dog Park. Recommended height for fencing is 48” above grade. A taller fence may be considered for the Dog Park, if deemed necessary by CCPR. Furnishings North Campus shall include the basic furnishings and amenities that are offered throughout Central Park, such as benches, waste receptacles (with recycling), bike racks, etc. These furnishings shall be the same make and model found throughout Central Park, to provide continuity throughout the site. lighting Only minimal lighting for safety is proposed in North Campus. The entry road and arrival parking areas will be provided with an average 1.0 footcandle of light, or as directed by CCPR. The building structures on site shall contain a minimal level of security lighting. Additionally, small lights are proposed in the stone columns along 116th Street (as shown to the right).Light Column Parking Lights Timber Rail Fence with Mesh Timber Rail Fence Central park: north Campus master plan | page 29February 12, 2013 Implementation East Bundle Preserve Bundle West Bundle This section takes a comprehensive look at the entire North Campus master plan to determine logical project bundles that CCPR may wish to implement over the following years as funding becomes available and CCPR operations are relocated to a different site. Detailed cost breakdowns including the elements within each bundle can be found in the Appendix. bundle East ($1,221,000) • This bundle would serve as Phase 1 as all grounds are available for construction. Preserve ($1,377,000) • This bundle would advance as CCPR Maintenance departs from North Campus. West ($1,417,500) • This bundle would advance as CCPR Administration departs from North Campus. Funding Capital projects for Central Park within the CCPR Parks System is funded through County Option Income Tax. Implementation of major elements within the master plan would require available funds from this tax. The Dog Park and Woodland Recreation can serve as revenue generators for Central Park, providing additional funds beyond the tax to assist with site improvements. Additional funding for creek and vegetation restoration projects could potentially be obtained through grants from organizations such as Indiana Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps and others. Volunteer efforts from local community groups could also be a potential avenue for savings on labor costs of these restoration projects. Strategic partnerships with local businesses and corporations can supplement public funding to introduce items such as solar shades, shelters and the dog park. page 30 | Central park: north Campus master plan February 12, 2013 Phasing Due to the active operations of CCPR within North Campus and availability of funds, phasing of the master plan must occur. At the time of this report, only the Meeting House parcel is available for immediate development. Phase 1 can be designed and constructed to allow CCPR operations to exist on-site until future phases become funded and developed. A more extensive trail network could also be included within Phase 1, as it has little to no impact on CCPR operations, but has been limited to accessing the Woodland Recreation Zone in this report. A Phase 1 plan and opinion of probable construction costs have been developed to help guide CCPR in implementation strategies and are detailed on this page. phase 1 bundle Demolition $55,000 Entrance Road & Parking $50,000 Orchard Gateway $75,000 Dog Park $150,000 Restroom Facility $200,000 Shelter Buildings (2) $150,000 Woodland Recreation $150,000 North Meadow $50,000 Utilities $25,000 10% Engineer/Design Fees $90,500 10% Misc. Soft Costs $90,500 15% Contingency $135,000 Total Phase 1 Bundle $1,221,000 Central park north Campus: appendix | page 31February 12, 2013 Appendix A: Opinion of Probable Costs 32 B: Meeting House Condition Report 33 C: Floodplain Report 54 D: Design Alternatives 60 page 32 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 The following are Opinions of Probable Costs for the Bundles presented within the Implementation and Phasing Section of this report. All prices indicate 2012 dollars, 15% contingency, 10% design/engineering fee and 10% for miscellaneous soft costs. east bundle Demolition (Silverman Site) $55,000 Partial Entrance Road & Parking $60,000 Orchard Gateway $75,000 Dog Park $150,000 Restroom Facility $200,000 Shelter Buildings (2) $150,000 Woodland Recreation $150,000 North Meadow $50,000 Utilities $25,000 10% Engineer/Design Fees $90,500 10% Misc. Soft Costs $90,500 15% Contingency $135,000 Total East Bundle $1,221,000 preserVe bundle Demolition (Ward Site) $95,000 Finish Road & Parking $105,000 Trails with Creek Crossings $325,000 Dog Park Expansion $50,000 Solar Shades $350,000 Vegetation Restoration $30,000 Gateway Rain Garden $40,000 Utilities $25,000 10% Engineer/Design Fees $102,000 10% Misc. Soft Costs $102,000 15% Contingency $153,000 Total Preserve Bundle $1,377,000 west bundle Demolition (Estridge Site) $150,000 Neighborhood Gardens $100,000 Paved Courts $70,000 Creek Meander & Restore $360,000 Shelter Building $75,000 Trails with Creek Crossing $270,000 Utilities $25,000 10% Engineer/Design Fees $105,000 10% Misc. Soft Costs $105,000 15% Contingency $157,500 Total West Bundle $1,417,500 Appendix A Opinion of Probable Costs EAST BUNDLE WEST BUNDLE PRESERVE BUNDLE Central park north Campus: appendix | page 33February 12, 2013 Appendix B oVerView Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation (CCPR) ac- quired the meeting, or Silverman, house on December 18, 2002. The facility is used for CCPR programming and use by other not- for-profit groups within the community. The building is a 4 bedroom 3 bath two story resi- dential structure that was rumored to be a Sears Modern Home. Upon researching the validity of this claim, it was not possible to confirm that this structure was in fact a Sears Home. Since the catalog homes encompassed variations in their design based on the locations and site they were shipped, there are no two houses alike and therefore it is difficult to ascertain with 100% accuracy whether or not the house was a Sears Modern Home. The attached images are from the Sears archives and based on the style of the home and its approximate construction period, Meeting House Condition Report it could have been an adaptation of two of the Arts and Crafts Style designs offered by Sears through its catalog sales. The Bandon or the Vallonia seem to be the likely adaptations of the design. There are no public records in Carmel that can confirm the assumption that the house is a Sears Modern Home. The meeting house is a wood framed structure on a concrete cinder block foundation with asphalt shingled roof and hipped end gables. The arts and crafts style bungalow is coated in exterior plaster or stucco giving it a relatively maintenance free exterior. The double hung wood windows and French doors appear to be original to the home. Figure 1. The “Vallonia,” a Sears home, page 34 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 An addition was constructed in what appears to be the late 60’s or early 70’s that provided additional living area. There is a brick fireplace in the addition and the large open room recently served as program space for CCPR. The photo above illustrates the addition to the residence. It is an apparent addition based on the appearance of the concrete block foundation, stucco chimney and modern double hung windows. A wood deck was also added to the structure to expand the kitchen/ dining area. Figure 2. The “Bandon,” a Sears home. Figure 3. Addition to the meeting house. Figure 4. One of the meeting house outbuildings. The house sits on a generous urban site with three out buildings that, at one time served as a horse stable and vehicle garage, but are now used by CCPR for seasonal and equipment storage. Central park north Campus: appendix | page 35February 12, 2013 history and use The following information was provided by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation for use in this report: The former Silverman residence is available at no charge to local not-for-profit (NFP) organi- zations and is regularly used by scout troops for pack meetings. The meeting house is also used by CCPR for a free senior art program and the summer Outdoor Explorers camp. As permitted within the Park Board’s Special Use Policy, last amended September 22, 2009, the meeting house is the only enclosed facility within the park system available to local NFP groups free of charge. Due to the Monon Com- munity Center’s cost recovery mandate and high volume of use, it is not feasible to provide free use of the MCC for these groups (although discounted rental rates are available). The avail- ability of the meeting house has helped provide a no-cost alternative to the MCC and serve local NFP groups. Figure 5. One of the meeting house outbuildings.Figure 6. Another outbuilding of the meeting house. Only the first floor of the meeting house is cur- rently available for use, with the upstairs cor- doned off to the public and the basement door locked at all times. In addition to a kitchen (sink, refrigerator and microwave) and non- ADA accessible bathroom, the first floor in- cludes four open rooms available for use: • Front Room: 420 SF, includes conference table and periodically used for meetings • Side Room: 119 SF, connected to Front Room, but infrequently used • Dining Room: 192 SF, off front entrance and predominately used for camp check-in • Great Room: 470 SF, most frequently used room, includes 6 rectangle folding tables (3’ x 6’) page 36 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 The first floor rooms provide approximately 1,201 SF of usable meeting space on the first floor. With the exception of CCPR summer camp (during inclement weather), only the Front Room or Great Room is typically used. Seldom is there a need for groups to use mul- tiple rooms simultaneously. Due to limited parking and insufficient restroom facilities, the meeting house is only booked as a single-use facility for one event at a time. While the group is permitted to spread out through the entire house, multiple groups cannot be accommo- dated. During 2011, the meeting house was used a total of 961.5 hours – 63% of the reserved time (603.5 hours) for Department programs with the other usage by not-for profit organizations. So far in 2012, the facility has been used 107.5 hours and is currently booked for an additional 615 hours through the end of the year. After completing the Master Plan, it was deter- mined by Williams Architects that it would be cost prohibitive to adapt the meeting house and bring it into compliance with ADA and current building codes. The costs for these compliance measures are revisited by SEH later in this re- port and should be measured against complete demolition and reconstruction of a new meet- ing house. If the meeting house were to be replaced, to meet the existing uses, a new facility would min- imally need to included the following meeting areas, site amenities, and programmable space: • Provide 1,200 SF of usable first floor meet- ing space for Department programs and not-for-profit organizations, consistent with practices for the insisting meeting house. Ideally, the meeting space would be one large room with a divider, but could be two separate rooms of approximately 600 SF each. This would make each room about the size of the Meeting Room in the Monon Community Center. • In addition to the meeting space, the facility must include a kitchen and sufficient rest- rooms to accommodate the meeting space occupancy. • Meeting space, kitchen, and restrooms to be available during designated hours once the building is constructed and ready for occu- pancy. • At least one lockable closet for which only Department staff has access is needed for storage. • First floor of the building must be ADA compliant and meet all applicable building codes for a public facility. Central park north Campus: appendix | page 37February 12, 2013 Figure 10. Paint degradation on outbuilding. Figure 8. Paint degradation on interior window sash. Figure 9. Paint degradation on interior door frame. Current Condition report Since the December 18, 2002 purchase of the North Campus, CCPR has made minimal investments into the upkeep of the meeting house. The most significant repairs have included patchwork on the roof to address a water leak, replacement of the front room carpeting, and installation of a new lock and hand rails on the front door. As required by federal law and specified within the 2010- 2014 Parks & Recreation Master Plan, CCPR is developing an ADA Transition Plan this year. The Transition Plan will identify any upgrades required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). One of the largest potential hazards present is the potential for lead paint contamination. There are many areas in the building that have paint peeling from the wood surfaces. Areas such as interior window sashes, door frames, water damaged walls and ceilings, exterior window trim, under eaves, and around doors show significant signs of paint degradation. Of primary concern is that all of these areas are accessible to occupants of the meeting house. Loose paint can be ingested easily by young occupants. Other hazards are assumed to be present as well. While visible signs are not as blatantly apparent as the potential for lead paint exposure, asbestos and mold are likely potential hazards based on the age of the home and its condition. Although there are no records of the maintenance to the facility prior to CCPR acquiring the Silverman house, some of the maintenance items conducted can be estimated by the types and vintage of materials used in the repairs. page 38 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 The 3-tab standard asphalt roof shingles ap- pear to be nearing the end of their useful life and this is apparent by the infiltration of water leaking into the second floor bed room. The roof appears to be prematurely degrading due to wind fallen branches and new tree growth that has been rubbing on the roof and shed dormers. The basement is susceptible to flooding in large rain events. This is evident by the high water marks on the basement walls and stair stringers. Judging by the residual water marking, flood elevation in the basement reaches 18-24 inches on a periodic basis. The sump pump is not sized properly to keep up with this amount of infil- tration and should not be operating as a bilge pump due to leaking foundation walls. The pump is designed to pump water conveyed from the drain tile away from the foundation, not drain the basement during major rain events. Figure 11. Tree branches rubbing on roof dormer. Figure 12. More branches rubbing on roof. Figure 13. Degraded asphalt shingles. Figure 14. Sump pump and residual flood markings. Central park north Campus: appendix | page 39February 12, 2013 The interior of the facility has been susceptible to water damage as well. The leaking roof has caused plaster damage to the ceiling in two upstairs and a downstairs bedroom. Plaster has released from the lath in two of the rooms and is bulging and loose from its substrate in a number of areas upstairs. Damaged shingles, ice damming and clogged gutters appear to be the likely cause of the water infiltration. Figure 15. Plaster released from lath. Figure 16. Water damage on ceiling.Figure 19. More plaster released from lath. Figure 18. More ceiling water damage. Figure 17. More water damage on ceiling. page 40 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 The exterior shows signs of the effects of clogged gutters resulting in water damage as well. The underside of the eaves are rotting and the paint finish is deteriorated. This is espe- cially concerning because the building does not have enclosed eaves. The underside of the roof structure is exposed at the overhang and is a direct route to the attic area. Ice damming and clogged gutters force water back up these eaves and under the shingles and cause the majority of the water infiltration and damage both inside and out. Figure 20. Rotting on underside of eaves. Another source of water infiltration and a likely opportunity for insect and bat infestation is the broken window panes on the upper windows. In most cases, the storm windows are missing individual lites and the only line of defense is the inner sash. Upon our inspection, there were interior sashes partially open directly to the out- side creating an opportunity for insects, birds and bats to enter the building. Interior surfaces of windows in the areas where glass was missing are noticeably deteriorated. Figure 21. Broken window panes on second floor. Figure 22. Paint deterioration on interior window sash. Central park north Campus: appendix | page 41February 12, 2013 Overgrown vegetation and clogged gutters are causing premature deterioration of the meeting house and giving the building an unwelcoming and unsightly appearance. They also do not al- low natural surveillance of the facility by passers by and law enforcement, which has the poten- tial to become a security issue. The porch and treated wood deck structure ap- pear to be in fair condition with the exception that neither is ADA compliant. Figure 23. Overgrown vegetation. Figure 24. Clogged gutters. Figure 25. Wood deck in fair condition. Figure 26. Porch in fair condition. page 42 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 The front porch was retrofitted with a non-code compliant wood stair that does not have the proper handrail extensions or guardrail/hand- rail height. The rear deck stair does not have enclosed risers and the lattice work is damaged and missing in areas, allowing animal infesta- tion under the deck area. The brick pavers that serve as a parking surface are not ADA compliant and pose numerous trip hazards. The pavers are missing, heaved and sunken in several areas making access to the front door difficult for those with walking or mobility challenges. The surface is not ideal for passage of wheelchairs and mobility devices. Figure 27. Damaged and missing lattice work on deck.Figure 28. Heaved and sunken brick pavers. Figure 29. More uneven brick paving. Figure 30. Less than ideal surface for mobility devices. Central park north Campus: appendix | page 43February 12, 2013 The interior of the facility contains many de- ficiencies and is not an ideal setting for group meetings, especially for those of the elderly or small children. There are hazards present that can impact the health and safety of the users. These conditions should be rectified expedi- tiously if the intent by CCPR is to continue to keep the facility open to community members. The overall structural integrity of the meeting house is fair and poses no immediate danger of collapse. There are signs of settlement in the basement and foundation that are evident in the step cracking of the mortar joints in the concrete block walls and make shift wood sup- ports that are supporting the floor joists. The new addition added on within the last 20-30 years is a partially excavated foundation and has a dirt floor crawl space that is not sealed with a vapor barrier. The dirt floor should be capped with a minimum of a 6 mil vapor barrier to eliminate moisture infiltration and odors. Figure 31. Signs of settlement and dirt floor in the crawl space. page 44 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 One of the most apparent deficiencies of the in- terior is the lack of ADA accessibility. From the exterior entrances, restrooms and access to the second floor, the meeting house does not meet federal requirements for accessibility. Although costs to make ADA improvements for complete accessibility would be prohibitive, any discussion to extend the life of the meeting house should include the necessary require- ments for accessibility. With the understanding that the second floor would remain closed of to the public, as a minimum, the facility will re- quire ADA accessible entrances, door hardware, ramps, toilet facilities, kitchen sink and counter tops. Figure 33. ADA inaccessible stairway. Figure 32. First floor toilet is not ADA accessible. Figure 34. First floor sink and counter are not ADA accessible. Central park north Campus: appendix | page 45February 12, 2013 annual operations Costs The meeting house consumes on average a total of $3,082.59 in water, electricity and gas annu- ally. The tables that follow illustrate the monthly costs for meeting house utilities. While there is no data available for comparison, it is fair to assume that a new meeting house of similar size built with today’s materials, systems and controls would function more efficiently than the cur- rent meeting house, consuming less energy and costing less to operate and maintain. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation does not track the cost of maintaining the facility. Repairs are completed as needed with no tracking of an- nual maintenance dollars expended. The main reason being there are no large maintenance expenditures on the property in any given year. The facility is maintained by doing only what is absolutely necessary to keep it operational. This is due in large part to the uncertainty of the facility’s future. WATER 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 JANUARY 7.55$ 18.80$ 7.56$ 9.27$ 129.75$ 212.35$ FEBRUARY 10.89$ 7.55$ 9.27$ 9.27$ 5.31$ 212.35$ MARCH 13.47$ 9.86$ 9.27$ 5.83$ 5.31$ (115.73)$ APRIL 10.89$ 9.27$ 9.27$ 7.55$ 5.31$ 5.31$ MAY 10.89$ 5.83$ 7.55$ 9.27$ 5.31$ 93.91$ JUNE 13.47$ 9.27$ 9.27$ 9.27$ 5.31$ 65.23$ JULY 16.05$ 9.86$ 7.55$ 9.86$ 6.30$ 80.74$ AUGUST 18.63$ 9.86$ 12.95$ 9.27$ 5.31$ 41.86$ SEPTEMBER 9.27$ 7.55$ 9.27$ 5.31$ 88.03$ OCTOBER 7.55$ 9.27$ 9.27$ 9.27$ 5.31$ NOVEMBER 9.27$ 9.27$ 9.27$ 7.55$ 5.31$ DECEMBER 9.27$ 9.27$ 7.55$ 7.55$ 14.42$ YTD Total $101.84 $115.66 $108.05 $104.95 $197.59 $709.09 $0.00 $0.00 CARMEL UTILITIES 1507 EAST 116TH STREET MEETING HOUSE METER# 91900111 ACCOUNT# 692331800 (1 of 3) Table 1. Monthly water costs for the meeting house. page 46 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 DUKE ENERGY Electric 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 JANUARY 75.00$ 111.52$ 70.80$ 101.64$ 65.52$ 50.22$ FEBRUARY 77.59$ 99.45$ 118.00$ 31.32$ 69.45$ 65.95$ MARCH 78.47$ 94.16$ 78.08$ 83.61$ 65.52$ 66.11$ APRIL 64.85$ 95.40$ 71.68$ 73.79$ 56.30$ 35.65$ MAY 62.15$ 101.63$ 40.98$ 55.55$ 33.01$ 25.01$ JUNE 110.08$ 71.42$ 46.40$ 81.31$ 48.78$ 14.84$ JULY 107.19$ 65.06$ 77.83$ 11.51$ 39.61$ 41.00$ AUGUST 201.10$ 115.78$ 136.74$ 125.87$ 73.76$ 12.21$ SEPTEMBER 105.81$ 163.25$ 24.15$ 54.33$ 18.83$ OCTOBER 118.95$ 85.99$ 204.87$ 16.33$ 52.59$ NOVEMBER 96.09$ 65.92$ 78.70$ 33.80$ 9.96$ DECEMBER 61.48$ 61.56$ 90.61$ 52.50$ 31.63$ YTD Total $776.43 $1,136.75 $1,017.23 $962.93 $608.91 $424.00 $0.00 $0.00 1507 EAST 116ST STREET MEETING HOUSE METER# 106140615 ACCOUNT# 1550-3287-01-0 VECTREN Gas 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 JANUARY 327.06$ 383.09$ 348.25$ 549.70$ 432.70$ 388.86$ 615.93$ FEBRUARY 283.22$ 363.09$ 378.28$ 589.63$ 484.73$ 375.65$ 268.08$ MARCH 268.59$ 298.57$ 401.54$ 390.14$ 482.81$ 513.57$ 528.67$ APRIL 132.24$ 229.26$ 147.44$ 217.85$ 342.59$ 513.94$ 341.02$ MAY 72.18$ 121.91$ 102.19$ 111.25$ 155.62$ 0.37$ 125.46$ JUNE 20.41$ 42.60$ 48.67$ 41.79$ 101.85$ 217.12$ 75.26$ JULY 21.14$ 20.89$ 20.13$ 20.65$ 24.57$ 20.46$ 11.00$ AUGUST 20.49$ 20.95$ 21.17$ 17.78$ 23.21$ 18.16$ 11.00$ SEPTEMBER 20.22$ 19.43$ 21.97$ 21.06$ 20.21$ 11.00$ OCTOBER 39.07$ 24.01$ 20.61$ 21.96$ 18.55$ 11.00$ NOVEMBER 97.19$ 87.00$ 113.32$ 121.14$ 43.92$ 68.90$ DECEMBER 196.28$ 167.64$ 162.56$ 365.83$ 280.86$ 218.67$ YTD Total $1,145.33 $1,833.12 $1,765.75 $2,257.25 $2,578.07 2,411.67$ $2,285.99 $0.00 1507 EAST 116TH STREET MEETING HOUSE METER# N0720936 ACCOUNT# 5509367 Table 2. Monthly electricity costs for the meeting house. Table 3. Monthly gas costs for the meeting house. Central park north Campus: appendix | page 47February 12, 2013 Item O.K.Notes/Comments Entrances •   Minimum Number (1 min.)OK •   Signage (letter size Braille No •   Doors (32” min. passage)OK •   Automatic Entrances No •   Door Hardware (pull handle, lever type)No •   Landing – size, step No •   Approaches (18” min. front, 24” min. side)No •   Threshold (3/4” max. sliding, ½” max. swing)No •   Closers (3 second, 3”, 5 lbs. Force)No •   Door swing direction No Egress door swings inward Item O.K.Notes/Comments Signage •   Charter proportion (3:5 ratio)No •   Character height (3” min.)No •   Raised and Braille characters & pictograms No •   Mounting loc. & ht. (60” min. aff.)No •   Symbols of Accessibility No Item O.K.Notes/Comments Accessible Route - Interior •   Width (36” min.)OK •   Width at turns (60” min.)No •   Passing Space (60” min.)No •   Turning Space (60” min.)OK •   Headroom (80” min.)OK •   Slope (max. 1:12 new, max. 1:8 remodeled)OK •   Changes in level (1/2” max.)OK •   Ground and floor surfaces (non-slip)No •   Protruding Objects (27” min.)OK •   Clear floor space (30” x 48” min.)OK •   Reach ranges (front 48” max.; side 54” max.)OK •   Controls and operating mechanisms No •   Means of egress (48” min. stairs)No •   Door hardware No Turn knobs ADA Compliance Checklist: Silverman House The following checklist was adopted from the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements for accessible facilities. The highlighted items on the list are those items that are not in compliance with the federal requirements for accessible facilities. page 48 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 Item O.K.Notes/Comments Exterior Ramps, Stairs and Handrails •   Slope (max. 1:12 new, max. 1:8 remodeled)No No ramp to entrance •   Clear Width (36” min.)N/A •   Landing (60” x 60” min.)N/A •   Handrails (mtd. 34”-38”; 12” extensions)No No extensions; No handrail; No guardrails •   Edge Protection (2” min.)No •   Treads & risers (11” min. tread)No No risers on deck stair •   Nosings (1 ½” max.; ½” min. radius)No No nosing on treads •   Warning devices (raised domes)No •   Intermediate Handrail No Item O.K.Notes/Comments Interior Ramps, Stairs and Handrails •   Slope (max. 1:12 new, max. 1:8 remodeled)N/A No interior ramp •   Clear Width (36” min.)OK •   Handrails (mtd. 34”-38”; 12” extensions)No No extensions; No continuous handrail; No guardrail •   Edge Protection (2” min.)No •   Treads & risers (11” min. tread)OK •   Nosings (1 ½” max.; ½” min. radius)OK •   Warning devices (raised domes)No Item O.K.Notes/Comments Alarms •   Alarm location – visual alarm restrooms No •   Alarm location – visual alarm open area No No Horn/Strobes Central park north Campus: appendix | page 49February 12, 2013 Item O.K.Notes/Comments Unisex Toilet Room- First Floor •   Location OK On Accessible Route. •   Clear floor space No No 5’ ø circle •   Toilet height (17” – 19”)OK 18” •   Toilet clear floor space No Toilet too close to wall •   Toilet controls No Controls on wrong side of toilet •   Grab bars (36” – 42” length)No No bars on side or back wall •   Lavatory height (34” max.)No No knee space under lavatory cabinet •   Headroom (80” min.)OK •   Mirror height (40” max. to bottom of mirror)No •   Exposed lavatory water pipes (covered & protected)OK •   Faucets (lever, pushbutton, or automatic)OK •   Towel dispenser (forward 48” max. height, side 54” max. height)No •   Soap dispenser (forward 48” max. height, side 54” max. height)No •   Room door hardware No Non-compliant •   Door approach clearances No Item O.K.Notes/Comments Other/Miscellaneous •   Drinking Fountain No No drinking fountain and no ADA provisions at kitchen sink page 50 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 Cost estimates There are 3 optional scenarios for the future of the meeting house. Each option carries varied costs depending on the long and short term use of the facility. If CCPR’s decision is to continue to operate the meeting house and keep it open to the public until an alternate facility can replace it, there are some immediate actions that should be taken to make the meeting house a safer, more accommodating facility for the public. The testing portion of the estimate is included for the purpose of having suspect materials and finishes in the meeting house tested to prevent the harmful affects of exposure to lead, asbestos and mold. Phase 1 Repair is a short term solution for the house to make it safe to occupy and more weather tight and energy efficient. Phase 2 Accessibility costs would be a longer term approach to preserving the current facility. They have been established more for informa- tion purposes when creating comparisons versus the advantages of new construction. Central park north Campus: appendix | page 51February 12, 2013 ITEM DESCRIPTION 1010 Aesbestos Testing 1020 Lead Paint Test 1030 Mold Test Subtotal ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT Unit Cost 1010 Remove Pavers and Pave with Asphalt S.F. $6.00 1020 Repair Under Eaves S.F. $12.00 1030 Replace Roofing S.F. $4.50 1040 Replace Windows and Doors S.F. $70.00 1050 Interior Plaster Repair S.F. $25.00 1060 Scrape and Paint Interior and Exterior Trim Ea.1 1070 Connect to City Sewer L.F.$110.00 1080 Paint House S.F. $2.00 Subtotal ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT Unit Cost 2010 New Accessible Ramp S.F. 1 2020 New Accessible Entry Door Ea.1 2030 New Accessible Toilet Room S.F. $250.00 Subtotal Totals $10,000.00 3,600 Phase 1 Repair 200 Designed Cost $2,400.00 ITEM Cost House Demolition $8,000.00 Site Restoration $2,000.00 TOTALS Cost $1,100.00 House Demolition and Site Restoration Testing $23,500.00 $16,200.00 $7,200.00 Totals $102,750.00 Testing ITEM Phase 2 Accessibility Phase 1 Repair $78,150.00 $23,500.00 50 $1,250.00 $7,500 $7,500.00 $78,150.00 110 $12,100.00 1,050 $6,300.00 Estimated Cost $500.00 $100.00 360 $25,200.00 $500.00 $1,100.00 3,600 Phase 2 Accessibility Designed Cost $6,000 $6,000.00 60 $15,000.00 $2,500 $2,500.00 Table 4. Estimates of probable costs for meeting house Improvements. page 52 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 reCommendations Recommendations for the future of the meeting house are broken down by short and long term solutions. immediate solutions In the immediate future CCPR should invest in testing for potentially harmful materials. Tests should be completed for lead, mold and asbes- tos so that CCPR is informed of any potential hazards present and react accordingly based on the results of the tests. Additionally, due to the number of trapped mice observed in the attic areas, a professional exterminator should be contracted so that continuous monitoring of the traps is conducted. Costs for recommended testing are estimated at $1,100. short term solutions If CCPR endeavors to maintain the facility in the short term (3-5 years), consideration should be made to provide minor building and aes- thetic repairs to improve the performance of the exterior envelope and increase the energy efficiency. Window replacement, a new roof, ex- terior paint and interior plaster repair will save energy and improve the experience of the users of the facility. In addition, it is recommended that the facility be connected to city sanitary sewer to replace the existing septic system. The estimated cost to complete all the recommend- ed phase 1 repairs is just under $80,000. In addition to building repairs and improve- ments, parking and access for the facility should also be considered. Currently, the facility is accessed by a right-in/right-out driveway along 116th Street with no designated parking spaces. A brick paver area east of the building may be used as an ad hock parking area, however lacks designation as such. Estimated parking capac- ity is 15-20 spaces using paved, gravel, and grass surfaces adjacent to the building. long term solutions If the plan is to maintain the facility indefinitely, there will need to be considerable accessibil- ity updates to the meeting house. Accessible ramps, entry doors and toilet facilities must be added at an estimated cost of $23,500. The cost of accessibility improvements, plus the neces- sary hazardous materials testing and building repairs brings the total estimated renovation cost to over $90,000. Even with these upgrades, the facility will likely not meet current or future CCPR needs, as the single publicly accessible bathroom limits the meeting house capacity to 15 people. The 2009 International Build- ing Code [P] 2902.2 requires that separate rest room facilities be provided for each sex in pub- lic buildings when the occupant load exceeds 15 individuals. Park programs currently using the meeting house regularly exceed the 15 per- son capacity. In the long term, the current entrance se- quence and parking amenities are not consis- tent with building repairs and maintenance that would facilitate increased facility usage. ADA requirements call for at least one accessible parking space with an accessible path of travel to the building; further parking improvements would be required to provide safe and adequate parking. At minimum, the brick paved area adjacent to the house must be repaved to create a smooth surface and accessible route to the facility entrance via ramps. Long term plans should also consider access to the site via the adjoining property to the west. Here, the entrance geometry better meets the long term needs of a meeting facility and ex- pands area available for parking. Central park north Campus: appendix | page 53February 12, 2013 ConClusions It is apparent that the meeting house fulfills some of CCPR and the community’s needs and is a valuable resource to these groups. However, this alone is not sufficient reason to continue or increase investment in the existing structure. Furthermore, the historic value of the meet- ing house is presumed to be low. Although the structure exhibits elements characteristic to an arts and craft bungalow, its historical signifi- cance as a “Sears Home”or otherwise cannot be confirmed through public record. It is the opinion of the professionals that evalu- ated this facility that, based on the existing conditions and the estimated costs to bring the facility up to an appropriate standard for con- tinued use, CCPR should demolish the meeting house. A new facility can be designed to better serve CCPR needs. This new facility can meet and expand on uses afforded by the existing meeting house in a safer, more efficient struc- ture specifically designed for CCPR’s present and future programming needs. page 54 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 Appendix C Floodplain Report The following is a letter drafted by SEH to Carmel Clay Parks and Recreation regarding the preliminary floodplain mapping and modeling. Central park north Campus: appendix | page 55February 12, 2013 Mr. Mark Westermeier October 23, 2012 Page 2 topographic data and showed that the area published in the effective FIS, 2.3 square miles, is appropriate. Using this drainage area and the published coordinated discharge graph for Carmel Creek, a 100-year discharge of approximately 1,390 cfs was computed, compared to the published 1,400 cfs. Since the computed discharge is within 1% of the published discharge, SEH does not recommend pursuing a change to the effective discharge. Furthermore, a detailed hydrologic study of Carmel Creek completed by JJR in October, 2010 also produced a 100-year peak discharge within 1% of the published FIS value. Preliminary Hydraulic EvaluationThe effective hydraulic model was originally developed using USGS E431 modeling software and was converted to HEC-2 format by IDNR. SEH then converted the HEC-2 file to a steady state HEC-RAS file. As with any file conversion from HEC-2 to HEC-RAS, several modifications were required in order to run the model. The model was truncated to cover the portion of Carmel Creek between 116th Street and Westfield Boulevard. The model did not contain any culvert/ bridge data and had discharges not matching those published in the effective FIS; therefore, the discharges were revised to match the effective FIS. This steady state hydraulic model was considered the duplicate effective model. As shown in Table 1, the duplicate effective model produced BFEs significantly lower than the effective values, mostly due to the absence of the culvert/bridge data from the model. A corrected effective model was produced from the duplicate effective model and included culvert data for each stream crossing in the model. Culvert data for the Interurban Trail and Westfield Boulevard stream crossings was obtained from a model produced by JJR which was submitted to the IDNR for approval of the Interurban Trail culvert replacement. Culvert data for the Ralston Avenue stream crossing was approximated based on available aerial images. Cross section geometries were updated based on 1- foot contours. Table 1 shows that the BFEs produced from the corrected effective model are generally 1’ lower than the effective BFEs. This decrease in BFEs was not enough to entirely remove any structures from the 100-year floodplain. Figure 1 shows the current BFE delineation as well as the revised delineation based on the steady modeling results. In an effort to further reduce the BFEs through the study area, an unsteady state model was created using the same geometry as the corrected effective model. An unsteady state model can produce lower peak water surface elevations because it includes flow attenuation via available storage in the stream cross sections. The unsteady flow file was produced using a synthetic unit hydrograph with a peak flow rate the same as the FIS values and runoff volume based on the drainage area characteristics as an approximation. As shown in Table 1, this model produced BFEs more than 4’ lower than the published values. This decrease in BFEs allows approximately 7 buildings to be removed from the 100-year floodplain, which is approximately 40% of the buildings currently within the floodplain. Figure 2 shows the current BFE delineation as well as the revised delineation based on the unsteady modeling results. Conclusions and Recommendations Since a coordinated discharge has been developed for Carmel Creek and the related parameters have not changed significantly since the effective FIS was published, SEH does not recommend proposing a change to the effective discharge rates. Although the hydrologic component of the evaluation has not been modified, preliminary hydraulic modeling using steady state model showed a potential to lower the BFEs through the study area by approximately 1’. An unsteady state model showed a potential to lower the BFEs through the study area by more than 4’. The reduction in BFEs from the unsteady state model correlates to removal of up to 40% of the structures currently within the floodplain of the study area. With approximately 160 structures within the entire page 56 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 Mr. Mark Westermeier October 23, 2012 Page 3 Carmel Creek floodplain and assuming the preliminary results are indicative of the results of a larger scale study of the stream, a significant number of homes could potentially be removed from the floodplain, if an unsteady model is used for the entire reach of Carmel Creek. If a detailed study was conducted from the findings of the preliminary study using an unsteady state model, the following must be considered: In finalizing the model and preparing it for IDNR/FEMA review, a few components need to be completed. These components may reduce the magnitude of BFE reductions shown in the preliminary model results. Although unsteady state models are accepted for use by FEMA, they are far more complex than steady state models and require close coordination with IDNR. Preliminary conversations with Bradley (IDNR) indicate that submitting an unsteady state model would require all portions of the floodplain upstream of Interurban Trail to be designated as Floodway. Such a designation would mean more stringent regulations for all affected properties. A study of the entire Carmel Creek mapped area (roughly from the study area down to the confluence with the White River) using an unsteady state model may indicate significant reductions of BFEs, and could potentially remove many buildings from the floodplain. Again, an unsteady state model would need to be coordinated with and approved by IDNR. If you have any questions about the information provided in this letter, please contact Rachel Pichelmann (651.765.2917) or myself (651.490.2125). Sincerely, SEH of Indiana Brad T. Woznak, PE, CFM Project Engineer REP Attachment c: Gregg Calpino – SEH of Indiana s:\ae\c\ccpar\121517\1-genl\14-corr\seh letter_hydprelim_102212.docx Central park north Campus: appendix | page 57February 12, 2013 Mr. Mark Westermeier October 23, 2012 Page 4 Table 1. Preliminary Modeling Results for 100-Year Event FIS ID Effective BFE Duplicate Effective BFE Corrected Effective BFE Steady Unsteady BQ 826.6 823.5 825.6 823.2 BP 826.6 821.7 825.5 822.3 BO 826.6 819.9 825.5 822.3 BN 826.6 818.7 825.5 822.3 BM 826.0 815.5 825.5 822.3 BL 818.9 815.4 819.1 816.1 BK 818.9 814.9 818.7 815.9 BJ 814.9 814.9 814.9 812.4 page 58 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013BMBLBP BNBOBKBQBRBJBDBSBEBFBD116THWESTFIELDRALSTONDONNYBROOKGLENMANORFAIRGREENRANGELINEROSEMEADEWOODVALLEYMONONFARMSCREEKSIDECentral Park North Floodplain StudyPreliminary SteadyModeling ResultsOctober 22, 2012LegendCarmel Creek CenterlineFIS Cross SectionEffective Regulatory FloodwayEffective 1% Annual Chance FloodplainRevised 1% Annual Chance Floodplain200 0 200100FeetFIGURE 1 Central park north Campus: appendix | page 59February 12, 2013BMBLBP BNBOBKBQBRBJBDBSBIBEBFBD116THWESTFIELDRALSTONDONNYBROOKGLENMANORFAIRGREENRANGELINEROSEMEADEWOODVALLEYCREEKSIDECentral Park North Floodplain StudyPreliminary UnsteadyModeling ResultsOctober 22, 2012LegendCarmel Creek CenterlineFIS Cross SectionEffective Regulatory FloodwayEffective 1% Annual Chance FloodplainRevised 1% Annual Chance Floodplain200 0 200100FeetFIGURE 2 page 60 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 Appendix D Design Alternatives The following pages include the program design alternatives that were presented to CCPR Board and community member on October 23, 2012. Central park north Campus: appendix | page 61February 12, 2013 page 62 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 Central park north Campus: appendix | page 63February 12, 2013 page 64 | Central park north Campus: appendix February 12, 2013 Central park north Campus: appendix | page 65February 12, 2013