Central 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