Loading...
Responses to CPC Questions, Round 2 2012 Responses to CPC Questions – Round 2 2012 Connecticut River Greenway Park 1)The application repeatedly mentions a boathouse, but there are no details about it, nor cost estimates, or projections for its funding/creation. Is the intent to build the park regardless of whether a boat house is funded? Is it integral to accomplish the purposes stated in the application? The CPA application and application to the state PARC program are for creation of a greenway park, dock, river access, canal interpretive views and signage, and parking, not for a boathouse. The project stands by itself as a high quality riverfront park. That said, we are absolutely committed to developing a boathouse. Lane Construction will be granted a long term ground lease to the Northampton Community and Youth Rowing (NCYR) to develop a boathouse for 1) high school rowing, 2) masters (adult) rowing, and 3) community canoeing and kayaking and then will transfer the remainder of the property to the City. NCYR will have the responsibility to develop a boathouse to serve all of these uses. How large an elegant a boathouse they develop will depend on their own fundraising, but it will serve all three sets of users. 2)Page 2 of the application states that the site contains wetlands and endangered species, but then suggests that these resources are not hurdles. Although a project could conceivably improve habitat, don’t the regulatory hurdles remain the same for the resources? Please explain which species are present and where they are located in proximity to planned construction and recreational activity. Explain how these resources will be permanently protected. The plans seem to suggest that at least one wetland will be bisected by the boat ramp access road. While wetlands permitting is always a regulatory hurdle that requires careful site planning and due diligence, there are several site and use- specific conditions that make environmental permitting much more predictable in this case. Discussions with the state Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, which administers the Endangered Species Protection Act in Massachusetts, were begun very early in the planning process. NHESP requested additional plant and mussel surveys, which were completed earlier this year. NHESP reviewed the project plans and surveys, and has already signed-off on the project (‘No-Take’ determination) The project is defined as a ‘water-dependent use’ in the state’s Wetlands Protection Act, which have different performance standards than inland projects. The property also has a long history of industrial use going back 1 to the 1800’s, and is highly disturbed and degraded. The project will include wetlands restoration to improve existing conditions and meet the standards of the City’s wetlands Ordinance, which is stricter than state laws. It will also result in the permanent protection of riparian area along the river, which will be owned by the Conservation Commission. 3)Anticipating that the PARC grant may not successful, please provide plans or a narrative comparing the facilities the Berkshire design proposal and the downscaled version discussed in the application. Please identify what aspects of the project would change or be diminished. If the PARC grant is not received (although we are optimistic), CPA funds will be used for site preparation, creation of river access and installation of a dock. The parking lot and site preparation for a future boathouse would not, however, be created if there is no PARC funding. 4)Has the neighborhood adjacent to the site been officially designated as “EJ” by EPA, the State or Northampton? Yes, the area surrounding the Greenway site meets the state’s EJ criteria for minority population and shows up on the mapping that the state provides of EJ areas. An excerpt of this mapping was included in our CPA application. 5)The Berkshire Design proposal shows Lane Construction’s two buildings (10k sq. ft. total?) to share common drives and driveways with the proposed boat house. What arrangements or agreements have been contemplated regarding shared maintenance, long-term maintenance, electric supply and cost, liability. Lane will be responsible for utility connections from Damon Road to the project site, and will then pay their own costs going forward. Maintenance agreements have not been finalized, but it is anticipated that the City will be responsible only for maintenance of the park area. The park is not anticipated to be used in winter, and will not be plowed. The City is protected from liability by recreational use laws. 6)Given the limited funds available this round, would your project be feasible if we were to grant you less than the amount requested? If so, please explain which aspects of the project can be segregated. If not, please state so explicitly. If the PARC grant is received, $225,000 of the requested CPA funds will be used as the required local match and we could not make the project work with less funds. If the PARC grant is not received, a CPA award will still 2 be utilized to create a park and river access, but will include a more limited design (see question 3). Less funds would mean less work, but the project is scalable as long as we still received $118,500, which is the required match for the NYCRI fundraising effort. Local APR 1)Given the limited funds available this round, would your project be feasible if we were to grant you less than the amount requested? If so, please explain which aspects of the project can be segregated. If not, please state so explicitly. The local APR program is an extremely scalable project, however, a smaller award than requested could limit the transactions that are able to be completed. For example, the previous $60,000 award was used in its entirety for the program’s first restriction purchase of 80 acres. Conservation Fund 1)Given the limited funds available this round, would your project be feasible if we were to grant you less than the amount requested? If so, please explain which aspects of the project can be segregated. If not, please state so explicitly. The Conservation Fund is an extremely scalable project, and an award of any amount can be utilized. Municipal Building Preservation 1)The first full paragraph on page 2 of the application states that “the buildings would be added to the capital planning process after five years work that would be required after eight years or so.” Can you please elaborate? Based on the life-cycle of paint products due to the elements, the building trim and facades should be scheduled for repainting at eight years. Due to the time it takes to get approval for capital funding requests, the buildings would be listed on the capital planning program starting in year five. The intent would be to secure funding by year eight when the buildings should be repainted. 2)The CPA Enabling legislation requires that “community preservation funds shall not replace existing operating funds, only augment them.” Please provide more information about how this requirement is met for this project. 3 The annual operations and maintenance budget lines for city buildings provides funding for overall building maintenance and repairs for eight city buildings. Limited funds need to be distributed between the eight buildings to cover an array of work covering flooring, doors, windows, stairs, lighting, plumbing and heating. Concerning painting, maintenance staff are able to paint a lobby or office here and there, but funds at a sufficient level to paint the building exteriors do not come close to existing in the operations and maintenance section of the budget. 3)How have historic standards informed the process to prioritize needed work? The proposed exterior trim and façade work would serve to preserve the buildings and protect the assets of the city. Beyond that, the replacement of required exterior trim and color selections for paint would be done in conjunction with those groups that are involved in the preservation of city’s historic district. 4)Given the limited funds available this round, would your project be feasible if we were to grant you less than the amount requested? If so, please explain which aspects of the project can be segregated. If not, please state so explicitly. While the desire would be to secure adequate funding to complete all the work on the three buildings, it’s understood that funds might be limited. If that is the case, the buildings would be prioritized to be worked on based on need as follows: First- City Hall Second- Municipal Building Third- Memorial Hall Hospital Hill Memorial Fountain 1)The map provided shows a number of existing trails, primarily on the East Side of the Northern Campus. Can you identify the location of walking and bike trails that will be created to link the entire North Campus when the remainder of the housing units have been built? That will give us a better indication of whether the pocket park will benefit all at Hospital Hill, or just those living closest to the park. Is a direct trail connection to the park proposed? Because Mass Development is in charge of creating all the trails which will surround the North campus, we can’t identify anything that hasn’t been created yet. The proposed memorial park will not be on a trail; 4 rather, it will directly abut the sidewalk on Olander Drive. Thus, it will be readily accessible to anyone who lives in or visits the North campus. There will be a trail below and to the east of the memorial park, but it won’t be connected due to the steep grade. 2)The application states that the proposed location is close to the original site. Can you provide a map showing the original and proposed location, and also explain why the original location is not available or desired? We know that the original fountain location is very close to the proposed location in the park. It is possible that the original base of the fountain is still in place. We do not state this in our application, but Beals and Thomas placed an X on the spot on the site topography page (the second page in the attachments section of our application) where they believe the original fountain base to be located. This is not necessarily where the fountain will be placed. The park will be located on land which is being donated to the City by Mass Development; the exact dimensions of the land they will give us (which will be surveyed before the transfer of ownership) depend on their needs in laying out the streets and housing. These needs take precedence for them over the need to locate the fountain. We chose this site from four possibilities which were made available to us by Mass Development as the most appropriate because it was so near to the original location. 3)Is the Committee contemplating the city securing only an historic easement? Would it be willing to consider an open space easement as well, given that part of the project is the creation of a pocket park open to the public? We certainly would consider an open space easement as well as an historic one, in order to preserve both the open space and memorial in perpetuity. 4)To assure that the historic resource and open space would be maintained in the long-term, would the Committee be willing to share a draft of any maintenance agreements with the CPC prior to them be finalized? We have no maintenance agreements in our proposal. We feel that the design of the park is such that needed maintenance would be minimal. It is our feeling that the city’s parks department could handle that minimal necessary maintenance. It’s possible that some neighbors of the park might take an interest in doing some work, such as planting flowers; it’s also possible that a property owner’s association in Village Hill might take an interest in this, but discussions about that are premature at this time. 5)What is rationale for not operating the fountain? 5 Our reasons for not proposing an operating fountain are primarily to keep the cost of the project down, both in the short and long term. Restoration of the fountain so that it would work would add significantly to the cost, and require in addition substantial infrastructure expenses for laying pipes. In addition, maintaining an operating fountain would require substantial regular expenditures into the indefinite future, and no possible funding source for that can be identified. The only possible source, given the limits of city finances, would be the property owner’s association on Village Hill. We’re unsure how well established this association is, and consider it unlikely that they would want to take on a project of this magnitude. 6)Will parking spaces be available in close proximity or dedicated at the site to encourage those from off-Campus to visit? Will there be signage at the entrance to Hospital Hill to alert residents and others to the existence of the site? The only parking will be on the street. However, given that this memorial is not anticipated to draw heavy traffic, such parking should be adequate. We do plan to have a sign near the entrance which would direct people to the park. However, we have not yet negotiated the location of such a sign with Mass Development. 7)Why was the retaining wall removed from the estimate? Is it functional and necessary? The retaining wall was required by a preliminary drawing of the site by Beals and Thomas. Upon closer examination of the site, we determined that this plan was not practical due to the topography of the site. Beals and Thomas revisited their plan and re-shaped the park so that a retaining wall was no longer necessary, as the site is narrower and won’t reach the sharp drop-off at the edge of the site. 8)How and why is the timing of site preparation and installation at all tied to the development of other parcels? The creation of this memorial park is entirely dependent on the cooperation and generosity of Mass Development, which is donating the land and has paid for the preliminary site plan by Beals and Thomas. Because Mass Development has started construction of roadways in this part of the campus, they now are in a position to determine the exact location of the site. 9)Long-term maintenance costs are not included in the cost estimate? What do you anticipate them to be on an annual basis? 6 Please refer to our answer to question four. It’s possible that the only maintenance will be mowing around the site which could be done by the city’s parks department; we have no way of estimating its cost. 10) What other parks or open space does Mass. Development’s current master plan include? In other words, will this be the only park on site? As far as we know, the only other open space on the north campus is the beech tree park just to the south of the memorial park. However, the entire north campus is surrounded by open space. 11) Has the Planning Board reviewed and approved the location of the park? As far as we know, this proposal has not come before the Planning Board. However, they have approved the general layout of the development. 12) Given the limited funds available this round, would your project be feasible if we were to grant you less than the amount requested? If so, please explain which aspects of the project can be segregated. If not, please state so explicitly. If the project could not be fully funded in this round, it could be constructed in stages if the CPC were to commit to continued funding in future years. There are separate elements of the project: planning and design, physical restoration of the fountain, site work, installation of the fountain, and installation of the signs which will illuminate the meaning of the site. It would not detract from the completed project if it took two to three years for all of this to happen. However, there is no other substantial source of funding which we could identify, and all stages of the project would have to be eventually completed for it to satisfy its purpose. Your site visit on Sept. 22 brought up the issue of the difficulty of obtaining an accurate estimate for site preparation and landscaping work because the site is not accessible now due to the ongoing road work. If you were to award us half of our request now, with a promise of the other half for the following year, we may be able to provide a more accurate estimate (possibly a lower amount) of the funds we would need to complete the second phase for your next round of funding. Veterans’ Baseball Field Restoration 1)The application repeatedly discusses the relocation of the baseball field when renovations at Veterans’ Field were initiated. To where was the baseball field relocated? 7 The field was moved back toward the edge of the property. It is in the same general area that is was. 2)Will that site continue to serve as a baseball field, or will it be mothballed and equipment returned for use at Veterans’ Field. The cost estimate suggests that bases, seats, bleachers, etc. will be purchased new and installed. This field will remain as a baseball field. The park is also used for other sports, such as ultimate frisbee and soccer when there are not baseball activities. 3)Assuming the project is funded, how many residents will it serve if dedicated to baseball. How many practices or games will be held during the playing season? This baseball field will serve hundreds of youth throughout the Spring, Summer and Fall. The ages that play on this size starts at approximately 12 yrs. old and up. The Northampton High Freshman team would also play at Vets. It would be utilized almost every night, and also on weekends, approximately 20 weeks in the year. Some weeknights there is a practice at 4:00p.m. and another team at 6:00 p.m. On weekends, games and practices begin at 10:00 a.m. and can be held throughout the day at two hour increments. There is such high demand for 90’ fields, we could round it to about 15 practices/games per week, over 300 held a year. 4)Will the creation of the baseball field create conflict with or displace other users? The baseball field has been a part of the plan since day one of the renovations. Others users will be still be able to utilize the field in other areas. 5)The application contains a 2003 rendering of Veterans’ Field that shows the baseball field overlapping two soccer fields. Have these been constructed? Vets is currently used by some soccer teams for practices. The fields are built, they require an open grass area, which there is at Vets. 6)Will the field be lit at night? If so, until what time? And will this be a new practice that may come as a surprise to adjacent residents? There are no plans for lights. I am not sure if the residents are the same as they were a few years back when baseball was played there 5 or 6 years ago. 8 7)Has the contribution from the City Capital Improvements been secured? Yes, that money is secured. 8)Are in-kind contributions or funding from the baseball community anticipated? If needed, the baseball community could be asked for some donations. As it is, they fundraise to purchase much of the equipment and supplies for their leagues. When asked, they have committed to some funding in the past. For instance, $1,000 to the DPW towards new loam to help renovate one of the fields this Fall. 9)Please explain the importance of a 90’ diamond compared to other sizes. The 90’ diamond is for ages 12 and up. 90’ is the distance between the bases, and the largest field. Players progress from small diamonds when they are younger, up to a 90’ diamond. In the future, we may look at a 70’ diamond here also as the demand for that size rises. Traditionally, the sizes have been a 60’ diamond, then a 90’. There is movement towards a 70’ diamond to be used in the progression towards a 90’. In theory, this would make the transition easier for the players. There would be holes in the ground for bases at both distances, and a convertible pitchers mound would be used. They make mounds that are basically on wheels, so you can move them back and forth depending on what size field you are using. 10)What are the issues at Arcanum Field raised in one of your supporter’s letter? Please explain whether and why those issues are likely or unlikely to arise at Veterans’ Field. The 90’ diamond at Arcanum is not available in the Fall because the outfield is converted into a regulation size soccer field. This means that there are goals that are put in the ground, and can’t be moved. This makes it too dangerous for baseball, as players could run into them. At Vets the field sizes are smaller and portable goals are used. They can be wheeled and carried on and off the field area, making the area usable for various sports. In regards to the neighbors, the field is close to them and the teams have to follow specific rules regarding entering their yards to retrieve baseballs. This won’t be an issue at Veterans Field because the neighbors are up on top of a hill with a thick wooded section between them and Veterans’ Field. 11)What are the plans for long-term maintenance of the field? 9 As with all the fields in the City, the Department of Public Works Parks and Cemetery Division maintains all the fields. They maintained it when it was in use, and will maintain it once it is back in use. 12)Will wetlands review or other local or state permits be required? We anticipate a request for determination. 13)Given the limited funds available this round, would your project be feasible if we were to grant you less than the amount requested? If so, please explain which aspects of the project can be segregated. If not, please state so explicitly. We hope to be able to get this project started as soon as possible. Some of the amenities could possibly be fundraised for, or funds sought from other sources. Items such as the bleachers is something that could be fundraised for over time. 10