CPA Q A for Prospect Place 2.28.22.pdf1
Questions and Responses to CPA Application for Prospect Place
February 28, 2022
Do any precedents exist in Northampton for mixes of housing similar to
what is proposed?
If this question refers to the mix of unit sizes, the answer is yes. Valley owns other
properties (such as Valley School Street located at 46-48 School Street) with a
range from studios to 3-bedroom units. North Commons at Village Hill (53
apartments) operated by The Community Builders has the same mix. The
Lumber Yard on Pleasant Street 55 apartments) has 1-bedroom to 3-bedroom
units.
If this question refers to the mix of income levels, the answer is also yes. North
Commons at Village Hill has the same mix as we’re proposing for Prospect Place
(30% AMI – 100% AMI). Valley owns several family rental properties (Valley
South Street, Valley Millbank) that have a range from 30% - 80% AMI. Way
Finder’s property, Live 155 on Pleasant Street, has a range from 30% AMI to
market rate (no income cap).
Are there any specific plans to adhere to LEED standards for any redevelopment of the landscape (assuming that an increase in parking will
be required and stormwater management will need adjustment)? (I realize
that the Planning Board will review this, but I am just curious if it has been considered.)
We do not expect to follow LEED standards. However, we will primarily use
native, drought tolerant plantings and incorporate other landscaping best
practices that are common to LEED.
We expect that the proposed use will have the same or less impervious surface
than the current condition. For example, there are currently 91 parking spaces
and our proposed use, per zoning, only requires 72 spaces. The final before and
after assessment of impervious area has not yet been prepared and will require
final site plans, but our goal is to reduce or maintain the current amount of
impervious area and use the existing stormwater management system, which is
tied to the City’s stormwater.
A $1,000,000 request is the largest that has ever been requested to the CPC
for affordable housing. Given the myriad of other expected funding sources,
why is such a large local contribution necessary?
This large contribution is necessitated by the scale and expense of this project.
The proposed development budget relies upon maximum allowable caps for most
State housing sources. We also project use of multiple private sources (Federal
Home Loan Bank, permanent debt, and private fundraising) as well as other state
2
sources (such as the Underutilized Properties Program). There are 15 separate
sources identified for this project and it is an enormous challenge to raise over
$25 M to meet the projected project cost. This will be the first project developed
by Valley where we include private individual donations as a source.
Some of the high cost is inherent in redevelopment of this existing property. The
large size of the building (72,000+ square feet) translates into a generous number
of units (approximately 60). While the sweet spot for affordable housing
development is closer to 40 units (maximizing state sources), it would be a waste
of the existing building to reduce the unit count.
This is an expensive development because:
o The large parcel and large existing structure lead to a high
acquisition price/appraised value
o The presence of substantial asbestos results in a large expense for
remediation o The poor condition of the building interior requires a gut rehab
o Cost escalation of construction materials is rapidly driving up the
cost of construction. Costs per square foot today are significantly
higher than in prior Valley projects
We also ask that the CPC consider that a higher local contribution is consistent
with the benefit to the larger community. This particular property has been an
eyesore for the past decade, subject to squatting and vandalism. No other
developer has come forward with a viable plan for redevelopment. Redeveloping
this underutilized property has special value for Northampton.
CPA funds have been granted in amounts similar to this request in past years for
open space and recreation projects. At this point in time, the crisis of affordable
housing is much greater than in past years, as are the numbers of unhoused
persons. Dedicating more CPA funds to meet this relative need is justified.
The Office of Planning & Sustainability informed us that the City may be able to
contribute $175,000 from another source to help meet our $1 million request. We
ask to keep our $1 million request for CPA funding until other local sources can
be confirmed. Should other local sources be available prior to the CPC’s final
vote, we will request that you reduce our CPA funding request accordingly.
How did the February 16th neighbor’s meeting go?
It went well for a first neighbor meeting and was attended by 34 participants on
zoom. There were several positive comments made about the proposed
affordable housing re-use.
The primary concern raised by neighbors was the proposed change in traffic
pattern and what impact that would have on side streets. A secondary concern
3
was raised about the intensity of traffic and noise along Bridge Road and that the
concept site plans would be improved by placing green space and recreation uses
away from Bridge Road and relocating parking to the front of the building along
Bridge Road.
Valley has received several follow-up requests from neighbors for an on-site
meeting with project sponsors and City Planning staff. We have committed to
host such a meeting in the near future (likely this spring). Next step for our
design team is to respond to neighbor feedback and study existing traffic patterns
and possible traffic options. The Ward Councilor, Stan Moulton, has offered to
facilitate communication with neighbors, and we look forward to a high level of
neighborhood engagement and development of a site plan that is responsive to
concerns.
The housing use proposed is less intensive than the former use (83 room nursing
home with 3 staffing shifts 24/7). However, because the building has been vacant
for so long, the redevelopment is perceived in the neighborhood as an increase in
traffic. Residents also point out that traffic in their neighborhood has increased
over time.
You state that “the City wishes to discontinue access from Bridge Road to this
site due to high traffic on Bridge Road and proximity to other intersections.
Alternates, such as a new driveway from Prospect Avenue, will be explored.”
Can you elaborate on this? How do residents of Prospect Avenue feel about
this?
The City has discouraged access from Bridge Road without a major traffic change,
such as a new traffic light or round-about due to existing heavy levels of traffic
and congestion and the diagonal placement of Hatfield Street from the existing
entry to the site. Addition of a new traffic light or round-about would involve
significant planning and cost and would have opponents as well as supporters.
Initial concept site plans show access from Bridge Road being discontinued, a
new driveway from Prospect Avenue, and a relocated driveway onto Hatfield
Street (farther from the intersection with Bridge Road).
Neighbors expressed concern about increased traffic on Prospect Avenue and
Hatfield Street. Most preferred that the existing entry from Bridge Road be
retained, although there was also agreement that the existing traffic on Bridge
Road is heavy. Some residents felt this section of roadway would benefit from a
new traffic light.
The Office of Planning & Sustainability informed us that it is not a developer’s
responsibility to address existing traffic deficiencies, such as Bridge Road’s
intersections. Any solution to Bridge Road would almost certainly require a
design study that could cost more than $200,000 and a major design
improvement could be more than $1 million. A single driveway would not be
4
allowed to have a traffic signal, so any solution would require redoing the
intersections (Hatfield and/or Prospect).
The typical process on a city owned road is that the design is done by the city or
other proponent and many years down the line, is built by MassDOT with federal
and state funds. While there is congestion at this location, it is of a lower priority
than many far worse intersections in the City so it is unlikely that this would
receive priority funding.
Planning & Sustainability informed us that there are three possible access points
to our site:
• Bridge Road with right turns in and right turns out with an aggressive
enough entrance that people cannot make lefts onto or off of Bridge Road
• Hatfield Road close to our current driveway
• Prospect Avenue opposite Gleason Avenue.
We will be looking at all three options together with city staff. Our objective is to
ensure that we don’t select the less controversial choices in the short run that
may create more traffic congestion in the long run based on likely trip origins and
destinations. This will be the focus of our traffic examination.
The request to the CPC is to pre-pay a portion of the $2.3 million CEDAC
loan for acquisition of the property, in an effort to help reduce interest
payments. Is that correct? What happens if additional funding does not
come through and you have acquired the building?
It is correct that we are seeking CPA funds to pre-pay a portion of the CEDAC
acquisition loan. We believe this is the best use of CPA funds for this project
because this use: (a) leverages additional savings through reduced interest; and
(b) signals an early and significant local commitment that will increase likelihood
for project success.
We fully anticipate this project will succeed. Uncertainties related more to the
implementation timeline and final cost than ultimate success or failure.
However, in the unlikely event that the project can not be developed as planned,
the property would be sold. Funders like CEDAC and CPC would be repaid from
the proceeds of the sale. Given market trends, it is anticipated that the property
could be resold in a few years for at least its current appraised value of $2.6M,
particularly since Valley will take proactive steps to secure and stabilize the
building prior to redevelopment (to prevent further deterioration) and the fact
that the 6.2 acres of land at this location has a strong market value.