HomeMy WebLinkAboutHess_Field_MSP-Rpt-v3-Feb2011-web Fields
field �.
.hers
icyi ms
A rep S(yffAL1MDC(XTi1X
MASTER SITE PLAN
Field #3
" FOR THE CENTRE REGION COUNCIL
l
OF GOVERNMENTS • , � � O ,�_
FOR ACTION BY THE
COG GENERAL FORUM
1 Field #i
r F
Field #4
i
Field #2
r
PASHEK
with Battaglia Jones Sj(N 3 �`--
Landscape Architects and F�BRUARY 2011 Stahl Sheaffer Engineering, Inc. -
Acknowledgements
Aft im
The contributions of the following groups and individuals were vital to the success of the John Hess Softball
Field Complex Master Site Plan. They are commended for their interest in the project,their perseverance, and
the input they provided throughout the planning process.
The Study Committee was formed from members of the COG Parks Capital Committee and the Centre
Regional Recreation Authority/CRPR Board.
STUDY COMMITTEE
Special thanks:
Harris Township
■ Cliff Warner Centre Region COG:
■ Roy Harpster James C. Steff-Executive Director, Centre Region COG
College Township Ronald J.Woodhead, CPRP,CPSI-Director of Parks and Recreation
■ Dan Klees, Chair Jeffrey Hall -Recreation Supervisor/Fitness and Sports
■ Kathy Matason Greg Roth, CRPR, CPSI-Parks Supervisor
Ted Weaver-Assistant Parks Supervisor
State College Borough Christeen Kisslak-Office Manager
■ Jim Rosenberger
■ Donna Conway State College Area Softball Association (SCASA):
Ferguson Township Dean Amick
■ William Keough Jann Duck
■ Sue Mascolo
Patton Township
■ Jeff Luck
■ Chris Hurley
State College Area School District , ��r1SL V
■ Donna Ricketts,D.Ed. ;``Q P��s W. PAsy 9
F '
Penn State University
■ Dan Sieminski -_� w
- o REGISIRAiIUN � -
NUMBER
<<1 P�
■..�..■....... 14NDSC-
PASHEK
ASSOCIATES
. Pa.n.Y i..v i, carp o r.t i,1
619 East Ohio Street
Pittsburgh,PA 15212
412-321-6362
www.pashekla.com
pashekla.blogspot.com
with Battaglia Jones
Landscape Architects and
Stahl Sheaffer Engineering,Inc.
Table of Contents
CIWIR1: RYNORO-1`]D..........................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3
COG REQUIREMENTS FOR REGIONAL PARK MASTER SITE PLANS ................................... 3
STUDYFORMAT ........................................................................................................... 4
COMMUNITY SETTING AND REGIONAL LOCATION............................................................ 5
Key Issues for Hess Field Master Plan................................................................................................... 5
EXISTING PLANNING EFFORTS ....................................................................................... 6
Oak Hall Regional Parkland(2009)....................................................................................................... 6
Hess Softball Field Complex Feasibility Study(2009)........................................................................... 7
Whitehall Road Regional Parkland(2010) ............................................................................................ 8
Bike Route G on State Route 45..............................................................................................................9
QHTM2: SFIEINMND Y&A41M.................................................................. 11
BASEMAPPING.......................................................................................................... 13
BUILT FEATURES AND SITE INFORMATION..................................................................... 13
Easements and Rights-of-Way............................................................................................................... 13
Structures.............................................................................................................................................. 13
Location, Size, and Legal Status........................................................................................................... 14
Zoningand Adjacent Land Use............................................................................................................. 14
Existing Facilities, Structures, and Roads............................................................................................ 14
SiteHistory and Context....................................................................................................................... 14
AbandonedMine Lands........................................................................................................................ 14
Utilities................................................................................................................................................. 14
NATURAL FEATURES................................................................................................... 15
Water Features and Wetlands............................................................................................................... 15
Setbacks................................................................................................................................................ 15
Soils....................................................................................................................................................... 15
Topography........................................................................................................................................... 16
Vegetation.............................................................................................................................................. 16
Wildlife.................................................................................................................................................. 16
NaturalHeritage Areas......................................................................................................................... 17
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................ 17
Opportunities........................................................................................................................................ 17
Limitations............................................................................................................................................ 17
CHTIRI AC 1 &FARM 1- 5&EER(N oJS..............21
ACTIVITIES ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 23
2002 Active Recreation Facility Recommendations Memo..................................................................23
Sports Fields Needs Analysis Summary................................................................................................23
John Hess Field Tournament Use in 2010............................................................................................25
FACILITIES ANALYSIS.................................................................................................. 26
Sports Facility Standard Sources..........................................................................................................27
FacilityGuidelines................................................................................................................................27
Adjacencies and Density of Facilities................................................................................................... 30
ADAAccessibility................................................................................................................................. 30
CFFM4: SL .....................................................................................33
BENEFITS OF SUSTAINABLE PARKS............................................................................... 35
WAYS OF ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE PARK DEVELOPMENT ............................................. 35
Minimize Impervious Surface Area....................................................................................................... 35
Implement Rain Gardens/Bio-infiltration Swales............................................................................... 36
Other Sustainable Park Features.......................................................................................................... 36
LEEDCertification............................................................................................................................... 36
Sustainable Sites Initiative.................................................................................................................... 37
Park Sustainability Guidelines............................................................................................................. 37
Green Principles for Park Development and Sustainability................................................................. 38
PROPOSED SUSTAINABLE FEATURES ............................................................................. 39
ReducePark Waste............................................................................................................................... 39
Minimize Grading and Site Disturbance.............................................................................................. 39
ImproveWildlife Habitat....................................................................................................................... 39
Minimize Impervious Surface Area....................................................................................................... 39
Implement Rain Gardens/Bio-infiltration Swales............................................................................... 39
CFFM5: PCB11CPAUC1PA0�&I ' (N ............................................41
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION................................................................................................ 43
Conclusions........................................................................................................................................... 44
DESIGNPROCESS ....................................................................................................... 44
Description of Concept Plans............................................................................................................... 44
ConceptComparisons........................................................................................................................... 46
Draft Master Plan Description............................................................................................................. 47
Final Master Plan Description............................................................................................................. 48
TrafficMaster Planning........................................................................................................................ 50
Stormwater Management Master Planning.......................................................................................... 51
Sanitary Sewer Master Planning.......................................................................................................... 52
Water Service Master Planning............................................................................................................ 52
Electric Service Master Planning......................................................................................................... 52
IrrigationSystem Planning................................................................................................................... 52
Accessibility in the Master Plan ...................................................................................................... 53
Realignment of Entrance Road............................................................................................................. 53
C 6: OXFMMAE&BN4\LM .............................................................59
COST ESTIMATE FOR DEVELOPMENT............................................................................ 61
PHASING.................................................................................................................... 64
MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATIONS ........................................................ 69
Management.......................................................................................................................................... 69
Maintenance.......................................................................................................................................... 69
Operations............................................................................................................................................ 71
POTENTIAL REVENUE PRODUCTION.............................................................................. 73
SportField Use..................................................................................................................................... 73
SCHEDULING THE IMPROVEMENTS AT ALL THREE PARKS................................................ 75
A311US..............................................................................................................7
APPENDIX A: PA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION REVIEW
APPENDix B: PNDI
APPENDIX C: MEETING MINUTES AND MATERIALS
APPENDIX D: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND OTHER PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
APPENDIX E: SAMPLE MAINTENANCE PLAN
APPENDIX F: DCNR GREEN PRINCIPLES FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT
0
x�
0
�.
N
�--�
Chapter 1 : Bask ound
�
INUMERN
In 2001,five municipalities officially embarked on an expansion of their long-established cooperation to jointly
fund the acquisition,development and operation of at least two new"regional"parks. The purpose is to:
• Provide for active recreation activities,including but not limited to softball,baseball, soccer,
basketball,tennis, football, lacrosse, and...
• Enhance public access to, and enjoyment of,the environment,with provisions for passive recreation.
Master Plans for the 63-acre Oak Hall Park and 75/100-acre Whitehall Road Park were completed in 2009 and
2010. At the same time,an evaluation of the John Hess Softball Field Complex was undertaken to provide
information so the COG General Forum of elected officials make a decision on whether they should acquire the
property for inclusion in the regional parks program. The study recommended that the COG/CRPR own the
property as a regional park facility and make necessary safety upgrades. In order to better serve the community,a
master plan will show how this park could better serve the softball teams and compliment the proposed recreation
facilities at Oak Hall and Whitehall Road Parks.
The John Hess Softball Field Complex is a 20.63 acre site
located at 1707 Shingletown Rd. in Harris Township, Centre
County, PA. The site was owned by the estate of the late
Jack Hess. For at least the last 24 years the complex has been
leased to the State College Area Softball Association who has
operated it for competitive and recreational softball. The first
20 years were under a long-term lease to the Association but
the last four have been for just one year at a time.
In recent years,the complex has been home to two men's
softball leagues and one girl's league. In the 2009 season,
the three leagues combined had 46 teams. Additionally,the
complex has been well known through the years for the multitude of American Softball Association(ASA)
sanctioned tournaments held at the site. In 2009, fourteen tournaments were held at Hess.
Based on a careful review of information and much discussion,the COG General Forum voted to acquire
the property in August,2010 with closing in September,2010. In anticipation of the acquisition,the Parks
Capital Committee began work in July,2010 on future plans for Hess Field. A survey was completed;Pashek
Associates was retained to prepare the master plan and steps were initiated to begin addressing existing safety
issues as soon as the property's ownership was transferred to the Centre Region COG.
LY �7�TnT Prl�lllVlt l7� SIB PLANS
The agreement that authorizes the voluntary participation by- each municipality(5 total) specifies the following:
1. So as to develop the regional parklands to best serve the needs of the Participating Municipalities and
to fulfill the purpose of the regional parklands (Section 2),the COG will coordinate the preparation of
a Master Site Plan for each regional park. That planning process will engage
representatives of the Participating Municipalities and others as may be
determined by the Participating Municipalities.
2. Each Master Site Plan for a regional park must be approved by the
unanimous action of the Participating Municipalities at the COG General
Forum prior to any park development(construction)activities on the
respective site.
3. The approved Master Site Plan for each park must identify the recommended
phasing,if any,of the construction of the various facilities and features,the cost estimates for
constructing those facilities,and any temporary(interim)facilities that may be developed on the site.
4. Revisions to the Master Site Plan must be approved by a unanimous vote of the Participating
Municipalities.There will be no development of park facilities,whether temporary or permanent,that is
not shown on the approved Master Site Plan unless the plan is revised to include that facility or feature.
5. The Master Site Planning process may incorporate, as approved by a majority of the Participating
Municipalities,the requirements of the grants or other financial contributions that may be obtained
for their preparation. In all cases,the approved plans must meet the applicable deed requirements as
previously established by DCNR,PSU, and where appropriate,the National Park Service.
STUDY
This Master Plan process involves a number of steps,including the following:
• Chapter 1 —Community Background Information
o Describe the community setting and regional location.
o Review socio-economic data including demographics. (this information has been reported in
the previous master plans for Oak Hall and Whitehall Road and will not be repeated here)
o Review existing planning efforts related to this Study. (this information has been reported in
the previous master plans for Oak Hall and Whitehall Road and will not be repeated here)
• Chapter 2 - Site Inventory and Analysis
o Assess and create a base map of the site and immediate surroundings.
o Analyze existing natural and cultural conditions within the study area in order to identify
opportunities and constraints for park development.
• Chapter 3 —Activities and Facilities Analysis and Design Considerations
o Describe the activities identified by the community.
o Determine the uses,type, sizes, and standards of recommended facilities.
o Estimate the maximum number of vehicle trips anticipated for the park.
o Describe design considerations and standards.
• Chapter 4—Sustainability
o Describe sustainable park design and practices.
• Chapter 5 -Public Participation and Design Process
o Describe the public participation process.
o Describe the design process including concept plans, draft master plan and the final master
plan.
• Chapter 6—Cost Estimates and Financing
o Estimate construction costs for park development.
o Preparation of a phased capital improvements plan identifying short-and long-term strategies
for development.
o Identify funding strategies needed to support the capital improvement plan.
o Estimate operating costs and potential revenue for the park.
• Chapter 7 -Oak Hall Regional Park Master Plan Update and Phasing Plan for all 3 Regional Parks
• Appendices
It is essential to note that the Master Plans are meant to be a flexible tool for planning. Specific details of the
design and the final locations of facilities may be adjusted through subsequent design.
(UVACNITY STTIING A\D REG(NAL LOCARN
The Centre Region is located in the southern portion of Centre County. The region is located near the
geographic center of Pennsylvania, approximately 90 miles from the state capital of Harrisburg, 140 miles
from Pittsburgh, and 195 miles from Philadelphia. Main vehicular arteries to the Centre Region include State
Routes 26,45, 144, 150, and 550, along with U.S. Routes 220 and 322.
Six municipalities comprise the Centre Region: State College Borough; and College,Ferguson,Halfmoon,
Harris, and Patton Townships. These six municipalities form the Centre Region Council of Governments
(COG). Halfmoon Township has declined to participate in the development of the regional parks.
Hess Field is a 20.63-acre parcel of land on State Route 45 in Harris Township. The site has been leased for
years from the Hess family by the State College Area Softball Association. What started as one softball field
has grown to four fields wedged into a shallow valley north of the intersection of Shingletown Road(Route 45
West) and Woodside Drive. The property is bounded by residential properties to the southwest,Route 45 to the
southeast, farms to the east, and State College Borough Water Authority property to the north.
KEY ISSUES FCR -UMPLASS RRD MaSTM PIM
Early in the process,the following key issues were identified:
1. CRPR is about to acquire Hess Field and wants to develop a
strategy for long term viability through the master planning ' --
process. 1
2. The complex has been programmed to meet the needs of
softball leagues in the area and to serve as a tournament facility.
With the proposed development of softball fields at Oak Hall
Regional Parkland,the programming of this facility needs to be "
reviewed, especially given the short fields for adult play. —
3. When the complex is acquired,the CRPR would like to ,
address possible safety and hazard issues immediately. To
make the improvements,they need a master plan as a guide for
improvements so construction in the short term is not wasted
with future development.
4. As CRPR begins to plan for development of all three park facilities,they need to have a better
understanding of the costs associated with an approved plan for Hess Field. To date, estimates of
construction costs have been based on limited information and no proposed plan. A master plan will
provide priorities through the phasing plan for a logical and cost effective development of the park to
achieve the community's goals for Hess Field.
5. The master plan needs to address projected revenue potential and operating expenses for the proposed
facility.
6. The goal of this master plan is to bring a recommended plan of action for Hess Field that is similar in
detail to the plans developed for Oak Hall and Whitehall Road.
INSTM PLANNM ITS
Q�K HALL RQciyAL PARm-AND (2009)
The goals of this Master Plan include to:
1. Accommodate a program of active recreation.
2. Provide a program of complementary recreation activities.
3. Respect the opportunities and limitations of the site.
4. Respect the adjacent community.
5. Create a beautiful and dignified park space that will improve over the years,find acceptance in the
community, and become a valued asset to the region.
A primary decision of the Master Plan was the conclusion
that rectangular fields could be better accommodated at the -
Whitehall Road Regional Parklands,with Oak Hall Regional
Parkland best serving as a setting for softball fields. '
i�
Proposed recreation facilities at this site include:
• Three adult softball fields
• Practice field /' t
• Restrooms and concessions ;r
• Storage f ..��4:0' *. - ��• �
• Picnic shelters y
• Trails
• Playground
• Sand volleyball court
-i
• Dog park
• Sledding hill
During this study, a capacity diagram was developed for Whitehall Road Regional Parklands in order to
determine which needed recreation facilities fit best at each site.
. S
r—-
FJ [I Ik
Trg;srmc
BattaJla J.,a ��A••
.s«y.A��c as W�iCc a��Road Part �
This capacity diagram provided the basis for development of the Master Plan for Whitehall Road Regional
Parklands.
HEss SoFiBau, EaD Gj rn x FhAsia Y SAY (2009)
The goal of this report is to provide the COG General Forum with
sufficient information to make several policy decisions regarding Hess
Softball Field Complex. The complex is a 20.63-acre site located at 1707
Shingletown Road in Harris Township and includes:
• four softball fields
• restrooms
• concession building with press box
• an umpires building
• spectator and picnic areas
• over four acres of grass parking
r
The report recommended that the COG purchase the complex and
either(1)the COG maintains and the SCSA operates the facilities or
(2)the COG/CRPR maintains and operates the facilities in cooperation _
with SCSA. Several facility upgrades were also recommended and are ,• �
included on the following map.
rTMiI.rYO-/Qr•• �
I..r 1 1 1 1 1
^J •TNNAIrr
� NM NIrN NN/JO IDNNitILl11DN NYt
��. r•N+ _ wr j
Nr N•r.� wr � I r>•...•.Iw r•r•.•M..•.•�.•N•+rr/
•rN...�r Ir•I�y�r� ! -- M•.I•YC•IMNM
•rrr•r�r rrir p"1 sMCNNIrM� •'Ywlr•.1 Nwnry
rIr r ti.•ww r11/ � •y
I I `1
wNlr .��- 1/Iwrll..Ir�r��N.r.�.w•r.N�
w - �wlwu NOcr1
�rrY N►IW•1��•r.r.•MI. •
� w wN.w.wp.Y s•r rlwM 1.
(�•rl�M� i Y Nrr YA LYKuI IYI YNYI r..�
rY1r1 __ Nw1•MI vr•4 f`•ry M�
2 I = / � 7 ��• 1 Y 1•III/r•I.I MNM•11••�N M
1 \ •t>r 1•w�ti�• l Y•nM/I*"w!•NI o rose"
v► r•r V. •.r
t•� M•w.rM
1 ! ..«...� PWf RI ! ww. 1 w Cw�lw n ce..NN+wM•M
k \1 . rN.•r.rYyl•M—W.....
_ , T ♦r•N•N�nN Nw rwr.••MNM•
;1�� ' ' •Nr+N•r L�..N WIC
K
Improvements were identified as:
• Improvements of immediate concern,issues related to safety that need to be addressed before opening
as a CRPR facility
• Short-term improvements related to safety and playability that impact use
• Mid-term needs that can be deferred, and
• Long term needs that would enhance the facility
The discussion regarding acquisition of Hess Field continued through the development of this study,
culminating in the acquisition of the property in the fall of 2010. When the program was developed for Oak
Hall Regional Parklands and Whitehall Road Regional Parklands,the assumption was that Hess Field would
provide four softball fields to meet demand from those users. Therefore,the acquisition had little impact on
programming for the two Regional Parklands.
However,there were other aspects of the Oak Hall and Whitehall Road Regional Parkland Master Plans that
were impacted by acquisition of Hess Field. The most obvious was the financial impact. With limited total
funds for capital improvements for regional park development, investment in improvements to Hess Field
resulted in less money for the other two parks. There has been much discussion about the actual cost of Hess
Field development and the ultimate impact on capital budgeting. This became clearer as the Master Plan for
Hess Field was developed and addresses costs and phasing recommendations.
Wnjw . RaD -P<,-E a- aNAL PAw-AvD (2010)
The Whitehall Road Regional Park Master
Plan built on the preliminary planning
work completed as part of the Oak Hall
Regional Parkland Master Plan. In that _=�-' (_�w —=- (-
plan,needs were assessed for the region -'
(especially those sports field needs) and the =-
capacity of the sites to meet those needs a - ,tea :• ---
was determined. This master plan further
refined the program for the Whitehall Road
site and developed a plan for allocating - ..._
space for sports fields,parking, other park
developments and support facilities.
Key issues that were discussed include: A !!.ball Road Regional Park Mama,Plan
1. Planning for both the acquired 75 -� -- -
acres and the additional 25 acres
the CRPR hoped to acquire.
2. Consideration of indoor facilities for tennis and other indoor activities in one or two buildings.
3. Relying on Hess Field and Oak Hall Regional Parkland to meet the Softball needs of the community
while baseball and rectangular fields were to be developed at this park.
4. Consideration for incorporation of baseball fields for the High School varsity and junior varsity pro-
grams.
5. How much to invest in spending for phase one of construction for the regional parks and within each
park,which facilities would be developed during the first phase.
As a result of much discussion the following facilities were proposed for Whitehall Road Regional Parkland in
the master Plan:
1. Four baseball fields
2. One softball field
3. One football field
4. One lacrosse field
5. Seven full-size soccer fields
6. One smaller soccer practice field
7. Six tennis courts
8. Community Garden
9. Picnic shelters
10. Playgrounds
11. Basketball Courts
12. Dog Park
13. Maintenance Facility
14. Tree Nursery
15. Concessions Stands
The project was estimated to cost about$12,800,000. Phase One construction budget was about$7,500,000
for all three parks. This plan was approved by the COG General Forum at their August,2010 meeting.
BlxF- RaiiEGaN RmEFam45
Bike Route G connects Tioga County,PA and the Corning,NY area in the north with Bedford County and the
Cumberland,MD area on the south. The 235-mile long course follows numerous northeast-southwest trending
stream valleys and is surprisingly flat. It offers a convenient connection to New York State Bike Route 17
on the north and the C&O Canal Towpath and the Allegheny Passage on the south.A highlight is the Grand
Canyon of Pennsylvania in Tioga County. This on-road bike trail runs on Route 45 next to the John Hess
Softball Field Complex. It also runs beside the Oak Hall Regional Parklands.
N
N
N
C�
Y & AnalysisCha ter 2 : Site Inventor p
A WL i
Context provided by the community's history,demographics,and existing park system help to identify community-
wide recreational needs. Public input further defines these needs. The site inventory and analysis discussed in this
chapter identifies the extent to which the park site meets,or potentially could meet,those recreational needs.
The Site Analysis illustrates built and natural features of the Hess Field property, such as zoning,utilities,
topography, soils,vegetation, and hydrology. Knowledge of such features aided in identifying feasibility of
potential recreation facilities on the property.
BASE MAPPING
Pashek Associates compiled the project base map, shown on the following page,using information from the
following sources:
• A field survey of site topography and features for the of lands of John E. Hess and Patricia J. Hess,Tax
Parcel: 25-04-1OZ, compiled by Mease Associates, Inc. July,2010;
• Soil Survey of Centre County,Pennsylvania.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, in cooperation with Penn State University College of Agriculture and Experiment Station,
Issues August 1981.
The consultants gathered additional information on site features through direct field observation in the spring and
summer of 2010. Pashek Associates makes no claims to the accuracy of utility locations or other facilities.
BV1LTFEARRINAND D S11E lN
FASIIVIQNB AND ka m-(F WAY
There are three easements shown on the survey. The first, a 10 foot utility easement along the existing entry
drive which provide overhead electrical east and west through the site. The second easement is a 20 foot water
line easement running along Shingletown Road(Route 45)near the eastern boundary of the site. The third is a
30 foot stormwater easement in the northwest corner of the site passing through the neighboring parcel number
25-04-1OF. The Right-of-Way for Shingletown Road(PA Route 45) is 80 feet.
STRUCTURES
There is one,two-story frame and block building used for concessions
and a press box. It is old and in poor condition. Code officials indicated
it would not receive an occupancy permit once the Centre Region COG
acquired the property. A newer"garage"used for an umpire building is
in better condition but is located within the 75-foot building setback line.
Based on a conversation with Harris Township officials, it is unlikely that a 1
variance would be granted the building. ' - -
There is a masonry restroom building over an underground vault that does not meet current standards. There
are several small,pre-fab"garden sheds"that do not appear to be too old. The dugouts for Field 1 are in poor
condition and need to be replaced.
LocwN, SITE, AND LEGAL STATLs
The Hess property is 20.63 acres,and is owned by the Centre Region COG as of September,2010. The
property is situated north of Shingletown Road(State Route 45) and east of Woodside Drive in Harris
Township, Centre County.Vehicular access to the site comes from Shingletown Road.
ZmNG AND Ax AcENT Lffi J LSE
The property is currently zoned agricultural. The property is bounded to the southwest by Shingletown Road
and to the southeast by five single family houses. To the east is farmland and to the north is land owned by the
State College Borough Water Authority.
FxsmNG FAtiu-nEs, STRtL.�ItRES, AND ROADS
The complex includes four softball fields,restroom facilities, a concession building with a press box, an
umpires building, spectator and picnic areas, and over four acres of a grass parking area. It is used almost
exclusively for softball leagues and tournaments.
SITE HST(RY AND CONTEXT'
The site sits within the broad ridge-and-valley settlement pattern of rectangular road system, agricultural fields,
and linear towns. This site appears to have once been part of a farm.
AA 4)CNM NINE IMM
A review of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's EMap database (http://www.emappa.
dep.state.pa.us/emappa/viewer.htm)indicates that no past mining activity has been recorded on the property.
UHTITIES
The surveyor ordered a Pennsylvania One Call on 7-20-2010 to mark the location of underground utilities.
These utilities along with associated easements and Rights of Ways are identified on the survey and are
described in the Survey Report Appendix.
ELECTRIC
The overhead electrical service running through the park serves the State College Borough water treatment
facility north of the park and nearby homes. Opportunities for relocating the line were discussed with the
power company. They recommended putting the line underground through the active area of the park but
would consider re-routing the power line around the perimeter of the park.
WATER
The site is currently served by a well located just north of the concessions stand. There is a municipal water
line running along Shingletown Road that could be easily accessed.
SEWER
There is no public sewer service at John Hess Field and it is located outside the Sewer Service Area. The
nearest service is in Boalsburg, at a lift station near the intersection of West Main Street and Route 45 (near the
Fairfield development).
P' One-Call Responses / / I / / Complex Master /
(Serial - 20102321582)
Utility Provider Address Response Contact
Allegheny Power Company 2800 East College Avenue Design Conflict- Office Personnel
State College,PA 16801 Send Plans
Harris Township 224 East Main Street Clear- Amy Farkas
Boalsburg,PA 16827 No Facilities akfarkas@comcast.net
Northeastern ITS,LLC - Did not respond -
State College Borough Water 1201 West Branch Road Marked Steve Albright
Authority State College,PA 16801-7697 steve@scbwa.org
University Area Joint 1576 Spring Valley Road Clear- Richard Lahr
Authority State College,PA 16801 No Facilities
Verizon 201 Stanwix Street Clear- Office Personnel
Pennsylvania,Inc. 4th Floor No Facilities
Pittsburgh,PA 15222
WAS FFATuuN aT,,D
The site is largely a shallow valley that runs east-west between two hills to the north and south, so water flows
in a westerly direction from the east. This natural migration of stormwater has created wet areas requiring
increased maintenance, especially for Field 3 and the outfield of Field 4. As the park is almost fully developed,
there are no wetlands.
SEMXM
Based on the zoning classification,the property has a 75-foot building setback on the sides bounded by the
State College Borough Water Authority,Meyer Dairy, and Shingletown Road. There is a 100-foot setback
along the property line to the southwest,next to the residential properties fronting on Woodside Drive.
&IIS
Soils help determine appropriate land use and development for any property. For the Master Plan,Pashek
Associates reviewed the Soil Survey and lists of hydric soils for Centre County. Hydric soils are one of three
criteria used to identify jurisdictional wetlands in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The following chart
describes the properties of soils found on the park property according to the soil survey and identifies any
hydric qualities in those soils.
Soils with a classifications of and/or B are generally suitable for infiltration, and soil classifications of C
and/or D are generally unsuitable for infiltration.
Soils 1ry—John Hess Softball1 Complex
Soil Type Drainage Hydric Hydrologic Limitations to Site Development
,LMap Sy ol) Soil? Classification
Clarksburg Silt Loam Moderate erosion hazard seasonal high
0-3% slopes (CkB) Slow yes C water table and slow permeability.
Hagerstown Silt Loam, Well Silty clay loam surface layer, clayey
0-3% slopes (HaB) Drained na B subsoil layers, and possible sinkhole
formation.
Murrill Channery Silt Well na B Possible sinkhole formation.
Loam,3-8%slope(MuB) Drained
Nolin Silt Loam, Well es B Rare flooding.
0-5% slopes (No) Drained y g'
Opequon-Hagerstown Well Moderate erosion hazard, shallow depth
Complex, 3-8% slopes Drained na C or B to bedrock, clayey subsoil, and potential
(OhD) for sinkholes.
TCPOCRVHY
The site is a broad valley running east-west with slopes on the north
and south sides of the park. Most likely,many years ago,there
was a more prominent drainageway that was probably filled in the
increase land for farming. The slopes to the south,from the fields
to Shingletown Road,are moderately steep,ranging mostly from
5-15%with pockets of 15-25%slopes. Most of the area is used for
turf parking. Evidence of erosion exists along the entrance road due
to the slopes. Future parking should avoid the steeper areas and the
entrance road should be re-routed to be more cross-slope in its route.
To the north is a much steeper terrain with slopes exceeding 25%.
Depth to bedrock is very shallow. Very little can be done to alter
these slopes without investing large amounts of money. Currently,people use the slopes to watch the games
from an elevated position. The central valley where the four fields are located appear to be almost level.
kEMCN
Open fields dominate the property in the form of ballfields and
the parking area. A forested area is located in the north and west
of the parcel. The western bound area,woods form an important
buffer between Fields 2 and 4 and the adjacent residential
properties fronting on Woodside drive.
-t
WLFU FE
Limited vegetative habitats,primarily lawn with some forest blocks, -• - _
and lack of connections to mountain and riparian habitats presently -
accommodate low wildlife populations. There is some potential for
more diverse populations of large and small animals and birds with introduction of vegetative diversity.
Neighbors report small game use the woods to the west.
PENNSYLVANIA NATURAL DIVERSITY INDEX SEARCH
The Pennsylvania Department of Forestry maintains the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory(PNDI)
Index. This is a database of known locations of Pennsylvania's rare,threatened, and endangered plant and
animal species. The database and searches are now accessible online at the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage
Program. (www.naturalherita eg state.pa.us).
A search of the PNDI Database(Search#20100720253424)indicated that recreation facility development
will not impact any federally listed,proposed, or candidate endangered species or species of concern in
Pennsylvania. A copy of the PNDI Environmental Review receipt is included in the appendix of this report.
NATURAL fImA E SFAS
A review of the Centre County Natural Heritage Inventory(NHI)indicated that no natural heritage areas are
located on or immediately adjacent to the Hess Field property.
011Vld SIOVS
After analysis of the various features of the Hess Field site,we have concluded that the site presents the
following opportunities and limitations with regards to recreational park development:
aPoxTUM-HES
1. The level land that supports four existing softball fields is ideally suited for continued operation of a
softball complex.
2. The rich traditions of playing softball at Hess Field have resulted in a strong advocacy group for
softball and the property.
3. There is excellent access to the site.
4. The hillside to the north provides great views of the fields.
5. There is an opportunity to realign a new entrance road to Hess Field with the private road across Route 45
IIMITAMONS
1. The overhead electric line running through the site in a
north-south direction interferes with developing softball
fields. The line is required and must be either placed
underground or rerouted around the active area of the park. '
2. The asphalt entrance road is too steep and should be
relocated.
3. Stormwater from the Meyer Dairy property east of the
park flows onto what is currently Field 3 and will need to
be addressed with diversion or infiltration swales.
4. Most of the structures are either in poor condition and
should be replaced or in the case of the umpire building,
are located within the building setback line and are may
not remain in that location in the long term. Harris Township officials indicated that the building must
be removed from the setback during the first phase of park development.
5. The adjacent residential properties along the southwestern side of the park may be exposed if the
woods on the park property are removed. Being a"good neighbor"requires some amount of buffering
between the park and their back yards.
6. The small size of the property prevents the site from being a large tournament facility.
[ail LV
mr-
soft
416
to
U IC) N c d < •
Q rn �L' t� N d = d a
N p in O O O
cn u.
> o cn v) cn s
D ■
� ' iN'o�e6paH
r �
m
J v
,o • _ _ a a �, g ' '
►� z '
410 Q, '
- - DLO inn i0 l4 jr-:7
01cnl
�a '
� � b
D � 6 oz
iL
fit
L .4
Q z�
F I
E e(
aIt
40r 'V
cc
I in
Y • LL * '
� O
U C�
M o�
N
Ct
Chapter 3 : Activities & Facilities Anal sis
y
is JL
&Usign Considerations
ACHVIIES GIs
Public input dictated that sports fields would be the main focus of
park development at the Oak Hall,Whitehall Road,and Hess Field
sites. Thus,programming for both sites involved a needs assessment
identifying the number and type of sports fields to be planned.Dan
Jones and Jim Pashek interviewed representatives of local/regional
sports organizations,analyzed responses,created a summary of
sports fields needs,identified priorities based on public input,and
applied findings to the Hess Field site based on potential for field
development at both Oak Hall and Whitehall Road.
This section includes an analysis of the sport fields, as well as an analysis of sports field needs. Findings from
the sports field needs analysis were applied to the Hess Field site as shown and described by the Concept Plans
detailed later in this report.
2002 Amw RmRFAmav Foouw RRrmmFNDAmcNs XlEmo
In July 2002,the Centre Region Parks&Recreation(CRPR)Board issued a memo setting forth its
recommendations with respect to needed community recreation facilities in the Centre Region. The memo
stated that the recommended numbers of sports fields needed in the Centre Region was based in-part on
National Recreation&Park Association(NRPA) standards.
The recommendations of the"2002 Memo'were taken into account during the sports field analysis performed
as part of the Oak Hall and Whitehall Road Master Plans and then updated for this Master Plan.
SPORTS FIIID6 NFEEs *ALYBIs s[_mmARY
The Sports Field Needs Analysis considers how many of each type of sport field will be needed to support present
and growing competitive and recreational league play.Diamond shaped fields allow for various levels of baseball
and softball teams,while rectangular fields can provide for soccer,football,lacrosse,and field hockey.
The consultant arrived at an estimated number of each type of fields that will need to be developed within the
region based on the analysis of the following:
• An inventory of existing fields to establish the"supply"
• A list of all field users
• Discussions with each group to determine,by age group,the"demand":
o Hours of practice
o Number of practices/week
o Number of teams
o Information on unmet needs of existing facilities
o Hours per game
o Number of games/week
o Information on participation rate trends
This analysis provided the consultant with statistical and anecdotal information to base field needs for the
region. This could then be compared to the 2002 Needs memo from the CRPR,national standards, and requests
from the various sports organizations. The practice and game field analysis spreadsheets are included in the
Appendix.The following summary table tracks the various inputs leading to a recommendation for new fields
for rectangular and diamond-shaped fields.
SPORTS1 DEMAND AND SUPPLY
Deficit
1988 National
Sports Facilities 2002 Standards(1) (2) Time Slot Sports
CRPR (62,600 people) Analsis(� p Grou Recommendations(3)
Need Have(4)
Memo(10) Surplus/ y Requests
Deficit
Baseball -4 25 21 -4 +3(6) 3-4 2 larger fields and
1 challenger field(')
Softball -4 25 14 -11 -4 4 4-6 fields(')
Soccer -12 25 18 -5 -5 6-8+(9) 5-8 fields
Football/Lacrosse/ None 13 3 -10 -1 1 1 multi-purpose
other rectangular identified rectangular field
fields
(1) The 1988 National Standards for field needs based on population suggested 1 baseball field/2500
people and 1 soccer or softball field/5000 people. Lacrosse was not included in the standards.
Years ago,Pashek Associates modified the standard by suggesting a demand of 1 soccer or softball
field/2500 as more reflective of field use in our area. That is the standard referenced in the table. In
1995,NRPA developed an analysis of demand for sports by using a"level of service"analysis. The
time slot analysis reflects that type of assessment. We offer both for comparison purposes.
(2) The population used for the region was provided by Centre Regional Planning Agency and excludes
students living on campus.
(3) These recommendations are based on today's needs and do not provide for growth in sports
participation,nor do we include enough fields to allow for resting a field(20%of supply).
(4) It is challenging to establish an accurate number of existing fields available to meet demand given
the multi-use nature of many fields. We have attempted to pro-rate the multi-use fields(which is
65%of all fields)to arrive at a full-time equivalent. Our analysis shows 19 municipal fields,27
private fields and 20 school fields. The demand and supply calculation assumes all 27 private fields
continue to be available and that there will be no school expansion or contraction that impacts those
20 fields. This fact alone establishes the need for more sports fields at the regional parks.
(5) This analysis was done for both practice times and game times to compare field needs. Factors
included for the practice time slots were: hours for each practice,practices per week,#teams,
full-time equivalent fields used resulting in a calculation of time slots needed,weekly time slots
available,whether a surplus or deficit of time slots was created and a calculation as to how that time
slot equates to field needs.A similar analysis was conducted for Game times. This analysis did not
factor in the need for additional time slots resulting from rainouts(more relevant in the game time
slots analysis). CRPR staff assisted in providing detailed information for most sports leagues such
as numbers of teams,number of players,fields used and schedules. They also provided contact
information for the sports organizations we interviewed.
(6) Although our initial analysis shows a surplus of fields,we have found that there is a surplus of
under-sized fields and a shortage of larger fields.
(7) Challenger fields are fields designed to meet the needs of disabled participants. The fields are
usually with a synthetic surface. Each participant usually has a"buddy"to help with activity.
(8) Assumes the four fields at Hess Field remain part of the supply.
(9) Soccer provided a request for two soccer complexes with one complex containing 6-8 full sized
fields and no request for number of fields for the second complex.
(10) This memo was one of the first widely distributed documents attempting to quantify field needs. See
the Appendix for a copy of this memo.
Field use in the preceding analysis assumes that all of the fields
do not have lighting. However, lit fields add flexibility for use
and regarding tournament play, and are often critical to complete
the tournament games over a weekend. For those sites that
anticipate softball tournament play, it is recommended that one
field be developed for lighting to allow for late games during di
tournaments. John Hess Softball Field Complex has always
had the main field lit and representatives of the SCASA indicate
that any new plan for the fields should include one field with s
lighting. The challenge as we move to a tournament site for Oak
Hall Regional Parkland, is that to be an effective tournament site,
one of those fields should also be lit. In our public meetings in
preparation for the Oak Hall Regional Parkland Master Plan,neighbors were very concerned about lighting the
fields and talked about a dark sky initiative in their area. We believe that the lighting technology has advanced
in the past few years and can be controlled in a way that minimizes or eliminates dispersion of light beyond
the fields that are being lit. Therefore,we are recommending that one field each at John Hess Softball Field
Complex and at the Oak Hall Regional Parkland be planned to accommodate lighting at some time in the
future.
JcHv HESS FIELD TcLxNAviENT LSE IN 2010
The State College Area Softball Association operated John Hess Field in 2010 and scheduled a large number
of tournaments throughout the summer. In 2010,there were 77 youth teams that played in tournaments at
John Hess Field generating$31,225 in gross revenue. In that same time period, 81 adult teams played in
tournaments yielding$22,535 in gross revenue.
With information provided by the Softball Association,we were able to chart trends in softball use at John
Hess Field. As you will see,the trend is for adult softball to be declining and youth softball to be increasing.
200
180
160
140
120
S 100 --A--adult leagues
F 80 -♦- youth leagues
f adult tournaments
60 f youth tournaments
0
1999 2000 20012002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
FAaIIrIIFS A\AL'YSIS
Based on the input from the public process, study group and the above Sports Field Demand and Supply
Analysis table,the following Proposed Regional Facilities Table was developed. This table shows proposed
facilities for Hess Field and compares it to the facilities developed for the other parks sites and total demand.
• � '6,111 N 1
Whitehall Total Demand
Facility Road Oak Hall Hess Field Regional estimated
Master Plan Master Plan Park Supply in 2008
Baseball 4 0 0 4 3
Softball 1 3 4 8 6
Soccer 8 0 0 8 8
Football/Lacrosse/other 2 0 0 2 1
rectangular field use
Tennis—indoor 6 0 0 6 Not
outdoor 6 0 0 6 estimated
All purpose practice field 1 1 0 2 Not
Open space for unscheduled 0 1 0 1 estimated
activities
Playgrounds 2 1 1 4 Not
estimated
Basketball courts 2 0 0 2 Not
estimated
Sand volleyball courts 2 1 0 3 Not
estimated
Dog parks 1 1 0 2 Not
estimated
Picnic pavilions 12 3 0 15 Not
Picnic groves 3 1 estimated
Restrooms 2 1 1 4 Not
estimated
Concessions stands 2 1 1 4 Not
estimated
Community gardens 1 0 0 1 Not
estimated
Maintenance buildings 1 1 1 3 Not
estimated
Sledding hill 0 1 0 1 Not
estimated
Seasonal ice skating rink 1 1 0 2 Not
estimated
SPORTS FAamy STANDARD Saes
Facilities must comply with specific standards established for their respective activity. Sports facility
standards,which must be understood in order to properly locate the facilities being considered in this study,
include:
• National Recreation and Park Association's"Facility Development Standards"-establishes facility
dimensions, orientation, and slope requirements.
• National Federation of State High School Association's"Court and Field Diagram Guide"
• United States Specialty Sports Association,www.usssasports.com,establishes field sizes
• Amateur Athletics Union of the United States,Inc., sss.aausports.com, establishes field sizes
Fxiiny (hmjN s
Taking into consideration the aforementioned standards and guidelines, in combination with Pashek
Associates'prior experience,the following facility development guidelines were created for Hess Field:
SPORTS FACILITIES
Baseball and Softball Fields
• Orient so batter is looking through the pitcher in the northeasterly direction so neither are looking at a
rising or setting sun
• Provide backstop,perimeter fencing, dugouts,player benches,foul poles,bleachers
• Drinking fountains and trash and recycling receptacles nearby
• Slope field maximum of 2%,minimum of 1.5%unless very well drained site or artificial surface used
• Provide adequate buffer between field and adjacent uses and parking areas
• Provide automatic irrigation system(see master plan description in Chapter 5)
• Size fields according to the following standards:
1 1 61M
71F Girls - 10 and under 60' 35' 150' 175'
Girls - 12 and under 60' 35' 175' 200'
Girls - 14 and under 60' 40' 175' 200'
Girls - 16 and under 60' 40' 200' 225'
Girls - 18 and under 60' 40' 200' 225'
American Softball Boys- 10 and under 55' 35' 150' 175'
Association Fast Pitch Boys- 12 and under 60' 40' 175' 200'
Boys - 14 and under 60' 46' 175' 200'
Boys - 16 and under 60' 46' 200' 225'
Boys - 18 and under 60' 46' 200' 225'
Women 60' 40' 200' 250'
Men 60' 46' 225' 250'
Jr. Men 60' 46' 225' 250'
Girls- 10 and under 55' 35' 150' 175'
Girls- 12 and under 60' 40' 175' 200'
Girls- 14 and under 65' 50' 225' 250'
Girls - 16 and under 65' 50' 225' 250'
Girls - 18 and under 65' 50' 225' 250'
Boys- 10 and under 55' 40' 150' 175'
Boys- 12 and under 60' 40' 175' 200'
American Softball Boys- 14 and under 65' 50' 250' 275'
Association Slow Pitch Boys- 16 and under 65' 50' 275' 300'
Boys- 18 and under 65' 50' 275' 300'
Women 65' 50' 265' 275'
Men 65' 50' 275' 315'
Major 70' 50' 275' 315'
Coed 65' 50' 275' 300'
Super 70' 50' 325'
American Softball Women 60' 00' 200'
Association Modified Pitch Men 60' 46' 65' 265'
American Softball Women 55' 38' 200' 200'
Association 16 In. Pitch Men 55' 38' 250' 250'
10&Under 35` 60' 150' 175'
American Fastpitch 12 &Under 38' 60' 175' 200'
Association 14&Under 40' 60' 175' 200'
16&Under 40' 60' 200' 200'
18 &Under 40' 60' 200' 200'
LEAGUE DIVISION BASES PITCHING FENCE FENCE
12"Men 50' 65' 300'
16"Men 50' 65' 225'
16"Women's 50' 65' 235'
American Fast Pitch
Association Slo-Pitch Women's Class `A' 50' 65' 275 -325'
Women's Class `B' 50' 65' 275 - 325'.
Women's Class `C' 50' 65' 250-325'
Women's Class `D' 50' 65' 250 - 325'.
8 &Under 34' 40' 60 ft. 2
9 &Under 34' 40' 60' 200'
10&Under 34' 40' 60' 200'
11 &Under 37' 40' 60' 200'
United States Specialty 12 &Under 37' 40' 60' 200'
Sports Fast Pitch 13 &Under 40' 46' 60' 200'
14&Under 40' 46' 60' 200'
15 &Under 40' 46' 60' 200'-225'
16&Under 40' 46' 60' 200'-225'
18 &Under 40' 46 ft. 60' 200'-225'
23 &Under 43' 46' 60' 200'-225'
United States Specialty Women 40' 60' 200'-250'
Sports Fast Pitch
Men 46' 60' 225'-265'
OTHER FACILITIES
Playground Eguipment
• Size varies
• 2-5 age area with age-appropriate equipment and spring rocker area
• 5-12 area with age-appropriate structure;provide min. safety zones between equipment and other
structures(benches)
• Min. 2-bay swing with toddler and standard swings
• Manufactured shredded bark mulch safety surface(that meets ADA standards) over well-drained
coarse of aggregate
• Picnic shelter nearby for shade
Picnic Shelters
J
• Size varies
• Concrete pad beneath shelter with max 1% slope
• Electrical service —
• Charcoal grills
• Picnic tables and trash/recycling receptacles -
• Shade r
• Easy access to drinking fountain
• Level lawn area adjacent shelter for family games
Restrooms.Storage Room,Press Box, Umpire Facility. and Concessions Stands
• Size varies according to specific needs, suggest about 800 SF per floor with the press box and umpire
facilities on the second floor and restrooms,concessions, and storage on the first floor.
• Walks leading to buildings may not exceed 5%;provide plazas around for small groups
• Provide level land for building construction
Maintenance Facility
• Provide 1,200 SF one-story structure
• Level, fenced in area for storage of material and equipment; double gates for vehicles
• Water, sewer, electric
• Screen from public use areas
SUPPORT FACILITIES
Wastewater Treatment System
• Provide drainage field for restrooms at core area and a second, smaller drainage field for maintenance
facility. Size to be determined after percolation testing.
Accessible Trails and Walks
• Min. 6'width
• Max. of 5% slope; located and graded in such a manner as to minimize disturbance and erosion
• Firm and stable surface
• Rest areas with benches approximately every 300'
• Adjust alignment to avoid removal of trees
Roadways and Parking
• 20'cartway
• Road: 10%max. slope,min. 1% slope for drainage
• Porous paving(firm and stable area for HC parking spaces)
• Parking spaces 9'by 18'with 24'aisles
• Parking: 5%max. slope
• Avoid curbs,drain to swales and infiltration swales/rain gardens
• Wheel stops
• Landscaping to break up parking rows
• Consider security lighting with cutoffs to preserve dark sky initiative
• Provide ADA stalls for both cars and vans
ADrAa Nci s AND D NSI-fy of Fuums
In addition to the preceding requirements,thought must be given to the appropriate adjacency of facilities
to one another, and to overall density of facilities in the park. Ideally, it is most desirable to locate facilities
adjacent to one another only when they have a minimal impact on each other. For example, a pre-school
playground should not be placed adjacent to a basketball court without screening or room separating the
facilities. An example of appropriate adjacency is the placement of a basketball court near a tennis court. Each
facility serves similar age groups, and both are active use facilities. Proposed facilities were located carefully
to avoid overcrowding and prevent excessive earthwork on site slopes.
AIR AUSSIBIM Y
Designing for accessibility means ensuring facilities meet the needs of the physically and mentally challenged,
as well as individuals experiencing temporary disabilities. This accommodates not only those with disabilities,
but also makes it easier for the general public to use the facilities.
Accessibility, in design terms, is described by the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). The Act guarantees
equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities to participate in the mainstream of public life. To do so,the
ADA sets requirements for facilities to prevent physical barriers that prevent the disabled from using those
facilities. When recreational facilities are built or improved with public funding or open to the public,they
must comply with ADA standards by providing an accessible route to the area of use and spectator areas.
STANDARDS/GUIDELINES INCLUDE:
• Americans with Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities,Play Areas,Finale
Rule,www.access-board.gov-establishes requirements for playground equipment accessibility.
• Universal Trail Assessment Process (UTAP),www.beneficialdesigns.com/trails/utap.html-Based
on the promise that trails should be universally designed to serve all users; UTAP encourages land
managers to provide users with specific information regarding the trail so users can make an informed
decision as to whether they have the ability to use the trail.
• Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board's "Regulatory Negotiation Committee
on Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas", September 1999,www.access-board.gov
- sets minimum requirements for accessible trails, access routes,resting opportunities,benches,utility
connections, and trash receptacles.
• Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA),Title Il Requirement for Public Facilities,www.access-board.gov
• Consumer Product Safety Commission's"Handbook for Public Playground Safety"- establishes
equipment,use zone, and protective safety surfacing requirements.
1
• American Society of Testing Materials"Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for
Public Playground Safety"(ASTM F 1487)- establishes access route, equipment,use zone, and
protective safety surfacing requirements.
• American Society of Testing Materials"Standard Specification for Determination of Accessibility
of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment"(ASTM F 1951) -defines minimum
requirements for accessible protective surfacing materials.
• American Society of Testing Materials"Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation of Surface
Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment"(ASTM F 1292) -defines minimum requirements
for impact attenuation of protective surfacing materials.
CC3
C�
C�
Chapter 4 : Sustainability
ML
BH*--4fflTS CIF SLSTAiNABIE PARK
The Master Plan strives to include sustainable design in creating the vision for the park. A sustainable park is
one where the natural resources are protected,where wildlife habitat is improved, and when human recreation
uses and maintenance practices do not conflict with the environment,but instead enhance them.
Sustainable design is a DCNR priority,and they are offering incentives to encourage municipalities to
"green"their parks. Recently,a$10-million grant program was established to promote sustainable design.
Pennsylvania is one of the first states to provide incentives and funding for these practices.
Benefits of sustainable parks include:
• Economic: Natural vegetation and plantings with native species provide stormwater and flood control
by absorbing and storing stormwater runoff and pollutants. Such a reduction in runoff may prevent
flooding,property damage, erosion, and habitat loss.
• Environmental: Integrating parks with streamside corridors,wetlands, forested areas, and other open
spaces will increase its ecological value over time. According to the U.S. Forest Service, one tree can
generate $31,250 worth of oxygen,provide $62,000 worth of pollution control,recycle $37,500 worth
of water, and control $31,250 worth of soil erosion over a fifty year lifespan.
• Health and Safety: Researchers from the University of Illinois have discovered that time spent in
nature relieves mental fatigue and related feelings of violence and aggression. They have found the
more diverse and rich an environment is in natural resources,the higher the learning opportunities are
for children.
WAS CF -AME ING SLSTAiNABLE PARK DE\RCP1VEVI'
M MMZE IWEvMCLs &WAT ARFA
The Master Plan recommends that impervious surface area be kept to a
minimum throughout the park to reduce stormwater runoff. The width
of parking aisles and stalls should be minimized. Stabilized turf,used on '" +
close to 50%of the parking stalls on site, allows stormwater to infiltrate
into the soils below, and therefore,reduces the volume of stormwater that
will need to be managed. Constructing shelters,restroom, concessions,
stands, and maintenance buildings with a green roof will reduce other
impervious surfaces.
IMPUA4ENT P\XN GiDtvs / Ro-mFiLmm(N SwatB
Parking on the park site should include traffic islands containing rain
gardens or bio-infiltration swales. Rain gardens are shallow planted
swales that help to retain,filter, and infiltrate stormwater runoff into
the underlying soil rather than channeling it into piping systems. The
Master Plan recommends the use of rain gardens/bio-infiltration
swales in park development. Observation of site soil permeability
performed during the site inventory and analysis phase of the Master
Plan indicated that the site's soils exhibit good drainage/permeability.
Thus, infiltration of stormwater may be feasible. Further testing may be
necessary for verification.
PAKFLURS
To mitigate surfaces that do not easily allow stormwater infiltration,we are proposing a variety of strategies in
the park. In addition to the parking being stabilized turf,we recommend rain gardens.
We encourage the CRPR explore new"green"technologies like propane powered lawn mowers and vehicles,
electric powered construction trucks,wind turbines, solar panels for electrical needs at the shelters, and the
planting of native species throughout the park. We recognize with tight budgets that it is difficult to choose
more costly"green"technologies when lower cost alternatives are available. However,we believe the CRPR
is positioned to be a leader in the parks sustainability movement and can use these technologies to educate
other park departments and residents to the benefits of"green"parks.
IEDGMCM(N
One of the most known"green"project certifications is achieved through the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design(LEED) system. The LEED Green Building Rating System for New Construction
(LEED-NC), developed by the U.S. Green Building Council(USGBC),helps professionals improve the
quality of buildings and their impact on public health and the environment. It also reduces operating costs,
enhances marketability,potentially increases occupant productivity(in office or other commercial buildings),
and helps create a sustainable community.
Incentives for achieving LEED certification include:
1. recognition for commitment to environmental issues in the community;
2. third party validation of achievement;
3. qualification for a growing array of state&local initiatives; and
4. marketing exposure through the USGBC website, Greenbuild conference, case studies, and media
announcements.
Project design teams (consisting of owner and consultants)interested in LEED certification for their project
must register online during early phases of their project. The LEED website,www.leedbuilding.org, contains
important details about the certification review process, schedule, and fees. Applicants must document
achievement of a number of prerequisites and must achieve a minimum number of points on the LEED point
scale.
Park development at Hess Field can be environmentally-sound and incorporate"green"design elements
without LEED certification. However,the concessions,restrooms, and press box buildings have potential to
become LEED certified.
SUSTAiNABIE SIM INIMARVE
The Sustainable Sites Initiative(SSI) is an interdisciplinary effort by the American Society of Landscape
Architects (ASLA),the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, and the United States Botanic Garden to create
voluntary national guidelines and performance benchmarks for sustainable land design, construction, and
maintenance practices. The SSI and its guiding principles focus on reducing harm done to the environment, as
well as preserving and renewing natural and cultural resources when developing or re-developing land.
The 2008 Draft of the SSI Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks, available at www.sustainablesites.org,
supports the idea that sound land development and management practices restore or enhance natural functions
or ecosystem services provided by their landscapes. The SSI sets forth an evolving set of guidelines and
benchmarks that serve as incremental steps helping to guide traditional land development and management
practices toward sustainability. Through these guidelines,the SSI explores opportunities for initial certification
after construction,with re-certification requirements to ensure that the site performs as anticipated over time.
The SSI rating system is a supplement to LEED certification programs and those of other green rating systems.
The SSI system is based on points and includes several prerequisites,much like LEED ratings. However,the
SSI system is focused solely on site design and development,rather than on buildings. The SSI also gives
information on resources for many of the design"credits,"which are achieved in order to earn points toward
certification.
This Master Plan recommends that the CRPR apply for SSI Certification upon beginning the detailed design
process for the proposed park development at Hess Field.
PARK SLSTAiNABILITY (h=NES
"Creating Sustainable Community Parks,A Guide to Improving Quality of Life by Protecting Natural
Resources",published by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources(DCNR)in
2007,provides valuable recommendations regarding how to implement sustainable practices into design,
maintenance, and operations of parks across the Commonwealth. The guide can be obtained from www.dcnr.
state.pa.us/brc/Greenin Pg ennsylvania.pdf
These practices are based on the following principals:
• Retain as much of the pre-existing landscape as possible during new construction, including the soil,
rocks,native vegetation,wetlands, and contours. This will minimize disturbances,which can open up
an area to invasive species. It can also keep costs down, as fewer new plants, soil amendments, and
habitat enhancements will be needed.
• Maintain high quality soils that will hold water and supply plants with proper nutrients. During
construction, leave as much existing topsoil as possible. When new soil is brought in, ensure that it is
certified weed free, in order to prevent the spread of new invasive species. Using compost and other
natural products for mulch and fertilizer will help enhance the soil and feed the native plants. Good
quality soil will reduce the need for fertilizers and supplemental watering.
• Connect new landscape components with the surrounding native vegetation to create larger contiguous
areas of habitat. Many wildlife species need large ranges to find adequate food,mates, and shelter. By
reducing the amount of roads,parking lots, and turf areas,or by placing these together,habitat quality
will be enhanced.
• Create natural storm water management systems and other green infrastructure, such as rain gardens
and swales of native grasses. These systems help to minimize downstream flooding,recharge and filter
groundwater, and are more cost-effective and environmentally-sound than man-made systems of pipes
and storage tanks.
• Protect wetlands from disturbance and fill. Avoid placing construction projects, day-use areas, and
roads/parking lots near or in wetlands. Natural wetlands provide many benefits to the environment that
cannot easily be duplicated with man-made ones.
• Use integrated pest management(IPM) strategies to minimize the use of chemical pesticides to control
plant and insect pests. IPM is an ecologically-based approach to pest control that helps maintain
strong and healthy plants. IPM can include the use of traps, sterile male pests, and quarantines.
• Minimize impermeable surfaces like roads,parking lots, and paved trails. Consider replacing asphalt
and concrete with permeable pavement,mulch paths, gravel lots, and native vegetation. Permeable
surfaces help to recharge ground water,reduce erosion, lessen flooding events,and filter out pollutants.
When impermeable surfaces must be used, arrange them in an area where they will not fragment
habitat, make them as small in area as possible, and keep them away from water bodies.
• Reduce turf to only those areas essential for recreational and other human use activities. Turf offers little
habitat benefit and is not as effective as many native plants in pollution filtration,flood prevention, and
erosion control. In addition,turf maintenance can have negative impacts on the surrounding environment
and can require lots of mowing,watering,and fertilizing. Replace non-native turf grasses with native
warm season grasses,which,once they are established,have lower maintenance needs.
• Use native plants in riparian buffers around any surface water body,
including wetlands. Riparian buffers help to filter pollutants before
they reach water bodies,and the vegetation discourages nuisance
geese from staying in the area. Roots from riparian vegetation
also prevent erosion of soils into the water body and minimize
flooding events. Shade from these buffers acts as a temperature
control for the water body,which enhances habitat value for aquatic
organisms. The food and shelter values of these buffers also
enhances habitat.In addition,by selecting the right kinds of plants,
the scenic views of the water bodies can be enhanced.
• Identify and remove invasive plant species whenever possible. Invasive plants have a number of
detrimental effects on natural habitats. Most invasive plants grow so densely and spread so rapidly
that native vegetation is choked out.
Opportunities for sustainable design in Hess Field include permeable paving,rain gardens,native species,
reducing the amount of turf, and promoting alternative transportation,to name a few.
OZEEN PRINQPLB RR PARK DNRIOPMENT AND &JSTAiNABILITY
DCNR has recently developed a set of principles to help communities develop practical projects that conserve
resources, generate economic and environmental benefits, and become healthier more sustainable places to
live. The following are the five basic principles:
• Principle#1: Maintain and Enhance Trees and Natural Landscaping
• Principle#2: Connect People to Nature
• Principle#3: Manage Stormwater Naturally
• Principle#4: Conserve Energy
• Principle#5: Integrate Green Design and Construction
A more detailed document describing the principles is located in the Appendix.
PRCI'CSID SLISTA NA 31E FFARRES
RMEPARKW E
The Master Plan recommends that the CRPR expand efforts to reduce
waste from the park. The park should offer recycling containers near
each facility or restrooms,concession stands,picnic shelters, individual
picnic tables, athletic fields, and bleachers. Containers should clearly
state what items are recyclable,per local recycling programs. The -ft®
CRPR is already involved in providing recycling in other parks and m�
would continue the program at the John Hess Softball Field Complex.
Possibilities exist at the park site for composting during warmer
months. Composting organic waste from the proposed concession
stand, as well as leaves and grass clippings,will produce rich planting
soil that could be used in park landscaping if needed, sold to the public, or used in other parks. CRPR will
work with the Centre County Solid Waste Authority to expand recycling efforts at Hess Field.
NhNINffm GtuNG AND SITE DsTmma
The final Master Plan strives to minimize grading by locating proposed -
facilities on the most level parts of the site,while avoiding placement of
large facilities on steeper slopes.
Such consideration will result in less grading, smaller cut and fill slopes, T
less site disturbance, less erosion, and lower costs due to avoidance of - -
grading into bedrock. -
z
I V &Ht'L1iUW
Forested areas and meadows on the park property should be maintained and improved to encourage wildlife
to use the park. CRPR should work with the PAGC,DCNR Bureau of Forestry,PSU Cooperative Extension,
and any other interested organizations in developing methods of improving wildlife habitat within the park.
Most importantly, CRPR should continue their policy of removing undesirable invasive species while retaining
native brush and understory plants that are essential to wildlife. Neighbors report a variety of wildlife living
and passing through the woods buffering their properties and the park.
NlN OF IMRRVOS SLWU AEA
The Master Plan recommends that impervious surface area be kept to a minimum throughout the park to reduce
stormwater runoff and initial costs. The width of parking aisles and stalls should be minimized. Stabilized
turf,used for the parking stalls on site,allows stormwater to infiltrate into the soils below, and therefore
reduces the volume of stormwater that will need to be managed.
Imme,1TRAN GFUM/ EkXNK7 M(X SVVS
Parking on the park site should include traffic islands containing rain gardens, or bio-infiltration swales. Rain
gardens are shallow planted swales that help to retain,filter, and infiltrate stormwater runoff into the underlying
soil rather than channeling it into piping systems. The Master Plan recommends the use of rain gardens/bio-
infiltration swales in park development.
O
c�
U
cn
CA
F-� O
ct
6
�I
Chapter 5 : Public Partici ation &
p
Usign Process
2L
Together with the inventory and analysis,public participation played a key role in helping Pashek Associates
develop the final Master Plan for Hess Field. This chapter describes that process.
A project study committee, comprised of local community officials,recreation group representatives, and
park users, led the decision-making process with help from the consultants. The committee offered specific
information about the recreation area and helped guide park design. Concept plans represented the initial
design ideas. After committee feedback on the concept plans, desired design ideas from each concept plan
were included in a Draft Master Plan. The Draft Master Plan was presented for comment at a public meeting.
With public comments in mind,the consultants further revised the Draft Master Plan, developed the specific
recommendations, cost estimates, and phasing plan detailed towards the end of this chapter.
PUBUC PAR]nCIPAU(
Public participation in the design process is important in ensuring that the final master plan reflects community
recreational needs and is fully supported by local decision makers and members of the community. The public
participation process for this study included:
• Public Input Sessions—Two open public meetings were held to both inform and gather input from the
public on the Master Plan.
The first meeting was held at the Boalsburg Fire Hall on
September 23,2010,to a full house of softball stakeholders and
neighbors. On display in the room were a survey of the property
and concept plans for the renovations to John Hess Field; and final II
master plans for Oak Hall and Whitehall Road Regional Parklands. Alt
The master planning process was described and sources of input
(State College Area Softball Association, surveys of residents
and interviews)were identified. The site analysis was presented
identifying the location of the neighbors'property,building
setbacks and topography limitations. Existing conditions were reviewed including dilapidated or
unsafe bleachers, foul ball zones,field orientation and ADA accessibility.
Two scenarios were developed to address softball needs in the region. The merits and disadvantages of
both were discussed as a group. The options were:
1. Develop four smaller fields for youth softball only.
2. Develop three larger fields that would be suitable for both adult and youth use.
Both plans preserve most of the wooded buffer between the fields and the nearby residents. Both plans
provide for a two story press box centrally located,with concessions,restrooms and umpire space in
the building. Should the all youth complex ultimately be developed at John Hess Field, it would only
take place after new adult fields are built at Oak hall Regional Parkland.
The second meeting took place on January 13, 2011 at the Boalsburg Fire Hall. This presentation
not only addressed the recommendations for the John Hess Field Master Plan but also proposed
amendments to the Oak Hall Regional Parkland Master Plan.
• Study Committee Meetings—The study committee is made up of elected and appointed officials
representing Harris, College,Patton, and Ferguson Townships and the Borough of State College.
Frequently managers or their representatives attended. The committee also includes the Centre
Regional Recreation Authority and staff from the Centre Regional Council of Governments.
The first meeting for this master plan took place on July 15,2010. Subsequent Committee meetings
were held to discuss programming, site opportunities/constraints, and design concepts. Discussion
focused on the John Hess Field Master Plan at Committee meetings on August 19, September 16,
October 21,December 16, and January 13.
• COG General Forum Meetings—The Centre Region Council of Governments General Forum
meetings take place on the fourth Monday of each month. The meeting includes elected officials from
all six participating communities and their managers. The John Hess Field Master Plan was presented
as an update at their August 23,2010 meeting. The draft Master Plan was presented to the General
Forum at their January 24,2011 meeting.
• Focus Group Meeting—A meeting was held on site with the softball association to discuss the goals
for the park.
• Key Person Interviews—Several stakeholders were contacted throughout the process to discuss
proposed park improvements. They included interviews with the electric utility about the main line
running through the park,the sewage treatment plant about the benefits and weaknesses of using their
free soil amendment, and with the zoning officer about potential zoning issues.
The input process culminated in the identification of proposed facilities and their relationship to each other,
which the Master Plan reflects. Actual meeting minutes are located in the Appendix of this report.
GNCLLSlCNS
Through this process,the consultant discovered the importance of having diamond-shaped fields at Hess Field.
Furthermore,having three or more fields located at the same facility improves the opportunities for tournaments.
Additional meetings allowed us to better understand the capacity of the land,whether through soils
composition, availability for utilities and the impact of park development on adjacent property owners.
Ultimately, a concensus was formed around two strategies for John Hess Field. The two options represent a
youth softball complex of four fields and a softball complex of three larger,multi-age fields. The Committee
decided that they did not need to choose between the options at this time.
DBI(N PROS
LEscRIPTICN of CCNCEPr PLANS
Potential design alternatives were generated to allow the project study committee opportunity to consider
features to incorporate into the Draft Master Plan. An evaluation of conclusions from the site analysis and
proposed program of uses led to several key assumptions:
1. The priority for uses on the site is diamond shaped fields for softball.
2. Based on the conclusion that the Oak Hall Regional Park will not be able to accommodate enough
diamond fields for softball, on its own,Hess field will continue to provide diamond fields for
tournament play.
3. Secondary uses should complement the softball facilities.
4. The steep sloped area on the northern side of the property will continue to be used as a spectator area.
5. The forested area on the eastern side of the property will be preserved as much as possible to provide a
buffer for the existing residences and continue to serve as habitat for wildlife.
Two concept plans were developed. All plans are similar in program,use of central core area for services, and
use of trees and integrated stormwater drainage features for habitat and unity. Plans vary in circulation pattern
and organization of athletic fields and support facilities. Improvements for each concept are shown in the chart
below the following concept plans:
CONCEPT]
Four youth-sized fields were arrayed in approximately the same location as the fields that exist today. They are
smaller and are properly oriented to the sun pattern. A core area for concessions,restrooms,press box,umpire
area, and picnicking is provided near organized parking.
1
� ! 1_
1
CONCEPT 2
The goal of this plan was to orient the fields on the site so that home plates are closer to parking. The core
area for support facilities remains centrally located. The spectator hillside to the north is further removed from
home plate and has become a less desirable spectator area.
� f
_ - l
i
j � I
cam= GhVMSCNS
IMPROVEMENTS
7�—
Enhancement of the local rural aesthetic by retaining and Yes Yes
expanding upon existing hedgerows
Proposed small ball fields(225'baselines and 225'center field) 4 4
Proposed playgrounds 1 1
Medium shelters 3 1
Smaller shelters 0 1
Proposed restrooms/concession facilities 1 1
Casual picnic opportunities as individual picnic tables Several Several
Press Box 0 1
Central stormwater infiltration recreating historic drainage Yes No
Proposed parking with overflow areas Yes Yes
Proposed maintenance facility Yes Yes
CONCEPT PLAN CONCLUSIONS
The study committee preferred Concept 1 because it fit best with the topography of the site,took advantage of
the hillside for spectator viewing, and kept the fields located close to the central core area of support facilities.
Dt*r MASnx PLAN IVL_;scwPmcy
The Draft Master Plan incorporates favorable elements from the various concept plans and addresses general
recreation comments given at study committee meetings. Facilities and improvements included in the Draft
Master Plan are as follows:
• Three accessible picnic groves with 20'x30'shelters.
• Four diamond-shaped fields with 225'baselines,players'benches and bleachers.
• Hillside spectator area with shade trees.
• Stormwater treatment and infiltration area to restore historic stormwater patterns.
• Meadow planting to reduce maintenance and stormwater runoff.
• Umpire parking with 18 parking spaces(one accessible) and aggregate surface.
• Core area with 20'x40'entrance pavilion,two-story restrooms, concessions, and press box building,
entrance plaza with tables and chairs,20'x28'shelter,umpire's shelter with lockers, and a drop-off.
• Entrance road with street trees, sidewalk, entrance sign,planting, and trail connection.
• Aggregate parking with 51 spaces (12 accessible).
• Overflow parking with approximately 175 spaces.
• Stabilized turf parking with 122 spaces.
• Maintenance area with building and outdoor storage area.
FIM Pk.k Orov"t"", %4--a.r inrrr.r.t t.rw.Pa.un.0%K&W Gaa* .
�rr. rty rr
irr;..�..�0/IOW. _ -\ _ .N�w►lrlq
Nft10a spaela0or Ata.
• .�rM�.r.A►�*rA.4rr..rrr
COM AM
' � I umo�n vu►^9
i
� � 1 rw.ae•now
f."W"%..e
I — / Aggregate Par*ing
FUN a
PW Q er......n •....
t BtaAaN:aO TuA PaAbg
r .r..w.
^-{ Ne t wome Ana
Hess Field Master Plan V
Wow Plan ...
A second option to the Draft Master Plan was explored that included property acquisition of 0.4 acres to
accommodate a larger diamond-shaped field with 275'base lines.
►.r"G-.0 t6•Sn.pro - ►.oprrry Acarulon fi/w r rW.fir Or c:.nw
►We
rrrrrrrr.r
11mwrR Tnw�
..............rr�.
MW 101111Iidn
:n rr.rwww r _ Mod"nNnll*
rrw lrw.Nrrr. �r� -.�.r�rr rrrr+r rr.r...
1�rir.��r.r Y. r�rrJ r.�rb r•��ArrrM
I�IOM9"MMUSMo1 AM
IWO fMt
R.O rW1\YW.M Y �
4
lIMrO •-itL�
l Cw Pim$scon•")
�i��►.�far N it
• , r•rrr raw @I
JY►1Mw-am iD
1 wI
`� I Y ® 1 t• tll•�110�RDW
Llnrl IA.i��r(i/rld 71�Mw
�rq40 r'_kh
' • F o.w+ww rw%mv
tY0Nj*0 TL4?rWIMV
UMMUfte Ana
Hess Field Master Plan pt
+•�� _ Ir>.r 1 erM Dnrll W.rw Arn A •��
.� - - � ^•
PARKING STANDARDS
Parking must be considered for almost every recreation facility. It would not be feasible to provide the amount
of formal parking required for peak use events, such as softball or baseball tournaments,July 4th festivities,
or other large public gatherings. The COG would be investing substantial funds in capital improvements that
would only be utilized a few times each year. Excess parking facilities occupy space that could be used for
the development of other recreational facilities. Further, "proper sizing"of parking spaces also minimizes
impervious surface and reduces storm run-off. Dimensions for parking spaces proposed in Concept Plans,the
Draft Master Plan, and Final Master Plans are detailed in an earlier chapter.
Parking standards for this study were estimated using standards from Pashek Associates'prior experience
with similar projects. The highest possible use rate by players and spectators at any facility is its peak use. A
facility's daily use is 60%of its peak use. Parking should accommodate average daily use while providing
opportunity for overflow parking to meet peak use event needs. Parking standards for this study were figured
from the daily use rate assuming 2.5 persons per car. Parking for some facilities may vary from this formula,
as users may arrive with a higher frequency. The parking area will be planned in accordance with the
regulations in the Harris Township Zoning Ordinance.
FINAL MAsuR PLAT LEscwPucN
GOALS
The final Master Plan reflects the following project goals:
• Environment—Conserve and enhance natural conditions and features.
• Community—Respond to conditions and needs of adjacent and regional community.
• Program—Accommodate a logical mix and quantity of park uses.
• Economics—Maximize relationship between cost and benefits to community.
• Identity—Create a dignified and beautiful park space that improves over time.
PROCESS OF REFINEMENT
Several concept plans and a draft master plan that focused on developing four youth sized fields were
presented at public and study committee meetings. The plan was headed toward a recommendation for a youth
tournament site at John Hess Field. However, feedback from the public, activists in the SCASA and the Study
Committee,resulted in the development of a second draft master plan representing three softball fields sized
for adults with the flexibility of placing temporary outfield fencing for youth play. The purpose of developing
the second draft master plan was to present both options for consideration in the hopes that a consensus for one
plan would evolve, allowing the selected plan to be developed in greater detail for the final master plan.
Discussion on softball field options was linked closely to proposed revisions to the Oak Hall Regional Parkland
Master Plan. Assuming that the three field complex originally proposed and approved as part of the master
plan in 2009,would be expanded to four fields, forming the minimal size for tournament play for adults,
alternatives could be considered for John Hess Softball Field Complex. In effect,the two options are to have
seven All-age fields at both parks(three at John Hess and four at Oak Hall) or eight softball fields(four Youth
Fields at John Hess and Four All-age fields at Oak Hall).
However,benefits of both plans were identified and the committee requested that the decision as to which
plan should be selected be deferred until such time as a consensus was achieved. So both draft plans were
developed into final plan options and included in the master plan.
THE YOUTH SOFTBALL COMPLEX
Access,Circulation, Stormwater
The existing entrance road is widened to accommodate both a left
and right turning lane where it meets State Route 45. A new entrance
sign with landscaping identifies the park. Street trees and grass
swales line the winding road that leads to the heart of the site and
several parking options including accessible,gravel,stabilized turf,
and overflow parking. Attractive bio-retention areas near the fields
and parking accommodates stormwater infiltration and treatment.
Active Recreation Areas
The Plan proposes four youth diamond fields with 225'base lines and center field. A core area provides a
central gathering space and includes an entrance pavilion, a two-story building with restrooms, concessions,
umpire room and press box, a plaza, and a picnic shelter.
Complementary Uses
Other uses include several picnic groves and a maintenance facility.
Spatial Organization
The park is organized into a pattern of outdoor rooms, connecting directly to the adjacent agricultural context,
and is transected by the restored drainage pattern. Proposed rows of trees extend the existing forest block to
provide a pattern for the walkways and athletic fields. The bio-retention areas for the fields attempt to simulate
the historic drainage patterns.
ALL AGE SOFTBALL COMPLEX
This Master Plan is very similar to the Youth Softball Complex
except that it replaces four small fields with three large adult
softball fields with 300'baselines. This creates a smaller core ..
area that includes a plaza, and two-story building with restrooms,
concessions, and umpire room and press box. Other uses include On, -
r
a playground with small shelter,picnic grove, and maintenance
facility.
TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation estimates for the P.M. peak hour of traffic were developed for the proposed Hess Field Master
Plan(dated 8/16/10). New trip estimates are shown in Table 1. The trip generation rates were developed from
local trip-making assumptions. Local trip assumptions for baseball fields were adopted as documented in
Need and Design for Eastbound Whitehall Road Right-Turn Lane at Blue Course Drive Memo,Dated May 1,
2009. Since a majority of the parkland is anticipated to be used by organized sports groups,no reductions in
trip generation are assumed due to pedestrian,bicycle, or transit(bus)trips. The impact of pedestrian,bicycle,
and transit(bus)trips to the site is assumed negligible for the purposes of conservatively analyzing vehicular
impacts on adjacent intersections.
It should be noted that there are currently four(4)baseball fields with the Hess Field Master Plan Area.
Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed park development will generate minimal amount of additional
traffic over the existing condition. However,Table 1 shows the trip generation analysis for full development of
the four(4)baseball fields,not the anticipated incremental increase.
Table 1. Trip Generation Estimates
Hess Field Master Plan
Harris Township, Centre County
Land Entering Trip Exiting Trip P.M. Peak Hour Total New
Land Use Use /Unit Generation Generation Trips
Intensity Rate Per Unit Rate Per Unit IN OUT TOTAL
Baseball Fields 4 Fields 27.00 9.45 108 38 146
Total 108 38 146
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Peak hour trip distribution is shown in Figure 1. The trip distribution is based upon existing traffic patterns at
the intersection of Hess Field Park Road and Shingletown Road and reflects the following:
• New trips to/from the east on Shingletown Road: 70%
• New trips to/from the west on Shingletown Road: 30%
1
NEW TRIPS DUE TO HESS FIELD COMPLEX
The trip distribution estimates from Figure 1 were applied to the new trips estimated in the trip generation task
to produce the new trip volumes for the P.M.peak hour for the Hess Field Park(Figure 2).
� L L
Nees Fkk&W -J �-- Nese Pk+i Me -�I L- �
---------70J sir Ddw ----------27J sir P/hoWDAS
J
Legend Legend
M-Aeivelwftalue DkIr Mon W-Peek Now Vehide Vokmes
FIGURE 1 e .ro FIGURE 2
SCAL&NOTro9CAt8 SlAIII
NEW TRIP DI.SfR®Uf10N �A � NEW TRIPS-PM PEAK HOUR wA 5111�II-AIIIIR
NARRIS roas+el� sse Paon 0: 1 ENAN[PRIN(:uc
C@J'IRe COUNTY,PA I—I WWN.55&LLC.COM CHnRHCWNlY,PA 1a01 WWW.SS�II.C.COM
ST(R WMM NUAaMNT MASUR PLANNING
This narrative is presented to summarize the means of stormwater management for the proposed Hess Field
Master Plan located in Harris Township, Centre County. The park master plan includes the recreational
improvements including up to four softball fields, and expanded parking facilities. The park will also provide
accessible walking paths to all field and facilities. Proposed buildings include restrooms,concessions,
maintenance/storage, and several picnic pavilions.
The proposed site is located on an existing 20.63-acre parcel of agricultural land currently used for athletic
fields. The overland slopes across the property average 1 to 3 percent(with steeper slopes along the north
and east perimeters)and direct runoff towards Woodside Drive and eventually offsite to a wide floodplain of
Roaring Run, a tributary to Slab Cabin Run. A site investigation revealed no evidence of concentrated flows in
or around the existing property. Due to the large acreage of pervious surface and minimal slope, it is assumed
that limited stormwater runoff currently leaves this site. There are no identified wetlands on the site.
The soils found on the site are of the Murrill and Hagerstown series. The majority of the site is comprised
of the Murrill series. The Murrill series is a well drained, silty loam with a typically deep bedrock depth and
moderately slow permeability. The Hagerstown series is a well drained, silty clay loam with a shallow bedrock
depth and moderately slow permeability.
The proposed parkland development includes approximately 1 acres of new impervious surfaces.These
surfaces include roof area, and gravel parking areas. A large portion(greater than 50%)of the proposed
parking will be pervious by stabilized turf parking.
The additional runoff generated by the increase in impervious area will originate primarily from the gravel
parking areas. In general,the stormwater maintenance for this site will include numerous separate retention
and infiltration facilities in order to manage impervious runoff at the locations where it is being generated. A
shallow open swale will meander through the site following the historic drainage pattern of the site. Bio-
retention facilities will be incorporated along the entrance drive and between parking areas. The estimated
storage necessary to address Township ordinance requirements is approximately 15,000 cf of water volume. It
is anticipated that the various bio-retention facilities throughout the site will address this volume requirement.
These areas will also serve as both retention and detention facilities to address local ordinance requirements for
the proposed increase in runoff.
SANITARY SEWER MASS PLANNING
Based upon local sewer authority rate tables and the expected usage for the Whitehall Road Park, it is
estimated that 2 EDU's will be required to service the park. This results in an average daily effluent of
approximately 350 gallons. Due to the location of the site more than a half mile from the region's public sewer
service boundary,the most feasible option for permanent service is on site septic. Due to possible limitations
of the soils for use as drain fields,this may require incorporating a sand mound as part of the septic system.
The restroom facilities and septic system will need to be engineered strategically to insure a functioning
system.
WAHR SERN E MASTER PLANING
Water service is anticipated to be from the public source along SR 45. Service will be distributed to the
maintenance building and the restroom/concession building. The State College Borough Water Authority will
be the provider and has adequate capacity at this location to service the park requirements.
FLEC,MC SERVICE MASTER PLANNING
Underground electric service is anticipated to be supplied from the existing Allegheny Power connection along
SR 45. The existing overhead service will be converted to underground service at the SR 45 connection. A
distribution system is proposed that will include new transformer and panel in order to efficiently distribute
power throughout the site. Facilities requiring power include: ballfield lighting(1 location),restrooms,
pavilion lighting, and the maintenance area.
IRRIGAIICN SYSZIlVI PLANNING
There are a number of benefits to irrigating sports fields with an automatic system. They include:
1. The fields are safer,the turf softer than dry,hard packed turf.
2. The fields are quicker to rejuvenate from heavy use,important when tournaments schedule many back-
to-back games over a long weekend.
3. The fields are more attractive and evoke quality
4. Automatic systems are much less costly over the long term,than manual or semi-automatic systems
that require much labor.
Watering of turf grasses is targeted for 1 1/2 inch of water per week. This equates to 40,000 gallons per week
per acre. The irrigation line needs at static pressure of 85psi. The proposed system should include a weather
station, a two wire controller system, and a quick coupler system in addition to irrigation spray heads for the
diamond fields to water down the clay infields.
Typical costs for irrigations system components:
• Diamond shaped fields- $18,000
• Booster pump and backflow preventer- $15,000
• Weather station- $5,000
AEffiq=iNiEN+mAv
Although all facilities receiving public funding are required to meet ADA requirements,the following is a list
of accessible notes that were part of the discussion leading to the final master plan:
1. All parking areas will include accessible parking. Although the intent for the foreseeable future is for
aggregate surfacing for roads and some parking,the accessible spaces would be a bituminous paving
surface. Parking spaces will have a maximum 2%slope in both directions.
2. The parking areas and streets will not have curbs. Therefore,there will be no need to include any curb
ramps.
3. All buildings will be fully accessible.
4. All of the facilities will be fully accessible including accessible routes to every facility, including
players benches at all fields.
5. In picnic areas, some of the tables will have overhangs to accommodate wheel chairs. Where benches
or stands exist, additional surfacing will be provided for wheel chair bound spectators to sit next to
someone in the stands or on a bench.
6. All walks and trails will be graded to 5%or less with a maximum 2%cross slope.
REua&wrcFEqRmmPbu
During discussions about this Master
Plan, it was noted that a new housing �=
development was proposed, across ! ="
or northeast of Route 45. That j
development proposed an entrance -
road that was about 80 feet northwest
of the existing park entrance. The �. I ^` -•�
developer,Harris Township and %
PennDot thought that aligning the
park drive with the new development '� r
would create a safer entrance into
4.illst
both projects off Route 45. Re-
aligning the park road would require
building the park entrance road on f
property owned by the Meyer Dairy
Limited Partnership. The developer '. _
has already approached the property
owner to see if they would be willing
to transfer the property or grant a right-of-way for the new road. This sketch shows how the property might be
reconfigured to incorporate the new alignment of the park road.
The development of John Hess Softball Field Complex is scheduled for a number of years into the future
pending financing. However,it was the consensus of the Parks Capital Committee that it would be appropriate
to support continued discussions with the property owner toward relocating the park entrance to align with the
private development across Route 45. This driveway realignment could be incorporated into either the Youth
Field Layout Option or the All-Age Field Layout Option.
—�
f
i 1
-Pei+
e
flit
ac
70
LL
� 4
W _ I t
N
•
O V z _
06
� a
Q Y� 2g ~Y '
as
W IL 4
a
t
C',
Ir
21
EL
��ia i A i ' gl a e me
s
Lcu
70
LL
- 70
U)
it Cr
a
t
i
4 �
i
M
C
4 !
LL A ••�€ !
o - -
16
21
CJ � C-
V
_' oRM 1
wOi,M.W W V
f
� � I
�1
am
/ 10
dmB
•
j a C21t` \
'S 1
b.A
Tci
N
W
�.J
N
C�
Chapter 6 : Cost Fstima.tes & Financing
GBT ES]1MME FCR EBff-C 'M \Tr
Pashek Associates developed an opinion of probable construction costs for the proposed site improvements,
based on the assumption that the implementation of the facilities will occur through a public bidding process,
utilizing the Prevailing Wage Rates. To budget for inflation of costs for future improvements,we recommend a
four percent(4%) annual increase be budgeted for all work occurring after 2010.
In Pennsylvania,all projects over$25,000 are required to use the State's Prevailing Wage Rates for
Construction. However,volunteer labor, as well as donated equipment and materials,may reduce construction
costs. Centre Region Parks and Recreation may choose to construct some of the facilities utilizing volunteer
and/or donated labor or materials. Additionally, alternate sources of funding, including grant opportunities
identified herein,may help to offset the expense to the CRPR.
Based on these requirements,the opinion of probable construction cost to implement all of the improvements
being proposed at Whitehall Road Regional Parklands is summarized as follows:
SOFTBALL
MASTER PLAN
PROPOSED YOUTH SOFTBALLI '
Opinion of ib.b Construction i
TOTAL COST
Item/Recommendation Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Item
Cost
A. Removals and Site Preparation
A.1 Remove and Salvage backstops,dugouts,bleachers and 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
fencing
A.2 Place Electrical Primary underground for 600 feet in field 600 LF $400 $24,000
area
A.3 Construct Phase I stormwater mgmt facilities and E&SC I LS $30,000 $30,000
controls
B. Earthwork
B.1 Strip Topsoil 70000 SY $0.50 $35,000
B.2 Bulk Excavation(ave.2 feet over developed area) 45000 CY $4.00 $180,000
B.3 Install Remaining Stormwater and E&SC measures I LS $10,000 $10,000
B.4 Spead topsoil,rockhound surface 70000 SY $0.50 $35,000
B.5 Temporary Seeding for Erosion Control 0.75 AC $5,000 $3,750
C. Utilities
C.1 Install Stormwater Drainlines and Inlets using BMPs 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
C.2 Set electrical transformer and install underground primary 1 LS $23,000 $23,000
and secondary
C.3 Install Septic Field using sand mound with sewer piping 1 LS $35,000 $35,000
CA Set Water meter pit,extend water main to core area and 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
distribute to irrigation
D. Site Improvements-Structures
D.1 2-story press box,umpire room,restroom,concessions and 4800 SF $100 $480,000
storage
D.2 20'x40'shelter(Core Area) 2 EA $40,000 $80,000
D.3 20'x30'shelter 4 EA $30,000 $120,000
DA maintenance Building(3-car garage) 1200 SF $75 $90,000
E. Site Improvements-Fields
E.1 Fine Grading,soil amendments 4 EA $5,000 $20,000
E.2 Seeding 4 EA $7,000 $28,000
E.3 Infield Mix 4 EA $8,000 $32,000
EA Reinstall backstops,dugouts,stands 4 EA $10,000 $40,000
E.5 New Field Chainlink Fencing with protective fence top 3300 LF $25 $82,500
E.6 Softball Field Misc equipment 1 LS $1,000 $1,000
E.7 Scoreboard 4 EA $10,000 $40,000
E.8 Lighting for One Field 1 EA $150,000 $150,000
E.9 Irrigation for Field 4 EA $20,000 $80,000
F. Site Improvements-Roads and Parking
F.1 Entrance Road-aggregate 1300 SY $25 $32,500
F.2 Parking-aggregate 3600 SY $25 $90,000
F.3 Parking Stabilized Turf 5900 SY $25 $147,500
F.4 Wheel stops and signs 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
F.5 Entrance Gate,Maintenance yard gate and fencing around 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Maintenance Yard
G. Site Improvements-Core Area
G.1 Plaza Paving 13000 SF $8 $104,000
G.2 Benches and Tables 30 EA $1,000 $30,000
G.3 Playground 1 EA $100,000 $100,000
GA Signs 1 LS $1,000 $1,000
H. Site Improvements-Landscaping
H.1 Seeding,non-field areas 10 AC $5,000 $50,000
H.2 Planting Infiltration Trenches 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
H.3 Planting in Core Area and at SW corner of Stands/dugouts 30 EA $250 $7,500
HA Planting of Parking Areas and Entrance 50 EA $250 $12,500
H.5 Planting Screen around Maintenance Area 50 EA $125 $6,250
I. Miscellaneous Expenses
I.1 Perimeter Fencing to define property boundary(all sides) 3890 LF $5 $19,450
I.2 Waster Receptacles,signs and recycling bins 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
L3 Entrance Sign 1 EA $5,000 $5,000
Subtotal $2,419,950
Add 10%for Contingency $2,661,945
Add 10% for design,permitting and approvals $2,928,139
SOFTBALLEX
MASTER PLAN
I TOTAL COST
PROPOSED ALL AGE SOFTBALL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN-
Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Item/Recommendation Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Item
A. Removals and Site Preparation
A.1 Remove and Salvage backstops,dugouts,bleachers and 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
fencing
A.2 Place Electrical Primary underground for 600 feet in field 600 LF $40 $24,000
area
A.3 Construct Phase I stormwater mgmt facilities and E&SC 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
controls
B. Earthwork
B.1 Strip Topsoil 77000 SY $0.50 $38,500
B.2 Bulk Excavation(ave.2 feet over developed area) 45000 CY $4 $180,000
B.3 Install Remaining Stormwater and E&SC measures 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
B.4 Spead topsoil,rockhound surface 77000 SY $0.50 $38,500
B.5 Temporary Seeding for Erosion Control 0.75 AC $5,000 $3,750
C. Utilities
C.1 Install Stormwater Drainlines and Inlets using BMPs 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
C.2 Set electrical transformer and install underground primary 1 LS $23,000 $23,000
and secondary
C.3 Install Septic Field using sand mound with sewer piping 1 LS $35,000 $35,000
C.4 Set Water meter pit,extend water main to core area and 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
distribute to irrigation
D. Site Improvements-Structures
D.1 2-story press box,umpire room,restroom,concessions 4800 SF $100 $480,000
and storage
D.2 20'x40'shelter(Core Area) 1 EA $40,000 $40,000
D.3 20'x30'shelter 2 EA $30,000. $60,000
D.4 maintenance Building(3-car garage) 1200 SF $75 $90,000
E. Site Improvements-Fields
E.1 Fine Grading,soil amendments 3 EA $8,000 $24,000
E.2 Seeding 3 EA $10,000 $30,000
E.3 Infield Mix 3 EA $10,000 $30,000
E.4 Reinstall backstops,dugouts,stands 3 EA $10,000 $30,000
E.5 New Field Chainlink Fencing with protective fence top 3200 LF $25 $80,000
E.6 Softball Field Misc equipment 1 LS $1,000 $1,000
E.7 Scoreboard 3 EA $10,000 $30,000
E.8 Lighting for One Field 1 EA $180,000 $180,000
E.9 Irrigation for Field 3 EA $25,000 $75,000
F. Site Improvements-Roads and Parking
F.1 Entrance Road-aggregate 1000 SY $25 $25,000
F.2 Parking-aggregate 3600 SY $25 $90,000
0 M M
F.3 Parking Stabilized Turf 4700 SY $25 $117,500
F.4 Wheel stops and signs 1 LS $16,000 $16,000
F.5 Entrance Gate,Maintenance yard gate and fencing around 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Maintenance Yard
G. Site Improvements-Core Area
G.1 Plaza Paving 8300 SF $8 $66,400
G.2 Benches and Tables 30 EA $1,000 $30,000
G.3 Playground 1 EA $200,000 $200,000
GA Signs 1 LS $1,000 $1,000
H. Site Improvements-Landscaping
H.1 Seeding,non-field areas 9 AC $5,000 $45,000
H.2 Planting Infiltration Trenches 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
H.3 Planting in Core Area and at SW corner of Stands/dugouts 20 EA $250 $5,000
HA Planting of Parking Areas and Entrance 35 EA $250 $8,750
H.5 Planting Screen around Maintenance Area 50 EA $125 $6,250
I. Miscellaneous Expenses
1.1 Perimeter Fencing to define property boundary(all sides) 3890 LF $5 $19,450
1.2 Waster Receptacles,signs and recycling bins 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
1.3 Entrance Sign 1 EA $5,000 $5,000
Subtotal M $2,343,100
Add 10%for Contingency $2,577,410
Add 10%for design,permitting and approvals $2,835,151
TOTAL $2,835,151
PHASING
Through the leadership of Harris Township and the efforts of all five participating municipalities in the regional
parks initiative,the risk of losing the existing four softball fields in 2009/2010 was averted. With the transfer of the
property to the COG in September of 2010,responsibility for the park maintenance became a reality this past fall.
Over the years,as is often the case with volunteer organizations,the park had some deferred maintenance and a series
of unsafe conditions existed,along with construction that did not meet local codes and accessibility requirements.
The CRPR maintenance staff quickly mobilized to remove unsafe equipment. With the help of Harris
Township public works staff and equipment, dugouts were removed and grading for ADA accessible paths
was completed. The Patton Township manager arranged for Glenn O. Hawbaker Construction to donate
aggregate for the accessible paths and the paint for the existing chain link fencing. The following is a list of
improvements undertaken by the CRPR in the fall of 2010 and spring of 2011:
• Removals of backstops, dugouts, concessions stand/press box and unsafe bleachers
• Fine grading of the fields including improvement to the turf and re-establishment of the infield lines
and new clay infield mixes
• Reconstruction of batters'boxes
• Purchase and installation of new backstops and dugouts for all four fields
• Installation of new fencing mesh to protect players and spectators from foul balls and home runs
• General cleanup of the perimeter of the park, including debris
• Placement of overhead power line underground
The safety and accessibility work tasks are improving the appearance of the park while making the fields more
enjoyable to play on and safer. However,until Phase I improvements described in the following paragraphs
are funded,there remain compromises for players and spectators. They include:
1. There is no permanent structure for concessions or a press box for tournament officials. There has
been discussion of the renting of a small trailer for an operations office,to be located on the pad left
from the old concessions building.
2. Other than Accessible parking,the parking remains a lawn area.
3. Sewage will be handled by portable toilets.
The following is a discussion of the phasing of permanent improvements to the park once funding is made
available and the Oak Hall Regional Parklands softball fields are built.
Ideally,the COG would construct all park improvements in one phase,minimizing construction activities,
disruptions,and realizing"economies of scale"construction savings. A number of participating municipalities are
recommending that the park be developed in one phase.
The total cost of the park as currently proposed is $2,835,000 to $2,928,000,depending upon the master plan
selected. These estimates do not include any acquisition or construction costs for the driveway realignment
with Misty Hill Drive -regardless of the field layout option selected by the COG.
To determine Phasing,we typically need to approach a strategy informed by:
• the amount the municipalities were willing to fund in the first phase, and subsequent phases;
• the highest priority facilities
• construction efficiencies like bulk excavation economies of scale,underground work in preparation for
surface improvements and need to complete E&SC and Stormwater management improvements early
in the project.
SOFTBALL
COMPLEX MASTER PLAN
PROPOSED YOUTH SOFTBALL1 PLAN
Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
PHASE
Item/Recommendation Cost
A. Removals and Site Preparation $15,000
B. Earthwork $84,584
C. Utilities $124,667
D. Site Improvements - Structures $770,000
E. Site Improvements -Fields n/a
F. Site Improvements -Roads and Parking $300,000
G. Site Improvements-Core Area $235,000
H. Site Improvements-Landscaping $51,250
I. Miscellaneous Expenses $29,450
Subtotal $1,609,951
Add 10%for Contingency $1,770,946
Add 10%for design,permitting and approvals $1,948,040
TOTAL •. : 141
JOHN HESS SOFTBALL1
COMPLEXPLAN
PROPOSED1UTH SOFTBALL COMPLEXPLAIN-
6Opinion
W P ASE 11 - COST
Item/Recommendation Cost
A. Removals and Site Preparation $49,000
B. Earthwork $179,166
C. Utilities $33,333
D. Site Improvements- Structures n/a
E. Site Improvements-Fields $473,500
F. Site Improvements -Roads and Parking n/a
G. Site Improvements- Core Area n/a
H. Site Improvements-Landscaping $75,000
I. Miscellaneous Expenses n/a
Subtotal $809,999
Add 10%for Contingency $890,998
Add 10%for design,permitting and approvals $980,098
•
Unlike the other two regional parks, John Hess Softball Field Complex is an operating facility with a full
schedule of use that must be factored into the development of a phasing plan. The proposed fields under either
master plan scenario,would require the closing of existing fields for a year or more. So the first phasing issue
is to make sure the proposed softball fields at Oak Hall Regional Parkland are up and functioning before doing
any major improvements to the John Hess Softball complex.
The proposed master plans require adjustments to all of the fields. It therefore becomes challenging to
consider a multi-phase approach for the development of the fields. Although there would be efficiencies
in constructing all of the proposed improvements in one phase,we do see that there is the possibility of
developing the plan in two phases. We note that the support facilities,the press box, core area,parking,
entrance road and maintenance facility could be developed without impacting the use of the existing fields.
Then, once these support facilities are in-place, one would develop the four or three new fields.
f
SX�J
C �R
w
- J J
� l
1
if
l:'
4"Wtll
A�►
o - .
44
•
- � r
C
y
^ G
!a
C
.�.: LLl
011 1
!Oil�E ,
t I _
d:' '•,t »!
1
+ 'ri
oilli
O 1
N
l r.er.
70A�•Y.m W.•
A\DOMVO�-S
NhVaNINr
The success of all of the Regional Parklands is dependent on Centre Region Parks and Recreation's (CRPR)
ability to successfully manage, operate, and maintain the park.
The details of the Management Plan that includes an Administrative Plan,Program Plan, Risk Management
Plan, and Maintenance Plan are described in the previously completed Whitehall Road Regional Parkland
Master Plan. The same systems apply to this master plan as well.
Much of this type of management plan already exists within Centre Region Parks and Recreation. Some
adaptations or additions may be required to meet the specific needs of this new park.
NINENASUE
CRPR has an established maintenance staff consisting of a parks supervisor, assistant supervisor, six
caretakers, and fourteen seasonal staff that will incorporate the maintenance and upkeep of the park. The staff
is experienced and adept at the maintenance of park lands and the types of facilities that are to be located in
this park.
Planning for maintenance and operations is an important consideration in the development of new park
facilities. Consideration must be given to on-going staffing and maintenance costs, as well as major equipment
needs. Additionally, development of a Park Maintenance Plan is the first step in risk management.
A Park Maintenance Plan should establish standards of care that will keep recreation facilities functional and
safe,reduce liability risks, and plan for prevention of accidents.A sample maintenance plan can be found in the
appendix of this report.
Routine equipment maintenance and servicing must be scheduled and performed on a regular basis.With
proper care,replacement of maintenance equipment can be kept to a minimum. The equipment and tool
inventory should be kept updated to assure the availability of proper tools when they are needed.A fund should
be established to provide for new maintenance equipment and a regular replacement program.
Regular review of legal requirements and inspections for conformance to sanitary regulations, criteria
for licensing,fire laws,building codes,pesticide applications, and safety procedures is a priority for the
maintenance staff. CRPR should continue to keep up-to-date with safety standards such as those published by
the American Society for Testing Materials and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The maintenance plan sets standards of care for each facility. This allows for a measure of productivity in park
and facility maintenance. Park maintenance should be monitored and compared to the standards established in
the Park's Maintenance Plan.
The National Recreation and Parks Association's publication Operational Guidelines for Grounds
Maintenance, describes various levels of care for park facilities. The publication assists in determining the
appropriate level of maintenance of park facilities based on size and usage and provides productivity standards,
which are useful in determining the efficiency and effectiveness of park maintenance staff. This publication
is also a valuable tool for projecting maintenance requirements of proposed projects and,with current cost
estimating guides,can assist in establishing park maintenance budgets.
The NRPA classification system identifies five levels of care that a park facility may receive. These are as
follows:'
MODE I
State of the art maintenance applied to a high quality, diverse landscape. Mode I care is usually associated
with high traffic urban areas, such as public squares,malls, governmental grounds or high visitation areas.
MODE II
High level maintenance associated with well developed park areas with reasonably high visitation.
MODE III
Moderate level of visitation,locations with moderate to low levels of visitation, or with agencies that
because of budget restrictions can't afford a higher intensity of maintenance.
MODE IV
Moderately low levels of maintenance usually associated with low levels of development, low visitation,
underdeveloped areas, or remote parks.
MODE V
High visitation natural areas usually associated with large urban or regional parks. Size and user frequency
may dictate resident maintenance staff. Road,pathway, or trail systems relatively well developed. Other
facilities at strategic locations such as entries,trailheads,building complexes, etc.
The John Hess Softball Field Complex should be maintained as a Mode 11 park. The sample maintenance
standards provided in the appendix, and the operating and maintenance cost estimates included in this section
are based on this level of care.
The John Hess Softball Field Complex is a highly developed sports complex with a variety of supporting
amenities. The entire 20.63 acres of the park is planned to be developed with recreation facilities.
The park will have very high visitation levels, often with hundreds of users in the park for regular activities.
Because of the high user loads,the park will require a great deal of routine and preventative maintenance.
A well planned maintenance system will be needed to ensure the park is functional, safe, and attractive. The
following general list of facilities in the park that will require various types of maintenance.
FACILITY TYPES FOR MAINTENANCE
• Softball fields—clay infields and grass outfields, fencing and dugouts
• Turf-For Youth Softball Field Complex fields comprise about 4.8 acres of mowing and 6.7 acres of
non-field mowed areas. For the All Ages Softball Field Complex fields comprise 5.7 acres and the
non-field mowed areas is 4.9 acres
• Picnic shelters
• Two story multi-use building—restrooms, concession stand, press box, office,umpires quarters,
lockers
• Roads(aggregate) and parking lots (aggregate and stabilized turf)
• Maintenance facility
• Trees, shrubs, grasses,flowers
• Trails and walkways
• Playground
1 Operational Guidelines for Grounds Maintenance,Published by Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers,National
Recreation and Park Association,and Professional Grounds Management Society,2001
1
• Field lighting for one field
• Irrigation system
• Water and sanitation systems
• Stormwater management areas-rain gardens, storm water infiltration trenches,grass swales,
stormwater basin,rainwater cistern
QM4QJS
In order to plan for the operation and maintenance of John Hess Softball Field Complex, CRPR must plan for
the estimated costs and activities involved. The following assumptions were made to project operation and
maintenance costs for John Hess Field:
• CRPR will be responsible for total operation of the complex.
• All maintenance will be conducted to meet high level maintenance standards of safety and quality.
• One full-time maintenance person will be used to maintain the Park. He or she will be assisted by
three seasonal staff persons.
• Staff, equipment, and supplies will be shared with the operation and maintenance of the other parks
under the jurisdiction of CRPR.
STAFFING
Based on an interview with the CRPR Parks Supervisor and our experience with similar parks,the following
staffing is projected.
For Either Choice of Master Plan Development
A full-time, 30-week per year Park Caretaker will
be needed to oversee and maintain the park seven Position Number Tota
days per week.Two people will be needed to work to Park Caretaker 1 $22,000
ensure coverage on weekends as well as weekdays. Turf specialist—50 hours annually $1,000
The second person will only be needed two days per rPrograrn and Event Coordinator 1 $7,500
week. He or she may work in another park within
the CRPR system the remaining three days per week.
Having a person onboard 8 hours per day, seven days
per week will mean fifty-six total hours of work per week. The cost for this position is about$13.00 per hour
(including payroll benefits). Total anticipated cost for the position would be about$22,000 annually.
One seasonal park maintenance worker will also be needed for two to three days per week plus tournament
weekends. This will likely be a person in an existing position; therefore no additional cost is identified in the
chart.
Specialty turf work including aeration,topdressing, infield grading, fertilization,overseeding, etc. would
require about 50 hours annually for a skilled operator from within the existing CRPR staff. The cost for this
will be about$25/hr for a total annual expense of about$1,000.
A program/event coordinator,working under the direction of the Recreation Supervisor for Fitness and Sports,
will be needed to work with supervising,managing, and coordinating events and activities at the complex.
CRPR has estimated the cost for this position at$7,500.
MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT
The CRPR park maintenance department is already outfitted with a series of excellent maintenance equipment.
Much of that equipment, including the aerator, slit seeder, fertilizer spreader,top dressing machine, core
aerator, and sod cutter is shared among all of the agency's parks and also can be used at the John Hess Softball
Field Complex.
Additionally,the large cut mower from other parks can be used at the John Hess Softball Field Complex.
Additional equipment that will be needed specifically for the complex, along with associated costs, is shown in
the chart below.
ESTIMATEDEQUIPMEN
Utility vehicle light duty (Gator, Cushman, Mule or similar) $10,000
Utility pick-up truck—half ton $20,000
Toro Groundsmaster Sidewinder 3500 series* $20,000
Small power and hand tools $6,000
al
*CRPR currently uses Toro cutting and field maintenance equipment so that brand is specified in this list.
Included in the list above is a line item for small power and hand tools that will be needed to supplement
the existing inventory. This could include push mowers, string trimmers,backpack blowers,chain saw, air
compressor, air tools,mechanics and carpenters tools, lawn and landscape tools,power tools, and hand tools.
As CRPR continues to expand its major equipment inventory,it is recommended that they continue to consider
the option of renting or leasing some of the major pieces of equipment rather than to purchase them. When
comparing purchase prices,maintenance, equipment replacements, insurance, and other costs,renting may be
more cost effective than purchase.
SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS
In addition to manpower and equipment costs there will also be associated consumable supplies and materials
expense for park maintenance. Consumable supplies are a bit more difficult to predict as they are affected by a
multitude of variables. The chart below estimates these consumable expenses. One column shows anticipated
costs for the first phase of development and a second column shows the expected costs by the fifth year of
operation.
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, YEAR ONE ANTICIPATED ANNUAL
1 SERVICES COSTS
DEVELOPE1
Utilities $45000 $12,000*
General Repairs and Maintenance Expense $2,500 $8,000
Portable toilet rental $4,800 $0
Garbage and recycling $2,400 $5,000
Program supplies and expense $1,700 $4,000
ASA Membership $1,100 $1,200
Games officials and umpires $10,000 $11,500
Equipment Repairs/Supplies $0 $3,000
Turf Maintenance Supplies $3,000 $6,000
General Expenses-insurance,staff training, $0 $4,000
transportation,office administration,and other expenses
Total aint nan and Operations Supply Costs $29,500
*Assumes lighting one field
PR(EtU (N NEW CRPR FEE SCHEDULE
Effective January 1, 2011, CRPR has
The primary sources of revenue production for John adopted the following revised fee schedule
Hess Softball Field Complex will come from sportfield for sports field use.
use and pavilion rentals. In 2008 CRPR initiated
their Sportfield Reservation Process to"Effectively
manage the high demand for public sportfield uses and Sport Field Fees
to recover some of the costs associated with sportfield Reservation Fee- $15—charged for all
maintenance." Earlier,they adopted a similar policy and reservations of one or more fields for more
fee structure for the use of their pavilions. than a single 4-hour block of time
T Sport Season Reservation Fee-$180 per
SPORT FIELD lAE field per sport season for resident groups;
$270 for non resident groups
Three or four softball fields are planned for John Hess Tournament Fee-$30 per team for two
Softball Field Complex. Two master plan options have to three day tournaments.Additional fees
been developed for the complex. COG will determine may be charged according to CRPR's Large
which option is developed as demand dictates. Group Event Policy.A fee of$15 per hour is
charged for the use of field lights.
CRPR charges a reservation fee for various levels of field
use. Based on the Fee Schedule(shown to the right),the Pavilion Rates
following revenue can be expected from sportfield use. Reservation Fee- $45-$50 depending on
the pavilion
ANTICIPATED USE OF FIELDS
CRPR has scheduled for the 2011 season for four Addition Fee for Electric-$5
leagues to play at Hess Field. Additionally,they have
scheduled a minimum of six tournaments for the 2011 Large Group Event
season,in cooperation with SCASA. Base Fee-$50 per day
With the increased quality of the fields, it can certainly Electric Fee-$5 per day
be expected that both league and tournament use will Reimbursements for event-related costs
grow in future years. incurred by CRPR.
Anticipated league and team revenues are projected
at just over$17,000 for the 2011 season. Field
reservations fees are anticipated to produce about
$6,000.
Estimated Leagues and Field Use Revenue-$23,000
ANTICIPATED 2011 TOURNAMENTS
June 18 & 19 Men's Slow Pitch District Tournament
July 1,2& 3 Girl's Fast Pitch Tournament
July 15, 16& 17 Girl's Fast Pitch Eastern National Qualifying Tournament
July 23 &24 Women's Slow Pitch State tournament
July 30& 31 Men's Slow Pitch 45+ State Tournament
Aug. 13 & 14 Men's Slow Pitch 35+ State Tournament
2011 LEAGUES Starting the week of I
Field#3
DAY Field#1 Field#2 (Playable 9am Field#4
-3pm only)
MONDAY Girl's Fast Pitch Girl's Fast Pitch Girl's Fast Pitch
TUESDAY Girls Fast Pitch or CRPR Women's League
WEDNESDAY 35+Slow Pitch 35+ Slow Pitch 35+Slow Pitch
THURSDAY 45+Slow Pitch 45+ Slow Pitch 45+Slow Pitch
FRIDAY Tournaments
SATURDAY Tournaments
SUNDAY 35+Slow Pitch 35+ Slow Pitch 35+Slow Pitch
(after 4pm) (after 4pm) (after 4pm)
2010 League sizes: Girl's Fast Pitch 35+ w/26 teams(includes some out-of-county teams)
Slow Pitch 45+ Slow w/ 10 teams
Pitch w/7 teams
CONCESSION STAND SALES
The concession operations will fall under the jurisdiction of CRPR& CRRA. CRRA would have the option
to operate it themselves or to contract it out.We recommend that CRRA contract out its operations to a private
vendor. This removes CRPR from the burden of staffing the stand,managing inventory,handling cash, and
continual operations of the facility on a day-to-day basis. A local vendor would pay CRPR an agreed upon fee
or portion of the profits to operate the stand. If the park becomes as active as anticipated, it would produce
about$12,000 in gross income annually.
Estimated Annual Concession Revenue-$12,000
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES REVENU POTENTIAL
Revenues produced through park activity ACTIVITY NUMBER PERI ANNUAL
will not offset the entire cost of operating REVENUE
the park. Additional funds will need to Fence signs 36 $300 $10,800
be provided. Other funding sources could
include sales of advertising signs for on Tournament 6 $1,200 $7,200
ballfield fences; securing seasonal sponsors Sponsors
for programs or facilities; and operating an CRPR Annual
annual fundraising event. These types of Softball 1 $,6000 $6,000
activities have produced tens of thousands of Fundraising
dollars for other communities. Tournament
Gifts for Parks 1 $8,000 $8,000
Fence signs can be sold for a minimum
of$300 each annually. While tournament
sponsors may not be available for all tournaments,vendors may be willing to provide a sponsor fee as well
as merchandise for teams,players,and the owner/operator for certain ones that match well with their target
audiences. These revenues can range from a few hundred dollars to as much as a couple thousand. Finally,the
CRPR could operate its own fundraising tournament that could produce several thousand dollars annually for
the organization.
CRPR should also consider selling naming rights for individual fields. Such fees could assist in paying for the
cost of renovation of the park. Sometimes these fees are paid at an annual rate for a specified term. Other times
the fee is paid as a lump sum at the time of purchase. Fees could range from four or five thousand dollars for a
short-term contract to tens of thousands for a longer term contract.
If CRPR chooses to pursue any of these, it would be wise to consult other communities who have been
successful with these types of financial programs before.
SUMMARY OF REVENUE AND EXPENSES
The following shows a summary of anticipated revenue and expenses related to the John Hess Softball Field
Complex.
REVENUE-ANNUA ONE TIME REVENU
Category Amount Field Naming Rights Up to $30,000 per field
Sports field use fees $23,000
Concession stand net revenue $12,000
Other annual revenue sources $32,000
vtvilp $68,000
Cate or Amount Major Maintenance
Staffing $30,500 Equipment $56,000
Materials and supplies $29,500
Total Anticipated Annual
001 ses—Year one '
SaimmNG THE NpRayHyws AT ALL HRm PARKS
The following Timeline Schedule developed by CRPR staff and endorsed by the COG,provides an illustration
of how the construction would be sequenced for all three parks. It is not practical to estimate future phases
given the uncertainty of funding availability for those phases.
v w
m ro m LE-
Ln Ln v� c vz
vN N v 0 O
N N L N � L
2i a Q c v
N > O c
7
C cc
rl (O CU
ei ns Q = V O
Nw Y oA aYi Q N
c � C c o a Y o
y O C: c i m bq N a N
LL c aJ 7 aj = Q' * 'o
� v ri w v C � C a' n tw
� O :E
O -0 w a, v
m V1 O O m 41 u a - > w Q
p 0 N c i V c c N a O_
K Z U N S a1 f6 Q `ti �y L yO
O = d v m O d v t O O 41 c ° 3 0 E
N in aJ W N w u _ i
!_' N Y �^ a) N C >, z Q, N N r " c`�o y `m to tw
y x O x W p p o a t 0
E O a a+ c a, N V t a o ac � a
O � 7 E � N i Y m u t c
V ri (a N
r N o C LLJ N d �° v Yto
•f0 7 V L U z N Y N
@ +��•'
m E! Q _ n O
Q p � u_ L v3i �
v C L U O U = at O O
L O d V h 2 Y N
V
a/fM O
m VI en L
M N M U Oi to ° D * m
Q C d C � ay. s a 0 O�
N
N N N N N a) y >
T N N H tm
C 3
v -o c
o G
p C v -a L.L. ,f6,
w
O > 2 Q N o , c O u
W m V aw 3 U os > o
h0
z a Y a H v o
V1 L O N W uo ¢ s v a > a) Y 4
SN m N m m c . v� a v� a1 n
G a� 'o Q c > O
G N N Y ,co a z C7 a V
a
N N V f0 N O C W
v
No '3L° - s � Z
Z 1 � v
a C t--I `-- l"I N
6 Q U Q X
W o
u v ao a
,cu�,
z o a;
uv n3
ou C7 Q 0
v v ai
t
J C N N y N y
W >
ri m ��. m m
N U ° V O O 9 fa x -aO,
> oW
QN I 0 u a 3 m N o a.+
m
CN E
E
L a v ;uo sO w v p c°�E f6 - o2S a�-1 a." cy s
6 O ¢ a c x O o n�i ry F ON
o N c�
C C J Y oc C Y H p X
z J Q Q Q W J W
Q o° > cc = a > z oa > � = LLa
Q Q oc Q
W O O z Q z o m 0
O =LU
O co
W H W LL
0
cctA
O
V
APPENDIX ITEMS WITH BE ADDED
AFTER COG APPROVAL OF DOCUMENT
C/1
4.)
U
N
ct
Ct
. .r
Q V
N v�
0.�
. �
a�
a�
a�
a
a� a
U
l.J
N
a
v
a�
. �
`�
W
. �
�'
a
a�
p,
' v
Gi;