Core Team Notes 9-23-13

In attendance: Kate , John C., Kinny & Bill Reed(phone)

Monday, September 23, 2013

10:13 AM

John summarized a phone conversation he had with BR about the way the planning solution has wondered from the original principles. 

·         We discovered that the original building had to be preserved (75%)

·         We re-directed our efforts to solve for this new constraint and for the DRB approval

·         We maybe weren't as vigilant as we might have been on keeping to our principles.

Kinny sees the building configuration as an improvement with less impervious surface, damming and slowing water flows, protecting the wetlands. John asked Bill if he would enumerate the areas where he sees the most discussion potential vis a vis the new and the old plans.

Discussion of  Daylighting the stream followed.  David Warren, who is most "intimately involved" is the primary (only?) opponent.  Kate wonders about the additional consequences.  Beyond the immediate setback requirements aside, the additional impact on the natural wastewater treatment, the drainage swales, and the general pedestrian experience of the campus.

Kate suggested that we get Peter L and Joel back into to actually locate the engineered wetlands, the drip irrigation, the storm water strategy, etc.  Right now we only have conceptual bubble diagrams.

Kinny brought up Ben Falk's rice paddy strategy for slowing down stormwater.

John suggested the next steps might be:

1.       Bill to review DRB plan and general concepts

2.       Invite the experts to a meeting (maybe mid October)

a.       Peter L (civil engineer)

b.      Joel (ecology & stormwater)

c.       Andres Torizzo (stormwater)

3.       Goal is to work toward a buildable, well defined solution that reflects the storm water, waste water and programmatic needs of the site.

Kate brought up the possibility of bringing the Semester Program on campus next semester, but without housing.  It's important to keep the discussion of when the actual lodging might be built.  Kincaid quickly calculated that the school will need about $2M to accomplish this and we already have 1/4 of that.

Kate will speak with Peter to see how much of Andres work he metabolized.  She will determine if he needs to be brought up to speed before getting together with Andres, Joel, Bill, and us.

Next meeting planned for  Oct 27th - Oct28th.

Wastewater Basis of Design Document

Summary report on proposed natural wastewater
management system design for the Yestermorrow campus

This summary report was prepared by the YM 2013 Constructed Wetland class, instructed by Barton Kirk PE, Pete Munoz PE, and Harold Leverenz PE.  The student design team was Sean Powers, James Kinnie, Brittany Schroeder, and Alexander Van Steen.  Kate Stephenson provided guiding principles for the wastewater design to the team in order of priority:

1. Plan for evolution, versatility and resilience
2. The nature of the land, its healthy functioning, its living systems, and physics inform the structuring of human habitat
3. Scaled modules of design to allow a kit-of-parts approach for ease of phasing, budgeting, flexibility, diversity, reuse at a residential scale
4. Design to limit operational expenses
5. Campus systems should be accessible and visible for educational demonstration purposes

Additional objectives for the design developed by the class are as follows:

• Provide an opportunity for education
• Minimize impacts on groundwater
• Minimize electro-mechanical systems, e.g., gravity operation and passive design as much as possible
• Low operation and maintenance requirements
• Mechanical systems and other systems that require vehicle access for maintenance to be located in a centralized area

A number of assumptions were necessary for the design process.  The assumptions are generally related to the maximum number of people that would be present on campus during regular operations.  The water usage and constituent loading used in the design is based on textbook and other reference data sources.  One assumption is that portable toilets or other facilities will be made available during events that would result in a higher population on campus that the design values.  The May 2013 YM master plan was used as the primary reference for population and flow estimates.  A summary of the population and flow data is presented in Table 1.  Because of the relatively small change in flowrate between planning Phases 1 and 2 / 3, the design presented in this report is expected to accommodate the flows for all phases of the campus expansion.  Therefore, the proposed system would be constructed during the Phase 1 expansion and new buildings constructed at later construction phases would be connected to the system without substantial expansion.  The proposed system was selected from four general design scenarios considered for the campus.  A summary of alternative scenarios is listed in Appendix B.

Download the full report here.

Core Team Notes 8/26/13

Agenda:

-Check-in

-Waitsfield zoning permit update

- Wastewater team report & next steps

-Studio renovation plan 2014

-Getting Bill up to speed on core team decisions

-Membership of Core Team

Notes:

• Kate checked with Susan Senning and expects to receive the final DRB decision this week. Next steps for permitting include wastewater, stormwater, then Act 250.
• Wastewater team was here in July teaching and worked on a “basis of design” report with loads and recommendations. Next step is for Peter Lazorchak to review for permitting constraints, and simultaneously to overlay the constructed wetland sizing with stormwater design on the site plan to make sure it will all fit and work harmoniously.
• Studio renovation is planned to go forward in 2014 using existing master planning funds. Maclay Architects has been hired to coordinate the design and engineering. This will include removing the posts, installing flooring, some electrical, A/V and other “finishing” of the space (baseboard etc). The staff is still trying to figure out when to best fit this project into the schedule of classes, as it will prevent classes in the studio for at least a month.
• Bill had questions from the June board meeting mainly regarding how the core team had made decisions on changing some of the Regenesis plan features, including steep slopes, parking lot, driveway location, and keeping the Alpen Inn building. John C. will schedule a time to sit down with Bill and review the plans, or possibly Bill can come to VT for our next meeting.
• We talked about how we tell our story in the larger community, and to potential donors. Introduce Bill and John to a few potential major donors. How much can we raise and how fast? At what point do we engage a design team and engineering? What do we need to be able to present to funders? This is the good time to start telling our story- we’re not asking for money yet but want to get folks interested and involved in the development process.
• General timelines: 1 year to finish land permits, then another year to design the first building(s) and raise funds. Potential to start construction Fall 2016 if all goes well.

·         Next steps:

o   Kate to schedule informational meeting with District 5 Act 250 rep

o   Work with Peter L. to review wastewater plan and integrate with site plan.

o   Next meeting: Friday September 20^th 1pm

Agenda: design guidelines, core membership

Save the Date! June 29th

Dear faculty, friends, staff, and community members,

Please save the date of Saturday, June 29^th from 1-4pm for the next Yestermorrow Campus Master Planning community session.

This 3 hour session is open to anyone interested in learning more about the 25 year plan for Yestermorrow’s development.

Our Core Team has been hard at work this past year developing the plans for the campus, and we’re eager to share them with you and get input and ideas from the Yestermorrow community as we delve into our next steps.

Tentative agenda:

1-1:15 – Review of grounding principles for Yestermorrow’s planning process

1:15-2:00 – Update on the planning process to date, current working program and site plan

o   Field teams and what priorities are for each team, how to get involved

2:00-2:30 – Q&A

2:30-3:30 – Small group break-outs to develop strategies for achieving our principles

o   How to incorporate students into the design/build process

o   Design guidelines for the campus

o   Energy

o   Wastewater

o   Landscape and stormwater

o   Fundraising and financing

3:30-4:00 – Small group report back and next steps

Please plan to attend, and RSVP to kate@yestermorrow.org.

If you are unable to attend in person, we will be video recording the session (the first hour overview and the last hour report back) and livestreaming via our Ustream channel if you want to follow along from home.

We are actively looking for new members to join our Core Team and the field teams working on these various strategies, if you’re interested in getting involved, please email me. For updates on our master planning process, and links to all current documents, please visit http://ymmasterplanning.blogspot.com/.

Kate

CORE team minutes 5-14-13

Present: Kate, Kinny, Kathy and John 
guest: Jeff Schoellkopf

Questions around Act 250 process:

How does it get phased?

How much do we need to apply for at any given time?

What are the necessary supporting documents? (waste water)

·         Phasing

o    Sugarbush and Cobb Hill

o    Cobb Hill was a specific project

o    Sugarbush was a Masterplan

·         Detailed engineering for first phase only.

·         Each phase is subsequently approved.

·         Act 250 is a collection of requirements from different agencies.
 
There are 28 questions (ten criteria)

o    ANR

o    Local agencies, municipal

o    Wastewater, stormwater

o    Energy Code, Public Service, Efficiency VT

o    Division for Historic preservation

o    Air quality

o    Habitat

o    Aesthetics?

·         Possibly the Act 250 is not the next move.  Alternatives might be:

o    Wastewater

o    Stormwater

o    Landscape

o    Design guidelines

·         A preliminary meeting with Susan Beard, regional coordinator.

·         Conversations with the ANR, and all the relevant boards might be the next best step.

who to contact: District Five Act 250 Commission Natural Resources Board