Monday, March 30, 2015

Core Team update 03.30.15



CORE 3-30-15 - site review

Agenda:


  • Report back on ideas regarding driveway reconfiguration (Kate/Eric)
  •  How to finalize site plans showing Phase 1 and overall Master Plan for Act 250 (John)
  •  Discuss remaining Act 250 application questions that have not been resolved (Kate)
  •  Draft RFP for design/build (Eric/John)
  •  Planning April 18th charrette 

Notes:
Peter is still waiting for Tony and Andres. Tony hopes to have the grading done shortly.

Peter & the CAD work.
·         New Access
·         Old and new Masterplan information from DRB
·         Phasing to be imported into CAD
o    JC to place PDF into layers to reflect phases
·         This year site work and wetlands but the chalet will be there for several years.

PARKING
·         Upper and lower?
·         How many spaces…..50?
·         Upper parking will be appreciated by those building the first building.
·         Straight access versus curvilinear alignment.

Charette & Design Schedule
·         April 18th
·         Roadway treatment
·         Landscape architect - management
o    Permaculture opportunities
o    Phasing

Project Management Coordinating:
·         Master planner/Architect
(Tony as the planner…?)
·         Siteplan
·         Building Design
·         Permitting
·         Construction scheduling

RESOLVED:
Tony, Andres and Elizabeth will convene this week and produce an integrated proposal to be considered as the final submission  for the Act 250.

UNRESOLVED:
Time ran out before we could discuss the RFP.
A lot of time was spent around whether the current roadway alignment was acceptable.  It works with the stormwater design and it works with the buildings (both existing and proposed) but the actual character of walking up the road needs further development.

Monday, March 16, 2015

CORE Team Recap 03.16.15



CORE team 03.16.15

Present: Kate Stephenson, Eric Cook, Andres Torrizo, Peter Lazorchak, Ben Cheney, John Connell

Andres kicked off walking us through the latest version of the stormwater plan. He also noted that from the perspective of the stormwater permit, the stream restoration is a separate project (and will require a stream alteration permit).


  1. Bioretention swale with underdrain- dormitory area
  2. Bioretention swale with underdrain- btwn shops and current building
  3. Bioretention swale with underdrain- btwn current main building and pond
  4. Forebay
  5. Gravel wetlands (2)

Questions that came up included:
-          Is the underdrain really necessary? How deep is it? (Peter L. is concerned about infiltration uphill of the dispersal field)
o   Answer is: 1’ sandy loam, 6” stone, 4” perforated pipe embedded in stone
-          Can the swale #2 be moved along the edge of the driveway to create more open circulation area right outside the existing main building?
o   Answer: yes, Andres will look at the detailing on that in next version
-          Will the covered outdoor work area drain uphill or downhill?
o   Answer: we will assume uphill.
-          How do we deal with the driveway issue: i.e. the gravel wetlands #5 as drawn overlap with the current driveway location. Much discussion ensued about the idea of a temporary driveway and Peter and Andres both pushed for us to do the final driveway location and parking area reconfiguration in Phase 1a. The issues with pushing this into phase 1a include: a) additional up front cost b) the chalet is in the way of proposed driveway route c) two large tents and other storage sheds would need to be moved. We wondered how much the tennis court area would need to be re-graded. We were a bit stumped as to how to resolve this issue.
o   Answer: unresolved. Eric and Kate agreed to spend some time this week sketching out ideas for the parking/drive access.

Peter showed us his latest plans in which the main change being the location of the constructed wetland cells. Pete Munoz felt strongly about trying to move them somewhat uphill while still maintaining the goal of having a gravity system. Only the first cell would be constructed in Phase 1a, with the idea that we would do more detailed tracking of water usage in the interim and a few years down the road as we get into future buildings we would have more data to be able to argue for whether we even need the second cell of treatment. The only potential downside of moving the cells is that on the last building in the master plan (the dining/admin/entry bldg) its location might not have enough elevation drop to be able to feed into the wetland with gravity only (on the lower floor of the building). But we determined this was not worth getting too concerned about at this point.

Questions on the constructed wetlands/wastewater:
-          How big are the berms along the edges?
o   Answer: 1’ is what Pete M. has spec’d. Could go up to 2’ if we are worried about flooding. Andres has spec’d 4’ on the gravel wetlands, but they are partially dug into the ground.
-          Do we have a problem with the swale #1 being too close to the dispersal field?
o   Answer: Peter will check this when he incorporates the CAD files from Andres.

NEXT STEPS:

  1.  Andres will send Peter his CAD file.
  2. Andres will continue to refine the details on the swales and their location, and the detail on the forebay and gravel wetlands.
  3. Peter will work to incorporate the different CAD files into one with layers.
  4. Peter will send Kate narrative for the wastewater section of the Act 250 permit application.
  5. John will take the final CAD drawings and make them pretty with call outs for legibility when we are ready to finalize for Act 250.
  6. Kate and Eric will meet on Wednesday to look harder at the parking/driveway dilemma.

NEXT MEETING:
Monday, March 30 @ 11am