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).
- Bioretention swale with underdrain- dormitory
area
- Bioretention swale with underdrain- btwn shops
and current building
- Bioretention swale with underdrain- btwn current
main building and pond
- Forebay
- 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:
- Andres will send Peter his CAD file.
- Andres will continue to refine the details on
the swales and their location, and the detail on the forebay and gravel
wetlands.
- Peter will work to incorporate the different CAD
files into one with layers.
- Peter will send Kate narrative for the
wastewater section of the Act 250 permit application.
- 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.
- Kate and Eric will meet on Wednesday to look harder
at the parking/driveway dilemma.
NEXT MEETING:
Monday, March 30 @ 11am
