Monday, November 12, 2012

Core Team Minutes 11-12-12



·         Pre- McCain (Lazorchak) plan reviewed.
·         Preliminary path designs submitted (thank you Kathy and Kate)
We anticipate a lot more work in this area after we have our topo back from Peter L.
·         Greenhouse inclusion was discussed pro & con.  In the end it was decided (informally) that we should reserve a placeholder for something called a greenhouse at the end of the main roadway organizing the studio/shops (downhill side).
·         Parking lot was discussed.  Only Kathy had a submission which was very preliminary by her own assessment.
This is a major design component that should reflect all our integrative design values as well as being an example for other medium sized parking lots.  We will benefit from a program - for starters:
o   60 cars
o   4 oversized spaces (40' x 12')
o   material storage
o   electric charging station
o   PV array and/or trackers (the more the better)
o   garden and green space
o   permeable surface or equivalent detention ponds

ACTION ITEMS:
1.     Deliver updated site plan to Peter Lazorchak (JC)
2.    Contact Andres Torizzo and have him co-ordinate with Peter (KS)
(
what do we do about budgeting for this work?)
3.    Produce rough parking lot designs (JC, KM, and anyone else with an interest. Parking lots are somewhat technical - turning radii and all sorts of minimums - but that shouldn't stand in the way of good ideas.)
4.    Regenerative Report Card (KP & Pentad Representatives)
We need to give ourselves a grade as we complete the preliminary redesign of the MasterPlan.  The campus center has moved and the grain of the circulation as gone somewhat with it.  How are we doing with the various points on the Pentad?  Are we compromising or reconciling?  I can personally say that the Solar Field Team feels greatly "reconciled".  How are the other Field Teams doing?
N.B.  Kate, if you can keep me in the loop as you bring Andres into the mix, I will monitor the work Peter is doing and make sure we have it all on hand well in advance of our next meeting.  (I'll even plot it out this time!)

Remember - this was done from memory.  Please annotate and correct as appropriate.
Thanks!
JC

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

CORE 10-12-12 Minutes



CORE 10-12-12 Minutes….taken on the run and not edited (apologies in advance for any misquotes)

KIN for Five Minutes (Quality and Direction of our Process)
Phone number (starting with a summary of Jim Martin's presentation at the BigPic)
Some basic thoughts concerning our current process:
1.       Our relationship with the DRB.
a.       Risk credibility if we keep showing up with unresolved plans.
2.       Our position with the Regenisis Approach
a.       Should we bring back Bill, John and Joel?
3.       Question: Do we really want the students to design the campus???

ROBIN: Susan's DRB focus on the design specifications have derailed our focus on the overall PLAN.
We've made good progress on integrating the old building.
We need to have DRB planning within a few months or a year at the outside (kin)
KATE: Likes the idea of a one year re-visit with John, Joel and Bill
Feels like there's a middle ground as far as the students' involvement in the project.  Worries about what we  will lose when we leave the students out of the design process.
Time line is also an issue - feedback is curious and worried, "What's going on?"  Grousing, etc.
KATHY: Feels like we're floundering.  Goal is clear-ish, but we don't know how to get there.  She feels like she's run
out of juice. 
JOHN: Optimistic - keep the course.  Double down.  The feeling that we're moving backward is the inertia of
grinding through real challenges.  Don't need to have the students design the entirety of the buildings.  Need to have them meaningfully and educationally involved.  Beaux Art teaching tradition.
KIN:  Would it be useful to have the students involved in the DRB application?
KATHY & ROBIN: Statutes don't give us the time to have the students involved. 

4.       What is the likelihood of making the DRB December deadline. 
a.       Can we get the topos and the landscaping done in that time? 
b.      Can we show: roads, paths, lighting, screening, parking, fire access, outdoor areas - Coherence?
c.       Would a schematic landscaping plan help give a sense of coherence?
d.      How do we know it's regenerative, cohesive...in short: has a parti

5.       Resolve to:
1.       Finish the CAD topo rough.
2.       Have Peter L'chek input the proposed topos (with guidance)
3.       Review results and hand over to Andres and other?
4.       Create rough landscaping plan focused on drainage, hardscape, roads and pathways.
6.       TO DO: Bring in suggestions for appropriate landscape design talent:
a.       Peter Las'ch'k may have suggestions
b.      Ellen Strauss may have suggestions
c.       David Raphael is a suggestion
d.      Sugarbush (and Edgecomb et al) may have suggestions

Thursday, September 27, 2012

CORE 9-27-12 Minutes



CORE 9-27-12
Thursday, September 27, 2012
8:24 AM
Hypothesis:
1.       Add Semester Program on Campus full time
a.       Needs to be full time to work financially
2.       Add Semester Program Off Campus
a.       This is the current status and it should remain until we have an improved enrollment.
3.       Eliminate or Backburner Semester Program

Kathy would really see a dividend from going all the way through the entire phase by phase build-out process process.
Phasing:
1a: Intern Housing
1b: Studio, shop and housing
1c: Kitchen and Dinning area
2: studio shop housing
3a: Dining, Kitchen, Offices
3b: Renovate Alpen to become lecture area; lounge area with kitchenette (café), keep shop
Dialogue:
Kin is worried that we are not staying true to our Regenisis principles.
Kate wants to go forward with Reality and Business Plan goals.
Kate wants to let enrollment trigger the phases, even more than the capital campaign...or link the two.
John feels that compromise is not so evil a word….better would be problem solve  or reconcile...but they're all part of making bricks and mortar.
Robin wants to get something - almost anything - accomplished before we adjourn!  Then he reminded the group about the initial cost of site work.
SO, it was almost agreed that we should only build three residential buildings and three  studio buildings….almost...and then Kate argued that it could be two studios.
Some debate and then Kate reminded Robin that we must have housing for a full Semester program.
Robin sees the project to be mostly one of phasing and he sees that phasing as driven by the program.
Kate thinks the sequence should be:
(Assuming Semester Program will stay in Montpelier)
1.       Housing
2.       Dining & Kitchen
3.       Shop
Housing will allow us to take the beds out of the Alpen basement and make use of it for studio space.
Robin then summarized Dining and Kitchen stays in Alpen with two small studios. 
Then, when we build the Main Building, the Alpen becomes studio, lecture, library lounge, kitchenette.  And the Main Bldg. includes, Kitchen, Dining, Admin, Entry & Welcome. 

Pedestrian Campus
The truck delivery and the relocation of the campus center will fairly compromise the pedestrian campus idea.

The rest of the session was used to look at options for the driveway, parking, Main building, etc.
Respectfully submitted...etc.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Draft Design Guidelines 8.7.12

We are heading back to meet with the Waitsfield Design Review Board for preliminary master plan review again on August 14th. We've submitted three updated documents: 
1) Draft Design Guidelines
2) Program by Phase
3) Site Plan by Phase

See below for these documents.


Yestermorrow Building Design Guidelines – Draft 8.6.12

Introduction
The overall master planning process at Yestermorrow is guided by a set of principles which include, among others, that each building reflects the same principles and processes that support the development of the Master Plan. As such, the development of the Plan is intended to be holographic in that every piece reflects the pattern of the whole.

In adhering to this principle, Yestermorrow intends to follow a set of building design guidelines that will allow for the achievement of the following overarching goals:
·         Enable the core design/build experience of the school.
·         Demonstrate regenerative design principles that improve the site from the perspective of natural systems, students, supporters, and the local community.
·         Meet or exceed the requirements of Waitsfield’s Adaptive Redevelopment Overlay District (AROD).

Design Principles
All structures housing year-round functions shall be designed and permitted subject to the following Design Guidelines:

Building Footprint  
Final configuration and the building footprint shall be located within the building envelope shown on the Master Plan. Minor modifications to the envelope may be made, subject to Administrative Approval from the DRB, but in no case such that setbacks or other permit constraints are violated. In no instance may the building footprint be adjusted such that it reduces total net solar gain for the campus.

Building Height
No building shall exceed 40 feet in height as measured from the average grade to the highest point on the building (not including monitors, cupolas, antennae or “widows’ walks”). Building designs must respect the height of adjacent buildings and assure harmonious proportions and coherence through every phase of the project. Minor modifications may be made subject only to Administrative Approval from the DRB.

Building Square Footage
Total building square footage shall not exceed 30% of the total site acreage, which will allow for achievement of the 70% PUD requirement. Buildings with a footprint of 3000 ft2 or less shall require Administrative Approval from the DRB once design development is complete but prior to full construction documents. Any building with a footprint over 3,000 ft2 shall require review from the entire DRB.

Building Uses
To be limited to uses allowed under AROD and as defined specifically within the Master Plan Application and Permit.

Universal Design
Buildings and pathways, roads and byways shall conform to appropriate and applicable ADA criteria as well as the Seven Principles of Universal Design.
1.       Equitable Use
2.       Flexibility in Use
3.       Intuitive in Use
4.       Legibility of Essential Information
5.       Tolerance for Error
6.       Low Physical Effort
7.       Size and Space for Comfortable Use

Architectural Themes
The buildings shall adhere to the cohesion principle, with each building designed to reflect the pattern of the whole so that a cohesive campus Master Plan may be achieved over the three-phase expansion project. Each phase and sub-phase shall be coherent within itself as well as within the context of the whole. 
While architectural styles such as Federal, Greek Revival, Colonial, etc. shall not constrain the architecture of campus buildings, the underlying vernacular precedents found in New England, and the Mad River Valley in particular, must be maintained. 

Specifically:
1.       Buildings shall not be made to look older or younger than they are, nor shall they derive form or material configuration from foreign regions.  All campus architecture shall be a product of its time and place – vernacular.
2.       Sloped roofs are preferred over flat or low pitched roofs.
3.       “Green roofing” is permissible in flat roof applications in which planting is employed to moderate heat swings and reduce energy use and carbon footprint.
4.       Roof overhangs must be generous and in no case less than 2’-0”.
5.       Fenestration must not employ glass areas larger than 100 square feet without mitigating muntins or other features to insure appropriate human scale. All fenestration features in excess of 100sf must gain written Administrative Approval from the Design Review Board.
6.       All points of entry must be architecturally obvious and protected from inclement weather.
7.       Traditional materials used in local buildings of similar function are preferred.  No more than 15% of publicly observable materials may be other than the following:
a.      Stone: field stone, slate, shot rock, exposed aggregate, pavers
b.      Masonry: brick, stucco, plaster, clay tile; ceramic tile,
c.      Wood: board & baton, tongue & groove (all profiles), clapboard, rough-sawn boards, shingles, shakes, heavy timber; logs, truss-work, trim, ornament, grillwork and paneling.
d.      Glass: single strength, tempered, insulated, Plexiglas, colored art glass, photovoltaic collectors.
e.      Metal: standing seam metal, sheet metal, barn siding, silo parts, other barn parts, flashing, gutters, ornament and truss-work. 
NOTE: No aluminum siding of any kind.
f.        Recycled composites designed to look like any of the following: composite shingles, trex decking, hardipanel clapboard, etc.
g.      Synthetic materials may be used discretely for maintenance purposes only.
All material palettes must be presented to the Design Review Board for Administrative Approval. If the DRB has not responded to the color proposal within 14 days, it is assumed that there is no objection and the palette for that building has been approved. Any such approval does not necessarily establish precedent for future material palettes.
8.       Colors found historically on buildings of similar function are preferred.  Although no specific color palette is mandated, extremely jarring colors shall be avoided.  No more than three different colors (not including white or black) may be applied – by paint or other means - to a single façade.  Not more than six colors shall be applied to an entire building’s exterior.  The natural color and texture of a building material is not “applied” and does not count in this palette restriction. 
All color schemes must be presented to the Design Review Board for Administrative Approval.  If the DRB has not responded to the color proposal within 14 days, it is assumed that there is no objection and the palette for that building has been approved. Any such approval does not necessarily establish precedent for future color schemes.
9.       Facades shall harmonize in scale, proportion, material, texture and color with neighboring buildings, or buildings connected by porches, stairways or breezeways.

Construction Duration
No unfinished buildings shall be permitted unless the DRB has given Administrative Approval for a particular project to be completed over more than two years.
Temporary educational building projects shall not be constrained by this, the Architectural Themes section of the Design Guidelines.  As such, these buildings must be screened from the public view and may not be maintained on the campus for more than one building season without written Administrative Approval from the Board.

Pre-existing Structures
At least 75% of the main school building (formerly the Alpen Inn) shall be retained as swing space for various uses on campus. Five seasonal occupancy cabins shall remain in place and be reused for lodging, with the exception of the Pine Cabin and Yurt, which will be moved to new locations on campus prior to reuse.

Exterior Lighting
Exterior spaces, parking lots and walkways and entrances shall be well lit to provide safe access for site users while avoiding off-site lighting and night sky pollution. All outdoor lighting (on the buildings or in the landscape) shall minimize light pollution using approved semi-cutoff or full cutoff fixture designs. Signage shall be designed with top-mounted fixtures shielded to shine light only on the sign itself.

Screening
Landscaping within the 225’ setback shall screen structures from the road to the extent required to maintain the integrity of the natural context of the scenic byway, except in cases in which vegetation may inhibit solar gain, natural lighting within buildings, and solar power production.

Signage
Signage visible from Route 100 shall be designed to comply with Waitsfield's standard signage requirements. Interior campus way-finding and navigational signings shall reflect the overall design intent of the campus but shall not be required to adhere to the Waitsfield standard signage requirements.

Accessibility and Safety
A sheltered transit stop shall be incorporated in the Master Plan and shall be installed when public transit service to the site is provided.
Additional accessibility required for ADA, pedestrians, snow removal, and fire control shall be designed into the Master Plan in accordance with code requirements.

Stormwater Management
The site shall be designed to maintain or restore the water balance of the site, replicating the hydrologic conditions of the site based on historic and natural ecosystems in the region. Stormwater management design strategies may include but are not limited to pervious paving, underground storage, rain gardens, bioswales, vegetated roofs, and constructed wetlands.

Parking
A minimum of 60 parking spaces shall be provided.  Design elements within the parking areas may include but are not limited to pervious paving, vegetated islands, and bioswales.  Solar collectors shall also be incorporated to provide shade in the summer and reduce snow removal in the winter.
No more than ten parking spaces shall be configured without intervening green space. All parking areas shall be accessible by well-lit paths.
Parking design shall allow for the maximum flexibility in size and number of vehicles, accommodating single cars, small and large buses, and large delivery vehicles.
Allocation of parking spaces shall be at the discretion of the school and may vary seasonally.
The entire parking area shall be maintained for fire truck access and snow removal throughout the year.

Exceptions
Exceptions or variances for any items arising outside the Building Design Guidelines listed above may be applied for with the DRB on a case-by-case basis.

2)
Program by Phase with Square Footage
DRAFT 08.06.12
*note: based off document “YM Draft Program - Master Planning Phase 2 - 8-26-11.xlsx”

Phase 1
New Construction
#
Building
Square Footage
Capacity
5
Intern Housing
2000
8 interns
8, 4, 3
Semester Program Studio/ Semester Program Office (upper)
Tool Storage/Facilities Office (lower)
3000
16 students, 3 faculty
1
Semester Program Shop
1500
16 students
6
Semester Program Dormitory
4000
16 students
15
Bath House
600
For cabin/camping
24
Greenhouse
700






SUBTOTAL
12,120


Existing Infrastructure Plans
#
Building
25
Main Building- current functions to stay the same (studio, shop, office, kitchen, dormitory). Facilities office to move to new building.
33, 53, 32
3 cabins remain (Strawbale, Timberframe, Slate)
34, 52
2 cabins to be relocated  (Pine Cabin and Yurt)
42
1 cabin (Fabric Formed Concrete) to be removed
45, 46, 47
Composting Toilet and Solar Shower to be removed or relocated
48
Chalet to be removed once new intern housing is built
43
Trilithon to be removed
49
Driveway and parking area to remain in current location

Site Infrastructure
#
Building

Develop drive/fire access to residential zone
30
Develop drive/fire access to semester shop and studio

Initial sitework/earthmoving to create terraces so that each structure has entry on both ground floor and 1st floor.

Remove culvert to daylight stream in cabin area
56
Wastewater systems (phase 1)

Phase 2
#
Building
Square Footage
Capacity
1
Woodworking Shop/ Woodworking  Drafting Studio
2300
10 students
9
Carpentry Shop
1500
10-12 students
2
Outdoor Covered Work Areas
1000
Adjacent to/between shops
14
Student Housing
3000
24 students
13
Instructor Housing
2000
6 instructors

SUBTOTAL
9,800





24
Vehicle Storage (unconditioned)
800
4 vehicles, 10x20 each
8
Wood Storage (unconditioned)
800

23
Parking Area
9000
60 spaces @150 s.f. ea

Existing Infrastructure Plans
#
Building
25
Main Building- Existing Woodshop and Dormitory functions to move out into new space. Kitchen/Dining area expands on 1st floor into design studio, offices expand on 1st floor into conference room, conference room moves to South Studio space, classroom space developed on ground floor in former dormitory rooms, lounge area developed in former shop space.
23
Redevelop tennis court area as parking, but driveway remains in current position.
38
Remove storage shed (“carrot hut”) on edge of tennis courts.

Site Infrastructure
#
Building
56
Wastewater systems (phase 2)


Phase 3

Building
Square Footage
Capacity

New Entry Building including:


19
All Purpose Classroom/
Lecture Hall
1500
80 people lecture style
17
Design Studio
1500
16 students
17
Administrative Offices
1440
8 staff, 8 interns
19
Conference Room
250
16 people
21
Library/Computer Lab
600

20
Entry/Lobby
400

18
Dining Area
900
60 people
18
Kitchen & Kitchen Office
700


Storage
200


Toilets
500


Outdoor Dining Area
300






Bus Shelter *if bus exists*
100






SUBTOTAL
7,990


Existing Infrastructure Plans
#
Building
54
Remove garden shed and garden
25
Move office, library, kitchen/dining and design studio functions out of existing main building.Potential uses for Alpen Inn building at this point: rental space, tool storage, lecture hall, community meeting space, small business incubator.

Site Infrastructure
#
Building

Build new driveway entry and curb cut

Convert current driveway to pedestrian path
26
Build Mad River Path connection pedestrian trail
56
Wastewater systems (phase 3)

Build service entrance to kitchen/dumpsters

(site plan by phase PDFs coming soon...)