January 9, 2006
Present: Terry Eason, Paul Carew, John McGee, Robert Wright, Barbara Schutz, Martha Dill, Betsy Pringle, Jim Crow, Rob Sullivan, Linda Rimer, Ted Vaden; Matt Poe and Lee Becker of Hartman-Cox.
Ted updated the committee on developments and presented a work plan for the next several months. He has appointed a “focusing” subcommittee of Martha Dill, Terry Eason and himself to review the program report and narrow it down to key elements related to the building design. The purpose will be to produce a simplified list of program goals that can be communicated effectively to the parish, via posters, website etc., and can better inform the Next Step Committee and the architects as we complete the design process. The subcommittee will report back to the Next Step Committee at the January 23 meeting.
Work Plan: Ted outlined a work plan for the next two meetings as follows: Jan. 23 – receive program report, narrow down design options. Feb. 6 – decide consensus master plan design for presentation to parish. Feb. 16 – present plan to Vestry. Feb. 20 – review plan re Vestry input. Feb. 26 – present master plan to parish at Annual Meeting. We would schedule a parish meeting subsequently to provide an opportunity for small group discussion of the plan.
Robert Wright suggested, and the committee agreed that we should also schedule meetings with specific groups in the parish, such as choir, Sunday School teachers and parents, Men’s Breakfast, attendees at 5:15 service.
Linda Rimer will arrange an informal meeting with folks from UNC Botanical Garden and Morehead Planetarium to discuss our plans.
Based on that schedule, Hartman-Cox will proceed with preparing designs and images in time for presentation at the Annual Meeting.
Terry reported on the meeting with Bruce Heflin, parishioner and assistant town manager. Chapel of the Cross is one of two downtown properties that fall into a special O&I-3 zoning category. That would allow the church project to avoid special use permit review if our square footage was no greater than 41,975 square feet, which would save a lot of regulatory headache and expense. However, the church already is at 32-33,000 feet, and Terry felt the project would easily exceed the 41,975-foot limit, perhaps to 50-55,000 square feet. Our feeling was that, even if the project is staged, we should present to the town a master plan encompassing full buildout.
Bruce strongly advised that we first take our plans to the Historic District Commission for a courtesy review. Then we would submit a concept plan to the Town Council and the Community Design Committee. At that point, review process would take about a year. Bruce thought we had positives in our favor in that we’re a house of worship and there would not likely be neighborhood opposition. He advised that we meet informally with town planners J.B. Culpepper and Gene Poveromo before submission to the town.
Rob questioned whether meetings with the town should occur before there is Vestry approval of a concept plan.
Barbara said she had reviewed the Long-Range Plan and was reminded that the top two program priorities were fellowship hall and office space. Rob said he would add to that list classroom space.
Rob provided a very valuable written analysis of the various designs that have been considered so far. He also ranked those plans on a scale that incorporates all of the program elements from the interim Program Committee Report. Plans C and F ranked the highest, followed closely by G and B. Plans D and A ranked low. Matt pointed out that the rankings weren’t weighted to reflect the priority of different program needs, to which Rob readily agreed.
Matt and Lee presented two recent design revisions, one showing a phasing of Plan H, the other incorporating plans for preserving the Battle and Yates wings. Using 3-D models, they showed two different concepts for building the fellowship hall in a first phase, allowing renovation or new construction of the remaining office and classroom space in a second phase. Plan F has the hall facing Franklin Street, Plan H facing the planetarium, with a long side along the arboretum. They said Plan F would work best in terms of aligning with the rest of the non-worship space and allowing maximum circulatory flow. They also said that preserving the Battle Building would impair that circulatory flow.
Terry urged that a first-phase plan include second-story space above the fellowship hall that could connect directly to the rest of the building. Ted questioned whether the first phase could include more than just the fellowship hall – that part of the office/classroom area also be included.
We talked about the "greenness" or sustainability of building design and architecture (which we have discussed as being important since almost the very beginning) and we agreed that while preservation of existing structures is one "green" technique or principle, there are many, many more techniques that relate to water conservation, energy efficiency (HVAC, insulation, orientation, windows), building materials, recycling demolition materials, indoor air quality, etc. and that all these should be considered within the discussion of the preservation of the Battle Building.
The architects challenged the committee to articulate why we should preserve the Battle Building. Their concern was that it would impair circulation and effective use of space and that it would save no money compared to new construction. Betsy responded that the Battle Building, though it has changed from the original design, retains character and history of the church. Terry said the building “has some memory” of the original design, which he said provided a façade relationship between the church and the chapel. He said saving money wouldn’t be a benefit; rather, it’s a matter of saving the old walls and fabric (brick, wood etc.). Lee said we’d need to weigh that value versus the flexibility and usefulness of new space and such elements as daylight, circulation, clarity and ambience. It would offer the most flexible infrastructure for the future as the interior space needs of the church change. Plan F, both architects said, would best serve our needs. There was also discussion of whether, even if the Battle Building is torn down, some architecturally significant portions such as the fireplaces could be preserved.
Terry raised the question of whether the committee might approve a master plan that includes a Phase 1 construction of a fellowship hall but that includes two different versions for Phase 2 – one that preserves the Battle and/or Yates buildings, one that replaces them completely.
Ted urged the committee to be prepared to make decisions at the Jan. 23 meeting on two key questions:
- Configuration of the fellowship hall for a first phase.
- Whether to preserve the Battle Building as part of the final master plan.
The committee adjourned at 8 p.m.
Last updated: January 12, 2006
