Return to home page
Received at the Vestry Retreat, May 15, 2004
These are the attachments that were available in electronic form at the time of the meeting. Copies of all attachments are kept in a binder in the library along with the minutes of the vestry meetings. |
The reports of the Long-Range Planning Committee were presented to the vestry for consideration at the retreat. The reports and recommendations have not been adopted or approved, only received for discussion. The vestry is considering steps to take to facilitate parish input and additional information gathering.
Defining Characteristics of the Chapel of the Cross Defining Characteristics of the Chapel of the Cross A strategic plan presents an organization with the opportunity to consider how it can preserve its defining attributes while being responsive to changing circumstances. So it is with the Chapel of the Cross. In preparing this strategic plan, we asked ourselves:
A short review reveals these defining characteristics of the Chapel of the Cross:
Changing demographics, social pressures, and expectations of the church require us to examine these attributes as we think about our future. These characteristics can be guides for the future. They can also be convenient excuses for not seeing emerging challenges and opportunities clearly. As we seek to be a parish that is ever alert to God’s call to share the good news of Christ Jesus and to glorify his Name, our task is to find a faithful balance between continuity and change. Values
and Principles That Guide Our Recommendations: *Hospitality: the various ways in which we welcome
the stranger, incorporate newcomers into our common life, and permit
no one to be overlooked or forgotten despite our large size; We hold out a vision of a parish where strong lay ministry is supported and nurtured by a strong staff. We underscore the dynamic relationship that exists between the quality and flexibility of our physical space and the quality of our programs and of our community. Where our space is uninviting and restrictive, program and relationships suffer. We should retain our historic strengths as a parish while having the courage to adjust ourselves to the demographic changes that are transforming our community. We see a parish that reflects the totality of our community, not an insular vision. Issue
#1 Recommendations The
Program Review Committee should request that clergy, staff, and
volunteer leaders be asked: The Program Review Committee should report its findings and recommendations at a parish wide forum and following each Sunday service to generate feedback and commitment. Years 2-5: Act on the Recommendations of the Program Review Committee, including implications for new staff and new configurations of existing staff. Issue
#2 Recommendations A central element of the work of this committee should be to visit and seek out examples of successful efforts from other congregations, locally, across the Diocese, and nationally. Years 2-5: Act on the findings of the special committee. Issue
#3 Recommendation: Year 0-1: Begin to model this goal in worship, education, and service activities. Simultaneously charge the Program Review Committee to assess how well this recommendation is being implemented and report results to the Rector and Vestry. Report of the LRP Subcommittee on Worship Within
the next 10 years (2014), assume moderate growth: Maintain
present traditions, formats and strengths: Additional
growth in attendance at services accommodated by: Add
a larger range of services which might include: Possible
times for new services: Other
issues affecting worship: Report of the LRP Subcommittee on Facilities Subcommittee members Bill Daniell, Rob Sullivan and Ramsey Terhune prepared the following summary regarding long-range planning for facilities at the Chapel of the Cross. Basic
Assumptions Definitions
Major
Needs Delineated *Our Church seating capacity is too small for major services. We often have parishioners standing along the walls *The Dining Room is inadequate to serve as a Fellowship Hall for our parish. We need room for 300 to stand at receptions, 250 seated in chairs at meetings and 200 at tables for dinner or conferences. It is unattractive, the ceiling is too low, there is poor lighting and we have large pillars filling the center of the space. *Office space is inadequate for our current staff. The Parish House was built at a time when we had one priest and a single secretary. The rudimentary offices carved from former classrooms to house our existing staff are small and dispersed throughout the building. Office operations are inefficient because of this arrangement. Parish program growth will be inhibited because we have no additional space available to house potential future staff envisioned to provide service and support in areas such as:
*The ambience of our Parish house is far below the quality expected of a leadership organization. We aspire to an air of gracious welcome, but offer threadbare institutional formality. We need comfortable seating areas resembling our parlor. We need better acoustic separation between our meeting areas. Pleasant nooks for private conversation are notably lacking. Those who have not recently toured the facilities of our companion churches in town are probably not aware of the degree to which we have fallen behind our peers. Visitors to our parish are struck by the difference. *Our building security reflects our small-town past, not tomorrow’s urban reality. We are located in a growing downtown environment. Personal safety, theft and vandalism are ongoing issues for building maintenance. We need a single monitored entrance during the week for our entire facility including the entrance to our Chapel. During evening and weekend hours, we should offer limited access to select areas without leaving our entire building open. *Our classrooms and meeting areas are inadequate. We require a greater choice of room size and furnishings. Rooms for adult education on Sunday are inadequate. Acoustic separation of our teaching spaces is poor. We need dedicated space for adults with young children. Our pre-school and Sunday-school need separate storage areas. A children’s toilet room for use by both schools would be ideal. Our play area needs a rubber surface to enhance child safety, child cleanliness and eliminate the constant influx of sand that is damaging our floors and carpets. *Our Campus Ministry space needs expansion with multi-purpose flexibility for worship, fellowship and meals. *The growth of our congregation and increasing sophistication of our parish volunteer programs will place even greater demands on our buildings in the years ahead. Constraints
to consider in addressing our needs The Planning Committee concluded that relocating our congregation to a new larger and more modern site outside of the downtown area with ample parking is not an option. Unlike some churches in our area, our identity is closely linked to our historic location and buildings. We evolved from a campus ministry, and we must remain in our current location if we hope to continue our tradition of service to the University community. The Planning Committee determined that downtown property acquisition in nearby areas is not desirable at this time. Relocating office staff to sites around town would disperse the nucleus of our operation. Cohesive staff function mandates a single office location. Teamwork would be more difficult to achieve. Efforts to raze community structures to create additional parking would generate opposition from the historic district. Oversight of the properties would tax our maintenance staff. Whatever parking spaces could be created by this process would not adjoin our church property thus walking several blocks would still be required. The purchase and maintenance of properties would consume resources that otherwise could be devoted to parish programs. In considering our need for additional worship space to accommodate larger congregation size, the Planning Committee quickly set aside any consideration of Chapel expansion. This historic structure should remain untouched except for ongoing infrastructure upgrades to lighting, heat, sound and media. Serious attention was devoted to analyzing Church expansion options. Multiple novel ideas surfaced including the following: *Excavation of a crypt under the nave would provide a large Fellowship Hall adjacent to the Church and Parish House. Unfortunately, such excavation would threaten the integrity of Church walls and would be extremely costly. Our offices, education resources and Parish House ambience would not improve with this construction. *We considered creating a Fellowship Hall by building an entire new floor for our Church Nave, Chancel and Sanctuary at a higher level above the existing floor between the upper & lower windows of our nave. In the process, we would gain a large Fellowship Hall in close proximity to the Church with attractive architectural detailing. Disadvantages would include the destruction of architectural integrity of our main sanctuary by reducing the distance from floor to ceiling of our nave, chancel and sanctuary. The row of lower windows throughout the nave would no longer be visible. Substantial practical and architectural difficulties with ingress & egress to the newly raised level would need to be resolved at every entrance with stairways and elevators for handicap access. Cost would be prohibitive. *We discussed the potential increase in seating within the Church that would accrue by building a balcony. Such a structure was included in the original drawings of our Church. Current building codes would require an elevator in addition to a stairway to reach the space. An engineering study would be required to determine feasibility of alterations to the tower room where many are skeptical that the balcony stairwell, as originally drawn, could be fitted. Advantages to a balcony include the additional seating it would provide. Disadvantages, depending upon the results of an engineering study, would include some compromise of the architectural integrity of the exterior and/or interior of the church and possible high cost. *An analysis of seating in the church led to discussion of removing the pews and substituting cathedral chairs. Advantages of chairs include the enhanced flexibility for multiple seating arrangements to satisfy requirements of various services. Disadvantages include the loss of the current pews as an important architectural element with a relatively small gain, if any, in seating capacity. Some individuals maintain that pews permit tight seating for special events that individual cathedral chairs simply would not allow. *Thought was given to enlarging the Church by extending the nave north towards Franklin St. Advantages include additional seating for a larger congregation which would be especially important for traditionally over-crowed services such as Christmas and Easter. Disadvantages include the high-anticipated cost and the lack of resolution of our need for a large Fellowship Hall. We also know there would be severe challenges in achieving architectural integrity for any building extension since the pink granite, limestone, windows, woodwork and slate flooring would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to match. *Expansion of the transepts was analyzed. The Committee learned that the East Transept sits exactly on our property line and cannot be extended one inch. Our West Transept could be extended into the courtyard. However, all of the architectural integrity problems listed above for a Nave extension would arise in this design as well. The additional congregation seating would not have a view of the altar. We also would lose the use of a major portion of our courtyard. *We could create a Fellowship Hall in the current courtyard. This could be largely of glass with walls leaving a narrow corridor of exterior space between the existing Church and Chapel walls. The roof could be gabled with operable shades to protect from sunlight. Advantages for this structure include an architecturally exciting, moderately sized Fellowship Hall in close proximity to the Church and Chapel with views of both. Disadvantages to this plan include the loss of our existing courtyard, possible noise concerns since the new Hall would be close to both Church and Chapel. The projected modest size of the Hall would not fully meet the needs of our congregation, the distance from kitchen would make meal service difficult and a glass design would possibly be energy inefficient. The committee considered options for a new Fellowship Hall through modification of our existing structures. The following options emerged from the discussions: *We analyzed the option of adding a fourth floor to the Yates wing. Access would be accomplished by extending the eastern stair tower and existing elevator shaft. A previous engineering study concluded that a fourth floor could be added to the present structure. Whereas a large Fellowship Hall with an attractive cathedral ceiling can be constructed there, the distance from the Church and Chapel would make it an impractical location. A more likely use of a fourth floor would be as office space or for an expanded Child Care Center. The new construction would include code upgrades required for licensing a full day child-care program. Advantages of a forth floor addition to the Yates wing include the relatively low cost required to gain a significant amount of space. If used for offices, we may be able to consolidate most in one location. Disadvantages include the lack of satisfaction of our primary need for a large Fellowship Hall. We would also loose the much valued storage space in the attic. Recommendations
of the Facility Subcommittee *Make no structural changes to the Chapel or Church beyond infrastructure upgrades required for daily use. *Accommodate growth in demand for seating in our worship services by scheduling more services in our Chapel and Church, including simultaneous services. No construction costs will be required for this solution and it offers the opportunity for differing service formats and degrees of formality while retaining our commitment to traditional Episcopal traditions. *With any expansion of our facilities, parking will continue to be limited to the amount currently available or less if we expand our Parish House. Changes in the Morehead lot have reduced the number of spaces available and curtailed the ability to circle around the parking lot. No feasible expansion plans allow for additional church parking. As a downtown parish, we have no choice but to accept the parking limitations that most city parishes face. The Committee recommends working with other downtown churches, the University and Town Government to enhance parking options. *Select one of the following strategies to address our need for a Fellowship Hall and improved offices for support staff.
Steps
to undertake While the feasibility studies are underway, no major renovations should be made to our Parish House beyond what is needed to sustain daily operation. In "blue skying" these various possibilities for expanded space, the committee acknowledged that there comes a point at which we are forced to accept the limitations of our location. Eventually we must turn our energies away from expanding our physical plant and towards expanding God's kingdom both within our confines and beyond our boundaries.
|