Following a bag supper, the Vestry met in focus session with the Next Step Committee. Vestry members present were Jim Crow (Sr. Warden), Steve Lackey (Jr. Warden), Bunnie Collura, George Evans, Jack Scarborough, Chris Bowes, Mary Schoenfeld, Terry Eason, Ann Henley, Chip Hill, and Melody Savage. Also present were Stephen Elkins-Williams (Rector), Bill Joyner (Deacon), Barbara Hastings (Parish Administrator), John McGee (Treasurer), and Nancy Kelly (Clerk). Next Step Committee members present were Ted Vaden (Chair), Paul Carew, Martha Dill, Linda Rimer, Barbara Schütz, and Rob Sullivan.
Mr. Elkins-Williams opened the focus session at 6:10 p.m. by welcoming the members of the Next Step Committee.
Attached is the final revision of the Executive Summary of the Interim Report of the Program Review Committee.
Mr. Vaden began by giving the Vestry an update on the work of the Next Step Committee, which has met three times since it last met with the Vestry. Its work has centered on working to refine the design plans to determine which one will best meet the program needs of the parish for the next twenty-five years. The committee has wrestled with the issue of renovation of existing space or demolition and new construction, in an effort to determine what would best serve the needs of the parish. The conclusion reached by the committee is that entirely new construction is preferable. The rationale for the decision is that the space would be larger and better designed, with better circulation and better use of space, and there would be no cost differential.
Once the decision was made, one of the committee members resigned from the committee, not because of dissatisfaction with the process but because she felt that committee members should be committed to the decision for new construction, and she does not personally feel that commitment.
Once the committee had made the decision in favor of new construction, it considered two plans. One plan would align the fellowship hall on the same axis as the current fellowship areas, facing the Morehead Planetarium. The other would have the fellowship hall perpendicular to the current fellowship areas but on the same axis as the church and the chapel, facing Franklin Street, and it was determined that this alignment would provide the best use of interior space.
Mr. Vaden said that it is important for parishioners to understand the concept of planning facilities around program. For this reason, the committee, under the able leadership of Martha Dill and Barbara Schütz, had posters created that visually depict this concept. Mrs. Dill then gave the Vestry an overview of the information provided by the posters. In addition to an summary poster outlining the program needs, there is a poster for each of the key program needs as determined by the Program Review Committee: Fellowship and Hospitality, Education and Christian Formation, Social Ministry and Outreach to the University, Social Ministry and Outreach to the Community, and Support for Clergy, Staff, and Lay Volunteers for Carrying on the Mission of the Church. There is also a poster showing the exterior elevations of the new construction.
Mr. Vaden added that the construction would be carried out in phases for two reasons, funding and operational issues. If a capital campaign raises sufficient funds for the entire project, the phases would follow one immediately after the other. The fellowship hall is the first priority. Once it has been completed, it can be used for many purposes while the Battle Building and the Yates Wing are demolished and new construction is completed in that area of the property.
Mr. Vaden announced that on Sunday, March 5, there will be an afternoon session of small group discussions with parishioners and members of the Next Step Committee.
Mr. Crow asked what kind of input the committee is seeking, and Mr. Vaden replied that any input is welcome.
Mr. Eason then spoke about the design plan. Mr. Eason said that the strongest part of the design was a desire for a principal, broad hallway connecting the church to the chapel to the fellowship hall, to provide a strong circulation axis. The courtyard will be a little larger, and the parlor will have a nice view of the courtyard. An outdoor play area is planned for the side of the fellowship hall next to the Morehead Planetarium. Space for garbage also needs to be considered.
Mrs. Schütz said that it is important to note that the architect was working with minimal space for expansion. Mr. Sullivan added that, in order to make the best use of the space that we have, we need to demolish the current buildings in order to excavate to provide more space. Mr. Crow said that this information definitely needs to be communicated to the parish.
Mr. Carew noted that some parishioners have been concerned about demolition and the loss of fixtures such as the old fireplace. He suggested that some of the sentimentally valuable fixtures in our current buildings could be removed and reinstalled in the new construction.
Mr. Eason said that he has suggested that the architect add some large classrooms on the upper level of the fellowship hall. The only concern about this is that of not making the roof line too high. Mr. Sullivan said that it is his understanding that the architect plans to add four more classrooms into this space in his next draft.
Mr. Lackey said that phasing of the construction would require permission of the University for access to the construction site on the Spencer Dorm side of the building. Mr. McGee has had some preliminary discussions with UNC about this and he foresees no problems. Mr. Elkins-Williams asked about issues with the town, and Mr. Eason replied that we will need special-use zoning permits, which may take up to a year to secure.
Mr. Crow commended the committee for its careful analysis of the issues and its data-driven conclusion.
Mr. Vaden said that the committee has already received some intensive input from some members of the parish, this in spite of having already met with the parish three times and having published the minutes of its meetings on the web site.
Mr. Elkins-Williams asked if there has been any discussion about the reduction in the number of parking spaces that will happen as a result of the additional space. Mr. Vaden replied that the committee has concluded that the parish needs to accept this as a necessary consequence and go on to identify other options for parking.
Mr. Hill observed that there is the perception among some parishioners that, since only one plan is being presented, the decision has already been made to proceed.
Mrs. Schütz added that another consideration addressed by the committee is that of increasing the security of the church buildings.
Mr. Elkins-Williams thanked the members of the Next Step Committee for meeting with the Vestry.
The focus session concluded at 7:10 p.m., and the Vestry moved to the more formal part of the agenda.
Attachment
- - - Final Draft of Executive Summary of Interim Report of Program Review Committee, June 5, 2005
|