   |
-Sanctuary Committee  Sanctuary Committee Minutes
(most recent first) Date: 5/31/07, 7:00 PM
Place: FBCW Chapel
Meeting #22
Materials passed out: Zion Church Builders, Inc document samples dated May 31, 2007
1. Ken Weikel chaired the meeting and opened in prayer.
2. Ken advised that John Ramsey resigned from the Committee as he is moving from the area. Ken then introduced Mr. Jim Hinze, the owner of Zion Church Builders, Inc.
3. Jim Hinze provided background on himself, his company and how his company is able to build quality churches for less.
4. During questions Jim advised he would look at all possible sources of labor/materials in order to get the best price for First Baptist. He indicated he had reviewed our plans and would only suggest a couple changes.
5. Ken discussed underground water concerns and the fact that Geotechnical indicated we did not need underground drainage. However, the Committee felt it would be prudent to build an underground duct system of aggregate using drain tiles to carry any water to a pit outfitted with sump pump. This was deemed appropriate by the Committee members present and carried by vote.
6. Ed Palumbo said he has been in contact with Sounds Great, a company who was introduced by Zion Church Builders, and contacted their references. The A/V/L sub-committee has agreed this is a company that we should consider and request a better cost estimate for the A/V/L since, because of the short notice, Sounds Great was only able to provide an estimate. The A/V/L sub-committee would like to request a bid from them, and if agreed, enter into a contract for the A/V/L not to exceed $160K. This carried by vote of the building committee members present.
7. Ken advised the Committee's next step would be to get together in the near future and decide how to proceed.
8. The meeting was closed in prayer at 8:25 PM by Bob Eaton.
Neill
Date: 5/8/07, 7:00 PM
Place: FBCW Chapel
Meeting #21
Materials passed out: Zion Church Builders brief
Attendance: (List maintained separately)
Gail Clark graciously stood in as the note taker providing the following:
1. The meeting was opened with prayer by John Flatley.
2. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for May 22, 2007, at 7 pm in the chapel. The Committee will hear a presentation from the A/V/L subcommittee and will also receive updates from Phil Lacey and Donna Daugherty. 3. Phil Lacey gave an update on the status of the plans. 4. Donna Daugherty reported that results of the geotech testing showed no groundwater near the building, and the existing pond will absorb all run-off with minor modifications. The site plan has been resubmitted to the County and the Fire Department's comments have been received. 5. Don Chapman of Zion Church Builders gave a presentation which was followed by a question/answer session. Points covered include: - Zion has been building churches since 1965. The company builds ONLY churches, no other buildings. - The company can save the church money by purchasing items directly from the manufacturer rather than going through a dealer. - The project supervisor will be a person who works with Zion but is employed by our church as a consultant. - Zion's fee is 7% of the cost of the building. Our total expense would be the cost of the building plus a 7% fee. - If we so desire, Zion will also oversee items not included in the budget for an additional 2% fee. Examples of these items include the sound system, theatrical lighting, and chancel furniture. - All fees are locked in at the beginning of construction. - Zion's average cost per square foot is $100. 6. The meeting ended with a request for references from Zion, which we will check. 7. The meeting was closed with prayer by Ken Weikel. Neill
Date: 3/19/07, 7:0 PM
Place: FBCW Chapel Meeting #20 Materials passed out: Agenda, Estimated cost for Geotechnical Investigation Proposal, Building Project Contracts (Updated 2/22/07), Building Project Expenditures (Updated 2/22/07), and Bolton & Associates Scope Adjustment Form (March 13, 2007), Attendance: (List maintained separately)
1. Ken Weikel chaired the meeting which was opened in prayer by Dave Bowler. Ken thanked the Committee for their patience and faithfulness. 2. Ken reviewed the Building Project Contracts and Building Project Expenditures with no discussion. 3. Wayne Kempson briefed the zoning hearing which was held on March 14, 2007 and advised we accomplished what we set out to do and the project can now move forward as far as zoning issues are concerned. 4. Phil Lacy provided an overview of the building project indicating: a. He continues to work design details. b. Coordinating with civil engineers on the slope of the floor. c. They have identified soil boring locations. d. Trying to incorporate input from the Sub-Committee meeting of March 12, 2007. e. Will be meeting with mechanical engineers on March 20, 2007. f. Still much work to do. 5. Donna Daugherty provided a civil engineering update: a. The site plan has been put together. b. Looking at ways to deal with the drive up/drop off area which, if brought closer to the building will cost about $20K c. Laid out the sewer lines. d. Attempting to fit things in to the plans with minimal disruption to current facilities and utilities while watching the associated costs. e. Looking at some parking and landscaping near the drop off area. 6. There was discussion about the drive up/drop off area to include leaving it as it is, leaving it as it is and moving the overhang out to the road and bringing it closer to the building at a cost of about $20K. Ken Clarke motioned that we include moving the drive up/drop off area (redesigning the traffic circle area) closer to the building in the site plans and Chuck Swan seconded. The motion carried. Ken Weikel asked that those with any suggestions be sure to provide them to Donna. 7. The Geotechnical Investigation Proposal, with an estimated cost of $6095, was discussed and Ken advised it was something that needed to be accomplished in order for the project to continue. David Petroni motioned we accept the proposal as stated and Sharon Carpenter seconded. While no competitive bid was obtained, Donna advised this is the company that Bolton & Associates uses all the time. The motion carried and this information will be presented at the next Business Meeting. 8. Ken advised there is a requirement for special signage which will cost $500 as set forth in the Bolton & Associates Scope Adjustment Form. Ken Clarke motioned that we accept the proposal as stated and David Petroni seconded. The motion carried. 9. The remainder of the time was spent by the three Sub-Committees providing an overview of their efforts. Further amplification of what was presented is contained in the Sub-Committee Meeting minutes of March 12, 2007. The presentations are summarized as follows: a. Ed Palumbo reported for the Audio/Video/Lighting (AVL) Sub-Committee indicating they have narrowed their search from eleven companies down to four and are prepared to single out one company. In that no company will work up estimates without a fee, Ed asked that he be given the authority to commit up to $10K to be paid to the company the Sub-Committee selects. With this capability, the Sub-Committee will be able to move forward without having to wait until the next congregational Business Meeting to obtain approval. David Petroni motioned that the AVL Sub-Committee be authorized to commit funds not to exceed $10K for the Sub-Committee to continue their initial consultation and design work. Sharon Carpenter seconded. The motion carried. b. Nita Wallace reported for the Furnishings/Finishes Sub-Committee and raised several issues that needed clarification: centering of the windows in the music room; stoop coverings over the outside doors; matching floor and bathroom tile and carpet; the use of bright brass for hardware; and perhaps placing a fake door opposite the usable door behind the pulpit for aesthetic purposes. Phil indicated he may be able to design a way so another door would not be needed and will study it. c. Ken Clarke reported for the Mechanical Sub-committee beginning with a suggestion that we utilize two roof top air conditioning units, doing away with air handlers as the Sub-Committee felt there would be too many problems associated with 'in floor' ducting. The Sub-Committee will be meeting with engineers on March 20, 2007 to discuss this further. The Sub-Committee also recommended that instant hot water heaters (at the faucet) be substituted for hot water tanks. 10. In that there were no additional discussion items, Bob Eaton closed in prayer at 8:20 PM.
Neill
Date: 1/8/07, 7:30 PM
Place: FBCW Chapel Meeting #19 Materials passed out: List of Expenditures, list of Contracts Attendance: (List maintained separately)
1. Ken Weikel chaired the meeting which was opened in prayer by Bob Eaton. 2. Ken advised he spoke with Phil Lacy today who advised:
3. Ken indicated he planned to contact Phil every Monday to ensure Phil remains aware of the urgency of this project. 4. It was decided to suggest to Phil that he just provide the drawings to the County and let them advise whether handicap access to the pulpit area was a requirement. Ken will inform Phil. 5. Donna Daughety advised WE, Inc., our previous civil engineer, will provide a CD with all previous plans for use with the current civil engineering. The contract work with Bolton and Associates related to the Zoning Text Amendment is going as expected with no current concerns. 6. We discussed the list of Expenditures and list of Contracts documents that were handed out. Ken advised he thought he would routinely update these documents in order to keep the Committee abreast of the expenses and how the various contracts were progressing. 7. There was discussion about forming sub-committees to deal with several different issues in more detail. The following sub-committees were established:
8. There was discussion about ensuring all the members of the Committee were kept informed of the progress of the Committee. It was felt that the email distribution of our notes was sufficient. 9. Ken indicated he was concerned that the work of the Committee be made available to the congregation and asked Gail Spence to help with the publicity of the project. We will attempt to keep information published in the monthly newsletter, the bulletin and on the web site. Gail will be looking at these and other possibilities. 10. The meeting was concluded in prayer by Ken at 8:25 PM.
Neill Robins The agenda consisted of three items: 1. Structural Options Sub-committee Report 2. Site Engineering Proposal 3. Zoning Situation Agenda Item 1 – Structural Options Sub-committee Report Sharon Carpenter presented the report. After several meetings with the architect (Phil Lacey) and Uniwest Construction Company, the sub-committee came to the conclusion that there were no significant savings to be realized from any of the alternate construction/structural options. A motion was made and seconded that the sub-committee report be accepted. The motion passed by a vote of 13 to 2. As a result of this vote a motion was made to proceed with the current structural design (glu-lam beams, dry wall between the beams and design the will allow for wood decking to be applied if funding is available). The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote. The Chair will notify the architect of this decision to assure that the design will accommodate the addition of wood decking. It was suggested and agreed upon to make a trip to Agenda Item 2 – Site Engineering Proposal The chair reviewed the situation i.e., status of proposals for the site engineering work. Two proposals were solicited and received (Bolton & Associates, LLC and WE, Incorporate). These proposals contained differences in content and price. During the process of resolving these issues, WE incorporated withdrew their proposal because they are going out of business[1]. The Bolton & Associates proposal as revised was discussed in detail (Attachment 1). The proposal contained cost options for some work that may not be required. Therefore, there were two funding levels proposed. A motion was made and seconded to accept the proposal and make a request to the church at the next business meeting to fund all of the work ($31,995.00) with the position that it would be a maximum expenditure amount and the true cost could be less. The motion passed by a unanimous vote. Agenda Item 3 – Zoning Situation The Pastor gave a short zoning history of the present property. As things now stand we are zoned as a New item – Additional Costs The chair will form a sub-committee to list and define addition expense items and the associated costs needed to complete the building.
The meeting was adjourned with prayer at 8:30. Submitted by: Bert Stevenson Acting recorder
[1] The owner of WE, Incorporated is closing his business in order to better care for his ailing wife. The committee agreed to pray for him, his wife and their entire family.
Meeting #11 Materials passed out: Construction Companies overview, New Drawings depicting the enlarged lobby
1. Ken Weikel chaired the meeting and opened with prayer. 2. Chuck Swan discussed the Construction Small Group Committee's work and passed out the Construction Companies overview. Chuck advised that his group, which consisted of Bert Stevenson and Ken Clarke as the other members, surveyed five companies, three were interviewed and narrowed down to one through several criteria explained in the overview. The company recommended by this Committee is Uniwest. There was discussion and it was decided to bring a representative of Uniwest to be interviewed by the full Committee after the design development phase is complete. 3. Prior to addressing the comments suggested by the congregation, Ken and Pastor Kempson presented an alteration to the drawing proposed at the Town Hall Meeting held November 13, 2005. After that meeting Sharon Carpenter was in a discussion with several folks who expressed concern that the proposed lobby (annotated as the narthex in the diagram) was probably not large enough. Based on this, Pastor Kempson provided new drawings, enclosed with these minutes, which depict the restrooms relocated south of the mechanical room and the lobby extended. This alteration increases the lobby by over 300 sq ft. After discussion, motion was made seconded, that the new drawing concept be accepted. The motion carried. 4. The remainder of the meeting was spent on evaluating and responding to the forty-four suggestions submitted to the suggestion box (a copy of which can be read by opening this pdf file: The following responses correspond to the numbered suggestions: 1. Will be addressed.
2. Will be addressed.
3. Will look at a place behind the pulpit area to put a sink. Storage has already been identified.
4. The building contractor will be presented to the congregation for a vote at a later date.
5. Steeple will not work on sanctuary but we will consider removing it (from the Chapel) and replacing it with a cupola. Any changes with respect to the Chapel will be addressed further in to the building program.
6. Good idea and something we plan to do.
7. Good idea and which will be considered.
8. Will be considered.
9. Due to several issues, to include aesthetics, lighting, access to that area, and the cost associated to build this area out, it will probably remain as is.
10. This will be addressed by our architect. Initial feeling is that smaller windows are less aesthetically pleasing. If there is considerable cost difference, or some other benefit to have the smaller windows (HVAC considerations for example), then there may be a reason to use them.
11. This will be addressed by our architect.
12. The space could be used for several things but no particular design is being considered.
13. There are doors leading from the outside which would allow entrance without going through the sanctuary.
14. This was address in paragraph #3 of these minutes.
15. The education building HVAC issues are being addressed and are considered a separate matter.
16. This will be addressed.
17. See #9 above.
18. This is being accomplished now.
19. We are attempting to plan for both our current and future needs. The matter of space for an orchestra has been addressed and the current position is that we have room as the building is currently designed. Additional room for those occasions when we have a large orchestra could be made by removing front pew rows.
20. Stained glass is being considered. However this, as everything else, comes with a price tag and we will have to address the costs as we progress.
21. There will be no pews for the hearing impaired per se. We currently use wireless personal sound amplification which we plan to continue to use. Folks in need of signing capability will be afforded front row pews.
22. This is a possibility which will be addressed as we progress.
23. This is obviously a possibility but will be considered with respect to the advantage of having a smaller gathering place.
24. See #9 above.
25. The best example is Hughesville Baptist Church from which we drew many of our ideas.
26. This is being addressed. Sound and light should be controlled from inside the room A control desk will be placed on the sanctuary floor.
27. Our architect will address this.
28. See #11 above.
29. This was addressed by the Committee who felt that the outside wall could be altered (different brick, lighted stained glass in the tower) to create a pleasing look. This, coupled with the fact risers may be placed along that wall inside the music room, resulted in deciding it was best not to put windows there.
30. It was felt that changing the lines of the outside walls would detract from the overall appearance as would a change in the roofline. It is believed there is currently enough storage.
31. It is felt there is currently enough storage.
32. There did not appear to be a need to justify the cost and reduction in size of the restrooms for a hallway.
33. This has been accomplished.
34. A decision on the temporary classrooms is based on the projected attendance. Should that change, appropriate considerations will be made.
35. This will be considered once the mechanical details are worked out.
36. See #29 above.
37. We have asked the architect to look at this.
38. This will be considered.
39. See item paragraph #3 in these minutes.
40. This was discussed and the feeling was that we have enough places, including a parlor off the Chapel, which would suffice for this room.
41. The feeling is there is plenty of choir room as the building currently exists.
42. See paragraph #3 in these minutes.
43. It was felt that this was not necessary as the nursery is just down the hall..
44. The Committee addressed this and the feeling was that infants deserve the full and undivided attention of the workers and that nursery workers are more than just babysitters. It is noted that recordings of the service are available at no cost.
5. Ken mentioned the upcoming called business meeting for the congregational vote which will be held on December 13, 2005 at both morning services. Ken requested Committee members to try to be available between services to help answer any questions that might be raised. Neill will email the Committee to remind them to mention the matter in Sunday school this coming Sunday.
6. It was decided to wait until January, 2006 to interview potential builders (see paragraph #2 above).
Date: 11/3/05, 7:00 PM Place: FBCW Room #303 Meeting # 10
1. Dave Bowler opened with prayer at 7:10 PM. The meeting was chaired by Ken Weikel who provided an overview of the status of events since our last meeting. This included the work accomplished by the design work group, a graphic overview of was provided to Committee members by email prior to this meeting. 2. Mr. Phil Lacy provided detailed information about the working plans resulting from the design group. Assisted by Ed Palumbo on the computer, Phil gave an in-depth overview from a computer generated graphic illustration. 3. The Committee then examined the two sets of working plans to get a better understanding of the dimensions and scale. 4. The Committee began from the music room and moved forward through the entire building commenting and then deciding on different issues resulting in a basic footprint. --Sharon Carpenter motioned that this basic design for the music room be accepted and the motion carried. --John Flatley motioned that the suggested location and layout of the sanctuary and classrooms be accepted and the motion carried. --There was discussion on the location and style of the library access doors which Nita Wallace motioned should be accepted and the motion carried. 7. The remainder of the meeting dealt with how this information would be presented at the Town Meeting scheduled for November 13, 2005. It was decided Phil would present the information and there would be both handouts and large plans for those in attendance to view. There would be a solicitation for feedback in writing and a suggestion box and bulletin board considered as ways to obtain input from the congregation. It was suggested that the next Committee meeting be held in early December, 2005 to vote on the final results from the Town Meeting. 8. Ken Clarke closed with prayer at 10:10 PM.
These notes were prepared by Gail Clark and submitted by Neill Robins. Subsequent to this meeting a church-wide mailing was conducted to alert the congregation to the Town Meeting and to provide them with a view of the plans which were agreed to in the Committee meeting. A copy of these plans are appended herewith.
Date: 8/23/05, 7:00 PM Place: FBCW Room #214
Meeting # 9
Materials passed out: Five page illustrations from Phil Lacy
1. The meeting was chaired by Ken Weikel who opened with prayer.
2. Mr. Phil Lacy presented his rendition of the building based on the input provided to him from our last meeting. Those documents are attached to this email. There was considerable discussion regarding the layout, design and proposed utility of the building with the following general comments noted:
--The overall feeling was that this design was at least heading in the right direction.
--Perhaps the corners would be better if they were more squared off.
--The expansion capability was generally endorsed.
--Folks were basically satisfied with the pulpit, seating and choir arrangements.
--It was felt the baptistery should remain centrally located.
--There was discussion about a larger music room and some suggested places to put it.
3. Ken suggested that a smaller design working group be formed to work through some of the suggestions with Phil. Volunteers were solicited and the group was established as: Phil Lacy, Wayne Kempson, Nita Wallace, Donna Daugherty, Sharon Carpenter and Ken Weikel. Phil stressed the need to have a clear description of the group's vision. This group will meet and report their findings back to the full committee.
4. It was suggested that documents resulting from the design group's meetings be forwarded to the full committee as a 'read ahead' before the next meeting.
5. Ken advised he had established another small working group, to be lead by Chuck Swan, that will begin considering various building contractors. Ken solicited anyone with an interest to be on this working group to contact him.
6. Wayne closed with prayer at 8:30 PM.
Neill
Date: 7/20/05, 7:00 PM Place: FBCW Library
Meeting #8
Materials passed out: Alternate seating layout
1. The meeting was chaired by Ken Weikel. Neill Robins opened with prayer. 2. Ken indicated he spoke with the architect, Phil Lacy, subsequent to our last meeting and passed him the seating capacity number (500) we agreed on at our last meeting. Phil indicated that what he needed next was an understanding of what we thought the seating should look like. He felt that was a step we needed to take before we move to the shape of the building. 2. The reports from the Sunday school classes were make: -Ken Clarke: Wanted a center isle, mentioned sloped floor, pews with nice pads. Desired a conventional (rectangular) building with pew rows going straight back. They were not opposed to another design, but this is what they felt comfortable with. Did not think classrooms at the back was a good idea as they felt it should be just a 'church'. Mentioned multi-sue stage/pulpit. -Bill Wootan: Fan shaped with a center isle. Suggested 600 (vice 500) seating with room to expand from the initial stage (400 or so) to the final capacity. The term 'transitional use' was used to describe this process. -Bert Stevenson: Fan shaped with a center isle. Kept capacity numbers. Rooms at the side of the pulpit for counseling. -John Keller: Straight, traditional seating. Choir loft centered in the front. Balcony suggested. -Lincoln Clark: Seating in the round. A center isle would be nice but not required. -Pat Ivy: Straight rows. 3. Discussion followed each of the class suggestions with the following central themes: -We are generally speaking of a more 'traditional' looking church. -We are concerned about distance from the pulpit and generally agree that 'fan' seating, which provides for a more 'shallow and wide' approach, is what we are comfortable with. -This general design would envision the number of pew rows at 14 to 17. -Seating width of 20 inches vice the architectural standard of 18 inches. 4. Bill Wootan moved, and Ann Higginbotham seconded, that we present Phil with the following: a) proceed with code requirement of a minimum 18 inch seating width and a 550 person seating capacity as maximum; b) inform him that for our purposes, we would like to see a design utilizing 20 inch seating width and a 500 person capacity as maximum; c) both figures assume 50 persons in the choir loft, and; d) that capacity is still not "written in stone" and is subject to change. This motion carried. 5. Ann moved and Bill seconded that we request Phil provide a design based on 'fan' shaped seating, including a center aisle, which is illustrated in the Alternate seating layout (attached), and is similar to concept plan - C (provided at Meeting #6 on June 23, 2005). Further, that Phil feel free to provide other similar options that he may want us to consider keeping in mind we are not interested in pursuing options that just include parallel rows. This motion carried. 6. It was decided to delay discussion on the shape of the building. 7. Pastor Kempson closed with prayer at 9:10 PM.
Neill Date: 7/14/05, 7:00 PM Place: FBCW Chapel
Meeting #7
Materials passed out: Agenda, Purpose document, Four pages of overview brief
1. The meeting was chaired by Ken Weikel. Bert Stevenson opened with prayer. 2. Ken reviewed the agenda and background information and stressed that we were involved in more than just putting up a building in that we had to look at long-range plans for the church with respect to growth and capacity. 3. There was discussion of the Purpose document (attached) which presents what it is our church feels is important. That document was developed in the early 1990’s. 4. Pastor Kempson provided a detailed overview of how the church had progressed through the years and what impact our current property has on the capacity of a new building. Many of the slides Wayne showed are attached to this document. The following comments summarize the presentation: -Where there is no vision, the people perish. This is an important concept to keep in mind as our efforts need to be supported by our vision. -As a congregation we have embraced the position of a ‘cross generation’ church. -Three kinds of space (worship/education/parking) are what we have to deal with. When one of these spaces is filled, it begins to adversely impact the others. -Our vision for worship growth must go hand in hand with our vision for discipleship and education growth. -Our congregation has pursued the approach of fully integrated Bible study and worship as families, i.e. having Sunday school and church together on a Sunday. 5. There was discussion regarding the Pastor’s brief with the following observations: -We would continue with two morning services. -We would need to work at intentional Sunday school growth. -Our assumption is that the choir would be 10% of attendance. -We would have to seriously consider a future education building. 6. The approach to the Sanctuary, as presented, would result in the following: -A seating capacity of 450 to 500. -A two-step process of expansion (i.e., build the overall size of the sanctuary to the seating capacity of 450 to 500 but only utilize a part of it with the excess space made as temporary classrooms.) -A commitment to church growth. 7. Bill Wootan moved, and Bert Stevenson seconded, that we: a) build a sanctuary with a capacity of 500 and; b) that the initial phase have a capacity of 400. During the ensuring discussion it was felt the initial phase capacity was restrictive. Donna Daugherty requested the question be divided. A vote on the capacity of 500 was taken and passed. After additional discussion, Ann Higginbotham moved that part ‘b’ of the motion be tabled indefinitely. This was passed. 8. Ken suggested our next meeting be held next Wednesday so we can discuss seating shapes and designs in order to be able to provide our decisions to the architect. Bob Eaton suggested the possible designs be discussed during the adult Sunday school classes this Sunday so we would have more input from the congregation. It was decided that general information would be made available to the Sunday school teachers and we would ask for their feedback. 9. Sharon Carpenter advised she is still working on the field trip issue. 10. Our next meeting will be Wednesday, July 20, at 8:00 PM in the chapel. 11. Bill Wootan closed the meeting with prayer at 9:10 PM.
Neill
<Return to Top>
Date: 6/23/05, 7:00 PM Place: FBCW Chapel
Meeting #6
Materials passed out: Sanctuary Design Concept Phase dated June 23, 2005
1. The meeting was chaired by Ken Weikel and was opened with Prayer by Pastor Kempson. 2. Our architect, Mr. Phil Lacy, discussed the following three sanctuary concepts: Concept A: The proposed addition is rectangular in shape and in alignment with existing building and is set back toward the east parking lot to maintain the ‘front yard’ view from the existing offices. The seating capacity is for 508 worshipers. A baptistery, music room, and restrooms are included. Direct connection to the north entrances is provided. Total square footage is 7,996. This was considered to be the most efficient of the three concepts. Concept B: The proposed addition is hexagonal in shape and is positioned to achieve visibility from the highway. Another design feature of this concept is an enclosed courtyard that can be landscaped and used for outdoor activities. Access to the courtyard can be from both connecting corridors at the north entrance and the administration office space. The seating capacity is for 613 worshipers. A baptistery, music room, and restrooms are included. Total square footage is 11,054. Concept C: The proposed addition is octagonal in shape and is also position to achieve visibility from the highway. An open ended courtyard is created with the existing building. The seating capacity is 536 worshipers with an increase of 40 worshipers if the center aisle was removed creating a total capacity of 576. A baptistery, music room, and restroom are included. Direct connection to the north entrance is provided. Total square footage is 9,671.
Some points which came from the discussion include: a) Pew seating is determined at the rate of 18 inches per person with pews spaced on a 36 inch center. The seating rate determines the number of people who can be accompanied by the structure which then determines the amount of parking spaces required and other circulation issues. b) The size of the adjoining lobby is based on 1.5 sq ft per person (determined from the seating capacity). c) A normal 21 foot pew is assumed to be able to seat 14 people. d) If square feet were the same, Mr. Lacy estimated the cost of building the structures would be Concept B as most expensive followed by Concept C with Concept A the least expensive. e) A balcony is possible in Concept C and could add as many as 200 seats. f) These concepts demonstrate that it is possible to build capacity for 600 people in the land area we have focused on. g) Acoustical considerations. Problems with acoustics tend to be a problem the more round the building. h) Music room sizes vary from 580 to 700 square feet in the three concepts.
3. Chuck Edwards suggested we may want to consider a format similar to Concept C but built as a square building thus allowing for better use of space. There was also some discussion about access to the choir loft from behind the choir loft area perhaps in the form of a room. In addition to assisting the choir, this would also allow for an area to prep for other presentations. 4. The Committee basically concurred that we liked the seating in the round format provided by Concepts B and C, that the courtyard was not important, and that there needed to be a covered drop-off point for access to the buildings. 5. There was discussion about the population of the building and what considerations should be taken into account. It was decided that the Committee needs to take the time necessary, to include asking members of the congregation, to come up with these numbers and Ken challenged the Committee to do so before our next meeting. 6. Time and date of our next meeting will be forthcoming. 7. Ken closed this meeting in prayer at 8:30 PM.
Neill Date: 6/16/05, 7:00 PM
Place: FBCW Chapel
Meeting #5
Materials passed out: Agenda
1. Ken Weikel chaired the meeting and began by asking Dave Bowler to recap yesterday's business meeting presentation. Dave indicated he presented the Capture the Vision program and stated the Committee is almost complete. Current members of the Committee are: Dave Bowler, Cheryl Swenson, Gail Spence, Wayne Kempson, Bert Stevenson, Nita Wallace, Ernest Jackson and Dave Kempson. John Faris is the consultant to the Committee. Plans call for an off-site dinner culminating the Vision program to be held at Middletown Hall on October 30, 2005. 2. We discussed whether a baptistery should be included in the new Sanctuary or would we continue to use the one in the Chapel. The consensus was that the feeling of the congregation is that we should look at including a baptistery. Ken will ask the architect to include one in his design. 3. We discussed whether the floor of the Sanctuary should be flat or sloped. It was felt that a sloped floor would assist with visual issues and provide additional intimacy. It was pointed out that a sloped floor costs more and would perhaps limit expansion of the building or add cost to transforming the building at some point in the future. It was decided that Ken would approach the architect and request an estimated cost for a sloped floor so we could have a better understanding. Additionally Ken will ask the architect about raising the front platform (for a flat floor), whether we could have a line-of-sight type diagram, how the type floor impacts future expansion and the types of isles (center vs. some other configuration). 4. We discussed whether we should consider undertaking tours of churches for familiarization. Wayne Kempson suggested contacting the State Convention Office to try to identify churches in our area that have been built recently which would possibly allow us some insight in to things they wished they had considered during their building program. It was decided we would try to visit some churches and would schedule dates at a later time. 5. In conclusion we discussed ways to better communicate our efforts to the congregation. Donna Daugherty will post our Committee minutes on the church's web site and will head up an effort to locate a place to mount a bulletin board to post Committee information. We discussed whether a basement was feasible and it was decided the extra expense was not warranted in that we had plenty of land to build a larger building if we needed the space. 6. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, June 23 at 7:00 PM at the FBCW Chapel. 7. John Ramsey closed in prayer at 8:00 PM. Neill Date: 4/17/05, 7:00 PM
Place: FBCW Chapel
Meeting #3
Materials passed out: Agenda, Capture the Vision Capital campaign document, email of 4/16/05 (Architect's Contract)
1. This meeting was chaired by Ken Weikel. Sharon Carpenter opened with prayer. 2. Ken discussed the contents of the 4/16/05 email which provided background information on Mr. Philip Lacy which was unavailable at his visit on 4/10/05. a. There was discussion about the $95K fee and the understanding that it was fundamentally based on a projected program of a 10K square foot building with seating for about 500 people--as a place to start. Essentially it is believed this fee would remain constant unless there is a significant change. Pastor Kempson indicated he would discuss this in further detail with Mr. Lacy. b. It was understood there would be opportunity to review any contract before it is signed. 3. Bill Wootan moved, and John Flatley seconded, that the church hire Mr. Phil Lacy, at a fee not to exceed $95K, to be the architect for our Sanctuary Project and that this motion be brought before the congregation at the next business meeting. a. During discussion, concern was expressed that Mr. Lacy understand the timeline of our program. Specifically, that we would need preliminary drawings for the upcoming building campaign but that it may be a couple years before we are actually ready to build. b. The reason for putting this matter before the congregation at the next business meeting was at the suggestion of Mr. John Faris (see para #4) who indicated a Capital Campaign is better able to focus on raising funds when there is something tangible to put in front of the congregation. c. Pastor Kempson indicated he would ensure Mr. Lacy understands the importance of having initial architectural drawings ready for the initiation of the Capital Campaign which is tentatively scheduled for early fall, 2005. d. The motion carried with a unanimous vote. 4. Ken presented the Capture The Vision Capital Campaign document for our information and noted it is slated to be presented at the next business meeting. a. At the presentation of this document, it will be suggested that the church form a Capital Campaign Committee and consider hiring Mr. John Faris as a consultant to that Committee. 5. The final topic centered on ensuring the congregation is kept informed during this entire planning and building process. Ken suggested several options to accomplish this to include utilizing the church’s web site, the church Bulletin, the monthly Newsletter and through announcements. a. During discussion it was suggested that a synoptic version of our meeting minutes be make available for publication. Neill Robins will ensure this is accomplished. It was also suggested that information be put on the video projector and run before the beginning of the 10:45 service. b. Additionally it was noted that once significant reportable information is obtained, consideration should be given to hold a “Town Meeting’. This would be a way to ensure the congregation is brought up to speed and informed of ways to for them to communicate feedback to the Committee. 6. The next meeting will be called when pertinent information becomes available. 7. Neill Robins closed with prayer. Neill Date: 4/10/05, 3:00 PM
Place: FBCW Chapel
Meeting #2
1. This meeting was chaired by Sharon Carpenter. She opened the meeting with prayer. 2. The purpose of the meeting was to hear a presentation from Philip Aaron Lacy as a potential architect for the 3. Phil Lacey’s presentation: a) Introduction b) His qualifications c) His design philosophy and process d) His current projects e) His construction observation experience f) His initial observations on our situation i) Site orientation factors ii) Site location illustration (8,700 square foot bldg, 500 person seating, rectangular) two locations illustrated - North of education building and West of education building) 4. Question and answer period a) His next step would be to provide us with a series of concept drawings that would include location on the site. This will take about a month. b) He discussed the importance of form and function of the building plus expansion options. This included some of the pros and cons of different shapes. 5. Discussion of the presentation (after Mr. Lacy left) a) Cost of architects – normally 6 to 7 percent of project cost b) Size of Phil’s team – unknown c) Ability to work with us – excellent based upon testimony from Sharon and Wayne during the design and construction of the educational building. Always responsive to our design changes, telephone calls, cost concerns, etc. d) Importance of reviewing list of specifications 6. Motion was made and seconded to pursue having Phil Lacy as the architect for the Sanctuary. a) Discussion: He will be requested to provide a draft contract including cost. This will be presented to the church for approval at a business meeting. b) Vote – unanimous yea 7. Next Meeting – Sunday, April 17, 2005 at 7:15 pm in the Chapel. 8. Meeting closed with prayer by Ken Weikel. These notes were prepared by Bert Stevenson and submitted by Neill Robins |
|