by Dale Arnink, co-chair
The new building exploration project proceeds, from having Committee and congregational meetings with the architects, through re-examining the space needs of various constituents, to, most recently, looking at preliminary sketches. Throughout, the Building Plans Committee has found the Mullen Heller Architecture people to be good listeners, alert to details, open to suggestions, creative in responses—in other words, good to work with.
As we have moved along with congregational input, requirements and constraints have been itemized and considered, many of them already cited by the people who did the “Charge to the Architects.” Congregational concerns include, for example, such things as space, sound and lighting needs for various activities, location of some spaces in relation to others, building appearance relative to landscape and neighbors, energy conservation, carry-overs of some elements of the old to the new building, and acoustics. (Notes and minutes available on request)
The original “Charge to the Architects” cited one constraint that has been raised again and again: “Unless it is financially advantageous or functionally necessary to consider alternatives, the building should be located on or within the “buildable area” as identified by the Conron and Woods report, without moving the county’s utilities.”
Our open meetings and Committee meetings kept confronting the questions: What would be gained by removing the utility easement which runs from the west side of the property, along the front of the current building and on to the Mason’s site? You cannot build on or across an easement. What if it were moved to the south side of the property?
We have concluded the utilities should be moved. The basic consideration has been expense versus increased flexibility for project plans.
Our first step was to decide that siting the new building on the north side of the property best preserves the mountain view.
The next step was to note that building on the “buildable area” is to build on what is basically the footprint of the current building, with some extra space (a bit wider, and/or longer, and/or basement and/or third story.) The result is another long narrow building with everything located off narrow hallways. OK, but not ideal nor inexpensive.
A third step was to be reminded by gas lines blowing up in several neighborhoods nationwide, that the gas line to our building is old and will need replacing sometime in the relatively near future anyway.
Finally, many people have been concerned about the placement in proximity of four elements: an expanded sanctuary, a multi use foyer/entryway, a fellowship hall and a kitchen. This is a stimulating challenge in any case but one answer is: it can’t be done in a long narrow building.
Having decided to not be confined to the previous building footprint we are now looking at sketches, which site the new building along both the north and west boundaries (a sort of L-shape), incorporate the grove of trees with front entry appearances, and provide plenty of play lot space.
We are also negotiating with the Masons to have mutual parking access. County codes dictate parking area relative to seating capacity. With access to the neighbor lot we easily met that requirement and thus have more space flexibility for landscaping.
See our Annual Meeting report for more details of our activities thus far. But the really exciting work lies ahead as we peruse sketches, then models, and finally make decisions about proposals; results will be presented to the congregation in the fall.
