Building Team Notes March 23, 2017

 

Irene Stewart, Peter Young, Mark Sisson, Suzette Reiss, Sherry Smith, Beth Peterson

Attending: Peter Marren, Stacy Paetzel

Meeting called to order 7:03

Minutes accepted.

Irene informed the Building Team that Bill Gorman’s contract had not been signed yet.

The question was asked when the membership would see a site plan. It was decided that they would be shown a finalized version. It was noted that the membership will be kept informed of the Building Team and our architect’s direction, but there would not be voting on each step.

Irene asked the BT to have ideas for fundraising, including prices, prior to the next Board of Trustees meeting. She would inform the team as to the date.

A discussion of organs followed, especially concerning pipe organs. A “Hauptwerk” organ controller (a digital device that can be used with any instrument allowing an organist to record songs for playback in addition to live performance) and “Martini Digital” organs, which are said to be indistinguishable from analog instruments, were among the topics raised. It was again noted that if the BT pursues a pipe organ, space must be allowed for in the church design for a blower room and the necessary pipes.

Peter Marren (Marren and Newman Architects, Inc.) Stacy Paetzel and Ariel Spade (Marshall Paetzel, Inc.) arrived. They and the BT looked at three “sketches” for potential layout of the church building on our site from Ms. Paetzel. There followed a discussion of the pros and cons of each version. Common to all was the position of the Rental Property; it was agreed that moving the house forward or backward would be prohibitively expensive and with careful layout, could be made to blend better with the church campus.

Items discussed for each version:

-Number of parking spaces (32-40, depending on layout).

-Screening for rental property.

-Pedestrian flow for proposed entrances to buildings.

-Rainwater runoff mitigation for parking lot and buildings.

-Accommodation of parking for minister.

-Suggestions for parking lot surfaces.

-Street view, i.e., how the site will look from Main Road.

-Curb cut, i.e., the entrance to the parking. It was common to all versions that the current curb cut will remain as is; moving curb cuts trigger NYS DOT regulations that could delay implementation. With careful design, the current cut will be sufficient for our needs.

Ms. Spade was excused and the BT, Ms. Paetzel and Mr. Marren then looked at preliminary sketches from Mr. Marren. These included:

-Various elevations of the east side of the buildings (sanctuary and fellowship hall.)

-Various elevations of the west side of the sanctuary.

-Overhead views of interior layout of both buildings.

-Possible layouts of fellowship hall, with approximate square footage.

The BT was able to make comments and suggestions during the entire presentations of both Ms. Paetzel and Mr. Marren.

Mr. Marren said that the next step of our process will be developing an “outline spec” (used to develop firmer cost estimations) for our project. While this spec should be as complete as possible to facilitate contractor estimates, it will leave potential for adjustment in scope and detail. This will also allow the BT, Mr. Marren and our contractor the opportunity to make those adjustments to remain within budget, e.g, reducing square footage or using different finish materials.

Our next meeting will be March 30, 2017.

Meeting adjourned 9:25.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *