Update on the Legacy Project
September 3, 2010

Following the support we received at the Town Hall meetings, the Development and Preservation Committee is preparing materials to approach the Diocese of Harrisburg and the City of Lancaster.

• Background on the Legacy Project
• Committee Members
• Email the Development and Preservation Committee
• Questions and Answers
• Pictures
• Video Clip of Townhall Meeting Presentation

Background on the Legacy Project

The Pilgrimage of History . . .
St. Mary’s Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

A few years ago, Bishop Rhoades challenged all the parishes of the diocese to be more accessible, more welcoming to persons with disabilities. As welcoming as we are, we knew this would truly be a challenge, considering the nature of our historic church building. But the parish embraced the challenge.

Don Bender, our seminarian, was the first Parish Advocate for those with Disabilities, then Michael and Marilyn Manley stepped in, followed by Beth Bitts. In her short time at the helm, Beth has  established a monthly “Saturday Night Out” for teens to gather socially and has begun a plan for parish-wide education and advocacy. Great work! The Parish Pastoral Council also embraced the physical challenges we face by establishing an ad hoc Accessibility Committee. This group worked for over two years investigating possibilities, options and challenges. They laid the foundation of a plan that made the church and restrooms accessible.

It was during this time that St. Mary’s was uniquely singled out to be a Pilgrim Site with a spiritual bond with St. Mary Major in Rome. Before long we started receiving requests from tour groups; people just started to drop by to experience the beauty and receive the grace and spiritual rewards inherent in a visit here. Already a brochure on the spiritual benefits associated with our spiritual bond has been published, a walking tour brochure is now at press and an audio tour is being developed. Thank you Darby McClatchy!

While all of this was happening, parishioners were also discussing our needs for expanded, accessible gathering and meeting space.  Parishioners who gather after masses and other services to talk and socialize must either find space in the vestibule or, in good weather, in the cramped walk ways and driveways.  Our adult education opportunities are expanding, but accessible, available space is lacking.  The Parish Pastoral Council has encouraged the growth of both hospitality and adult education, recognizing that facility issues will need to be addressed.

We are a welcoming community. So many who visit here and become members here have said, “I felt so welcome at St. Mary’s; I felt like I was home.” But what about those with disabilities? What about aging parishioners who can no longer enter the church? What about large groups of pilgrims arriving by bus? And what about our own needs today as a growing community? Once again, you embraced the challenge, coming up with a beautiful plan that includes large multi-stall restrooms, accessible gathering spaces, a heritage room, access to the choir loft, and a greater openness to the community around us.

On June 12 and 13 after all the weekend Masses, we gathered for Parish Town Hall meetings to examine the extensive work done by the Parish Pastoral Council under the leadership of Bob Thompson, the Accessibility Committee under the direction of Luann Bleich, the Finance Committee under the leadership of Ben DiCarlo, and the Preservation and Development Committee under the leadership of Terry Warco. They presented an exciting plan that preserves our past, that addresses the expressed needs of our parishioners today and that enhances our facility for future generations. At this meeting your questions about the continued care of our historic site and upkeep of the buildings were addressed. Follow-up sessions are scheduled for June 23 at 7:00 p.m. and June 27 at 9:45 a.m. to be held in the church.

Truly, these are exciting times for us. As members of this parish family and trustees of this beautiful historic church, we have had so much passed down to us. Now it’s our turn. It’s time to meet the needs of our present generation and pass on to future generations the gift of this welcoming church we call home.

Development and Preservation Committee Members

• Terry Warco, Chair
• Tom Beeman, Vice Chair
• John Blowers
• Rich Carter
• Ben DiCarlo
• Clair McCormick
• Rick Poillon
• Tina Skubon

Email the Committee

If you have a question that wasn’t answered below or a comment, please email the Development and Preservation Committee.

Questions and Answers 
(from three Townhall Meetings)

Q.  When is the Legacy Project going to begin?
A.  We don’t have a start date yet.

Q.  What is the timetable for project completion?
A.   A number of decisions remain to be made which will affect timing.  Generally, however, a project such as this could be expected to take 2 years from start of construction drawing to completion of construction.

Q.  Where can we access this information so we can digest it?
A.  Website: www.stmaryslancaster.org.

Q.  You mentioned this is in the preliminary stages, is there still time for any input by parishioners?  If so, how can they do so?
A.  Yes, there is time for input, which can be done via townhall follow-up meetings, email or by contacting any member of any of the committees mentioned.

Q.  What is the progression of accessibility going to be?  Will the elevator be installed first?  What are the stages going to be?
A.  Since this is a preliminary plan, we don’t have that information yet. A number of decisions remain to be made that will affect timing.

Q.  Did the Historic Society approve these changes to the building?
A.  Some informational conversations have taken place, but this particular project has not been submitted to the Historical Commission of the City of Lancaster Bureau of Planning. The need to maintain historic integrity has been foremost in all plan discussions.

Q.  How is the school going to be tied into the renovations?
A.  The school building itself will not be affected by the renovation but is included in the current maintenance plan for the entire campus.

Q.  Is there a relationship between the school and the rectory in the heating system?
A.  No, the school has a boiler for steam heat, and the church/rectory have gas heat.

Q.  Isn’t there a passageway under the church to the school to make a hallway?
A.  There is a passageway, but it is very narrow.

Q.  Have you been working with the school board?
A.  We have sought the involvement of all relevant constituencies.  At this point, we have not engaged in discussions with the school board as the need for an accessible church, bathrooms and gathering space is independent of Resurrection School.  Although situated on the same campus site, there was not viable option for using the school building to address the matters resolved by this plan.

Q.  Would the kitchen in the school cafeteria be handicap accessible?
A.  No.

Q.  Doesn’t the old convent have usable space?
A.  Yes, and we looked at several proposals that utilized this space. We couldn’t make them work sensibly.

Q.  Is there a possibility of a bridge between the church and the school?
A.  This was looked at. Two disadvantages: several of the church windows would have to be blocked and access to the schoolyard by delivery trucks would possibly be restricted.

Q.  By providing a space as is proposed, the needs of those attending Mass or using the church for special activities is satisfied, but only at the church. Have any alternatives been studied to provide access to the other buildings, satisfying the needs of the general parish community? 
A.  This question and the next are tied together. Hospitality, having a place to gather, seemed to be a major concern expressed by the community. We did look at hospitality space in the other building with a couple of the plans examined, but this greatly affected the space available to the school. The majority of our parishioners use only the church and do not participate in events in the school. Additionally, parishioners are limited on our campus by the fact that they may not be able to attend a class, meeting or social event because they cannot access the spaces we use in the school for these purposes. This is addressed for the majority of our events by the proposed plan making space for these needs on the sub-church level. The rectory is also used for this purpose, and this project allows greater accessibility to this space as well.

Q.  We have heard many comments regarding remodeling the school buildings or tearing down the school buildings and build anew to provide the parish with the facilities it needs. And it keeps being said that it will be years before (or if) the school will relocate to another location. Why can’t something be done even if the school is not moving? Should that stop us from doing what is needed? Could the school not use temporary facilities during whatever construction period would be needed? Could we tear down the two south sections of the building, since it would probably be more practical than to remodel, and build a modern building with suitable classrooms, meeting rooms and a parish social hall? This new addition would have its own elevator, air conditioning/heating system and be suitable for both school and parish religious education purposes. Could this possibility be studied? Other alternatives to providing space, access and restrooms could materialize. Perhaps even to co-join the church and school buildings. My personal thought is if we are going to do a capital campaign to raise funds and improve facilities, lets only have to do one and to get the most out of it.
A.  Using a temporary facility for the school while work is done on that building was not discussed. The needs of our school and the needs of the parish for that building are very different. If we make a commitment to keep the school at that location, then we would be looking at large classrooms. If the school relocates, then we would be looking at many small class rooms with a large gathering space, which would better accommodate our Religious Education and other parish needs. We believe the two options lead to very different concepts of what the building would look like on the inside. One could argue that to put the weight of such a capital campaign (to renovate both buildings) does not seem fair when the proposed project addresses the current needs expressed by the majority of the community. Or one could argue that to make changes to the building for the needs of the school when there is a possibility that the school may some year move would lead to changes that would not have been a good use of our funds. It’s an issue that can certainly be discussed and investigated at greater length.       

Q.  Is any land opening up around the church?  Have you thought about purchasing more land if any does open up?
A.  We don’t know of any land opening up but would consider a purchase should this occur. Being located in an urban environment, however, involves inherent limitations on expansion.

Q.  How is this going to accommodate overflow crowd on special holidays?  Is there a separate room planned to hold the overflow?  Will it be telecasted or will there be a mass simultaneously going on in this room?
A.  There is no plan to expand the seating capacity of the church, but it is the intention to have audio and possibly video in the new rooms downstairs.

Q.  Are the new rooms large enough for wedding receptions, and funeral lunches?
A.  They are large enough for a very small wedding reception and funeral lunches, although the plans do not include a full service kitchen in the new area.

Q.  Is the restroom area taking up the majority of the space?
A.  The need for more, accessible bathrooms has been a constantly expressed issue.  This plan address that issue.  The restrooms will not take the majority of space in the new area.  They will be sufficient in number and accessibility to address the need.

Q.  Why are the proposed restrooms situated right in the middle of the new space? Doing this splits up the areas and creates an unusable hallway. Would it not be better to locate the restrooms in the corner of the expansion to the west? Or use the Heritage Room for restrooms rather than have an area that will not be used for much, especially if that area will be on the same level as the new space?
A.  The design of the restrooms and meeting/gathering rooms was intended to keep the restrooms internal and provide natural daylight to the meeting room. The Heritage Room is located under the existing church to preserve the character of the space and to put restrooms in that location would not provide enough area.

Q.  What type of access to the Heritage area will there be? Steps? Ramps? Elevator landing? Or same level as new area? 
A.  There would be both a ramp and steps to the Heritage Room, and they would be both be accessible off the lower main level. The Heritage Room would need to be lowered and leveled, and we are estimating it would be a couple of feet higher than the proposed ground floor level.

Q.  Is the Heritage Room considered to be part of the 4000 sq. ft. space?
A.  Yes.

Q.  How will this plan increase access to the church?
A.  We anticipate that the three current doors will remain the main access points for most people.  The project will provide a new street-level entrance on Vine Street and an entry at the Rectory level to both stairs and the elevator.

Q.  Is that a parking area in front of the rectory?
A.  Yes, it will be utilized during the week for church business. Parking in that area will not be encouraged for weekend Masses.

Q.  Is there anything we can do about the parking so that we do not have to use the parking across the street?
A.  We are currently landlocked and plan to continue to use Lancaster Newspapers garage. The only option to create additional on-site space would be to construct an underground parking garage, which would be both physically and economically unrealistic.

Q.  Would you designate handicap spots on Vine St.?
A.  We would pursue this with the City of Lancaster.

Q.  How big will the elevator be, and where will it stop?
A.   It will hold 2500 pounds or 5-6 people or 2 wheelchairs. It will stop on the ground (street ), the driveway, the church, and the choir loft levels.

Q.  How wide are the steps to the new rooms?
A.  48 inches wide.

Q.  I strongly feel that in order to reduce congestion and make it easier for people on both sides of church to access the lower level another stairway is needed on the side of the vestibule opposite the elevator. 
A.  This is a good point. However we need to keep in mind that not all 300+ people will be attempting to go down one set of steps to the meeting/gathering spaces. If we were to look at putting a stair on the opposite side of the proposed addition, it could only happen after the subsurface is verified that there is not rock in that location. Additionally, when the Accessibility Committee looked at that corner, it was determined that there is not enough room between the buildings to add an additional structure on the eastern corner of the church nor is there enough room inside the current structure to accommodate stairs. The space under the narthex on that corner is also too tight.     

Q.  Will the stairs entering the church remain as is?
A.  Yes, the stairs into the church will remain unchanged.  The current stairs from Vine Street to the church level will be eliminated.

Q.  Has any consideration been given to making at least one set of the front doors automatic opening? This would assist the elderly, those carrying and ushering in small children and those who may be carrying instruments or packages into church. 
A.  Yes, this hasn’t been discussed lately but should be part of this project as well.

Q.  Has the issue of security, both during parish activities and off hours, been addressed? This area will now be more accessible to all people. What about limiting parking and vehicle access to the front of the church, especially during major church activities? 
A.  This point was also discussed by the group but needs further discussion. An usher would have to be assigned to the sub-church section during Mass when those doors are open on Sunday. Doors to the greenway would most likely not be open from the outside unless an event was taking place in that meeting space. Those walking up from the corner of Prince and Vine Streets would need to walk up to the outside entrance at the back of the elevator tower or at the front of the church. Typically only the doors on the Vine Street level would need to be watched. Both the Accessibility Committee and the Development and Preservation Committee addressed the need to limit vehicle access across the front of the Church on Sundays and other times of high-pedestrian traffic. 

Q.  Lighting around the church and campus has always been an issue. Will lighting be installed to truly make our church welcoming and a beacon for the community?
A.  Yes, lighting will be addressed.

Q.  Is the rectory going to be changed?
A.  There will no longer be a step into the rectory. It will be wheelchair accessible.

Q.  Other than eliminating the restrooms, will there be any renovations to the existing vestibule?
A.  No.

Q.  Would there be kitchen facilities in the meeting space?
A.  There will be a small kitchen area but not a commercial kitchen, which would put us in another code category.

Q.  How many people could the meeting space hold?
A.  50 seated at tables and 100+ standing.

Q.  Instead of steps from the corner of Prince and Vine Streets, could you install a sloped or ramp style walkway to the new area and greenway, which would be better suited to the elderly and disabled? 
A.  We looked at that possibility; however it would require a considerable length of ramp to get to the lower level to meet current codes. We also discussed the beauty of stairs at that location to bring back some of what we are taking away at the existing entry.

Q.  What about using the space below the church?
A.  Consideration was given to the possibility of utilizing church basement space, but the construction risk mitigated against this option.

Q.  Is it possible to go further west and south (and possibly east) with the lower level space to maximize the area available rather than worry about a greenway that will seldom be used? Go as far west as to where the grounds drop off again by the outside statue of Mary. 
A.  West and south are possible options; cost is the key with this suggestion, as well as the visual from the corner of Prince and Vine Streets. To go east would be great; however we are more uncertain about rock in that location, and until we know more we have chosen to stay away from that area.  Regarding the greenway, linear park setting, this point has been discussed at length and always has come back to the need to maintain a balance between additional space and maintaining what little green we have left.  Also it simply beautifies the overall appearance of the church; plus it keeps a buffer between the church and Prince Street traffic.

Q.  What is the actual square feet of the area that will be provided (when allowing for entranceways, stair landings, interior doors, hallways, elevator access and other areas that must be kept somewhat clear) for use by people gathering in the lower level? 
A.  That is hard to say, based on people’s ability to gather anywhere.  We know we could use the 835sqft in the meeting room/gather space, and approximately 500sqft of lobby, the corridor can be used for gathering space, very much like the existing narthex.  If the space is full and a fire breaks out exiting would about the same as what we have now.

Q.  Are you sure that the foundations of the church will not be weakened in any way by the excavation work or by being exposed as ground is moved away? That stained glass windows, walls, ceilings etc. will not be damaged?
A.  This is by far the most important aspect of this project; we cannot make guarantees at this stage. It is actually being requested of structural engineers to guarantee that their work will not damage the existing buildings or surrounding buildings, and we’re not sure how that will pan out.  What we do know is this will have to be the most important part of the contractors’ responsibility, and that will help lead us in the right direction when a contractor is selected.

Q.  Is there rock under the turnaround?
A.  We do not know at this time.

Q.  Is the incline [from Vine Street into our campus] going to be eliminated?
A.  Yes.

Q.  Will it be safe? Will there be greenery?
A.  We will take every precaution to make the campus a secure area. Yes, there will be trees.

Q.  How would we access the church during the building project?
A.  It would be written in the contract that accessibility to the church would need to occur on weekends. There will be periods of time when the church will not be accessible by wheelchair.

Q.  Would we lose potential parishioners during this process?
A.  Church attendance during projects of this size is very likely to decrease.

Q.  Are we going to look at other construction companies?  Is there going to be a bidding process?
A.  Yes.

Q.  How many studies have been done?
A.  One feasibility study and six to seven proposals.

Q.  Is Cornerstone approved by the Architecture Committee from the Diocese?
A.  No.

Q.  Will there be a capital campaign?
A.  Yes.

Q.  I keep hearing 2.5 million dollars, but I can’t see that being even close to the actual cost.  Who came up with this figure?
A.  High Construction Company provided a estimate based on the conceptual drawings and information available at this point.

Q.  How much is the asset reserve plan?
A.  $5,512 million over 20 years.

Q.  How would you meet operating expenses?
A.  The “Campus Improvement Plan” has to be funded separately and cannot be funded from operating funds. The on-going maintenance and repair items identified in the asset reserve study could be partially funded as part of the capital campaign but most of the cost needs to be part of the annual operating budget.

Q.  Is everything going to be done “green”?
A.  We have not yet begun to develop construction drawings. Green building ideas will be considered during the design phase.

Q.  Are you aware that there will be a depression in attendance?
A.  Yes.

Q.  How will this change affect our ministry to the surrounding community?
A.  We think it will make us more accessible to our neighbors.

Q.  Will there be a fountain somewhere?
A.  Not in the plans at this time.

Pictures

Townhall Meeting Presentation Video Clip