St. Mary’s: Our Enduring Legacy
Legacy Project
November 2011
- How to give feedback, comments, suggestions
- Background on the Legacy Project
- Committee Members
- Images
- Questions and Answers
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, which has been subsequently taken over by Yvonne DeVosa. 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. A brochure on the spiritual benefits associated with our spiritual bond as well as a tour guide have been published.
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.
In June 2010, we gathered for Town Hall meetings to present a plan that met a lot of the needs expressed by our parishioners. While the Development and Preservation Committee began work on these plans, Resurrection Catholic School made the decision to consolidate their classes at St. Anthony Church. Thus the school and convent buildings would be vacant at the beginning of the next school year. The Committee went back to the drawing board to determine if and how our plans needed to be changed. After more than six months of study and consultation, the Committee came up with two options to present to the parish.
On November 19-20, parishioners were once again invited to attend a Town Hall meeting after Masses. Fr. Leo and Rick Carter presented Option A and Option B, both of which are exciting plans that preserve our past, address the expressed needs of our parishioners today and enhance our facility for future generations. Both plans connect the east side of the church with the convent, which offers accessibility to both buildings as well as more restrooms. Option A allows access to the courtyard off of Beaver Street through what is now the school kitchen. Option B gives access to the courtyard at the southern end of the school also off of Beaver Street. Please see both options below.
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.
Your input and feedback is vital. There are several ways to communicate your thoughts, suggestions, comments:
- Email the Development and Preservation Committee
- Call the rectory office to leave a message, 392.2578 ext. 153
- Put a note in the suggestion box in the back of the church
- Contact any member of the Committee
Development and Preservation Committee Members
- Terry Warco, Chair
- Tom Beeman, Vice Chair
- John Blowers
- Rick Carter
- Ben DiCarlo
- Rick Poillon
- Tina Skubon
- Jackie Burch
- Patrick McSherry
Overview of Option A and Option B
Option A – North View
Option B – North View
Option A: Detailed Floor Plans
Click here for pdf document of detailed floor plans.
Questions and Answers
(from three Townhall Meetings)
Q. Parking – are there enough spaces on campus to accommodate multiple week night meetings? Can the school basements areas be used for parking? Would a one-way traffic flow allow for parking solutions?
A. Many alternatives were reviewed. We concluded that we could not meet our parking needs on campus. We will consider the suggestions.
Q. Is there a Heritage Room Space?
A. No, but the connector could possibly serve that purpose.
Q. Can fire trucks access the courtyard?
A. No in Option A, yes in Option B.
Q. In Option A can two cars pass in the courtyard driveway?
A. At the top, no.
Q. Do we know the cost of reflooring the new school building?
A. No, not at this point.
Q. Are the new options less invasive and will they cost less than the plans for the original Legacy Project?
A. Certainly less invasive as these plans do not require significant excavation. We have not priced these plans as we wanted Parish input before going any further in our planning efforts.
Q. What are the differences in courtyard parking in Options A and B? Will we still have access to the Lancaster Newspaper garage?
A. Option B has a couple less parking spaces than Option B. We answered the LNP question by referring to the Newspaper’s cooperation in leaving the gates up Sunday mornings.
Q. Can catering trucks access the courtyard in Option A?
A. No, the height clearance will prevent box trucks from accessing the courtyard.
Q. Is there a kitchen in Option A?
A. Yes, it is relocated to the new school building.
Q. What is the public pedestrian access to the cafeteria in Option B? If access is only from the courtyard it seems like a long way to go for those with physical needs. We need to have access to the courtyard for maintenance trucks, etc.
A. Access from the connector, the ramp at the convent porch is provided.
Q. Wouldn’t we be better off in the long run to demolish the old buildings and construct new?
A. Not necessarily. As a practical matter, however, the City would likely prohibit us from demolishing the convent and old school building which they consider to have historical value.
Comment from parishioner: In Option B we should look at using the current “school” entrance at the northeast front as a public access.
Q. In Option B we should explore direct access to the kitchen and social hall.
A. Option B does have a loading dock accessing the kitchen from the courtyard.
Q. How does the driveway access at the south end of the buildings work in Option B? Is there room for two cars to pass?
A. The driveway will have a right hand turn to enter. There is space for 2 cars to pass, but at the courtyard entrance it will be tight.
Q. How will we handle snow removal from the courtyard and driveway in either Option?
A. The courtyard would be handled as it is now. We would explore heating the driveways. Both would have partial roof coverage.
Q. Could Resurrection School ever reclaim the building?
A. Unlikely as it believes it can meet its classroom needs in the St. Anthony’s building.
Q. Did we consider installing two elevators?
A. We tried to avoid doing so for cost reasons. Option A could, however, require a second elevator.
Comment from parishioner. In Option B, the courtyard loading dock could prove too hard to use with the handicapped spaces and if cars are parked in the courtyard.
Q. Did we explore creating loading areas/drop off areas along Beaver Street?
A. In both options, there are doors accessing Beaver Street, but there is not good way to create dedicated spaces along the street.
Q. Have we considered sustainability and green design elements?
A. We are only at a concept stage. When we get to design, these aspects will certainly be given consideration.
Q. How will the stained glass windows be affected?
A. Not at all. The two back ones and the small one in the choir loft would be enclosed in the connector. That creates opportunities for special lighting. Also, with the stairway in the connector and bridge to the choir loft, we will have an opportunity to view the windows from new directions and angles.
Q. Have we considered using stained glass windows in the connector?
A. Option B contemplates windows of the same size and shape as the church’s stained glass windows. We can consider the possibility.
Q. Why not demolish the new school building? Wouldn’t doing so provide access for delivery trucks to the courtyard?
A. Delivery trucks have access to the courtyard in Option B. If we demolished the new school building we would not be able to duplicate the footprint as the building encroaches on the Beaver Street right of way. We would lose significant square footage in a replacement building.
Q. Will there be vehicular access to the front of the convent and church?
A. Yes, on weekdays.
Q. With handicapped access to the courtyard, are we creating a logistical problem with CCD drop-offs?
A. Should not be, CCD access through the connector and from the front of the convent.
Q. Was a Prince Street entrance considered?
A. Making such an entrance at the corner of S. Prince and W. Vine is part of our plan.
Q. Is the rectory considered a historical building? Could we demolish it, move the rectory to the convent, and thereby create a circular traffic pattern?
A. The rectory is likely an historical building. We had not evaluated that as an option.
Q. One of the things I liked about the Legacy Project was opening the vista from Prince Street. As it is now, we are not visible.
A. Both options A and B include work at the Prince and Vince Street intersection, creating a pedestrian entrance and a linear park.
Comment from parishioner. The choir loft in its current situation is unsafe (floor, wires, crowding, etc.).
Q. The kitchen in Option A is too far from the connector if it is anticipating serving food there. Are there plans for a service area in the gathering space?
A. A small service area (i.e. sink) would be built in the area of the gathering space.
Comment from parishioner. We need to maximize parking on the campus.
Q. What is the cost of the options?
A. We have not priced the options. We are in the stage of getting Parish feedback on these options. We will take the feedback and do further work.
Q. How many classrooms are being gained?
A. Today we have 13 classrooms. In Options A and B we get 18 classrooms. Option B also has 3 adult ed classrooms.
Q. In both Options we seem to lose a music room, how will we provide space for the choir and musicians?
A. Some of the areas created can be mixed use.
Comments from parishioner. The elevator access to the choir loft is a great part of the plans. Multi-use areas require staff to work. Someone has to move/set up tables and chairs, etc. Not always a workable solution. The choir needs a room of its own, preferable near the choir loft.
Q. Has underground parking been explored?
A. We did explore parking in the school basement spaces and concluded that few spaces would be gained and the spaces created would be difficult to use. The concept can be further explored including under the courtyard.
Q. Why create a separate area and cafeteria? Why not only one space?
A. The separate areas allow you hosting multiple events. Hospitality does not necessarily require table and chairs and can be stand-up informal gatherings.
Q. Will the current cafeteria be expanded? If so, more than one elevator will be required to accommodate volume of people attending, especially those in need of assistance.
A. This should not be an issue in Option B as church and cafeteria would be on the same level and there are multiple ways of accessing the floor.
Q. I like Option B but do not understand why the City would want the connector to have a “modern” look.
A. The City believes that construction materials can not match the existing materials, so the resulting looks detracts from the beauty of the historical buildings.
Comments from parishioner. I believe it possible to match building materials.
Prior to Lancaster Newspaper building the parking garage, there were houses there and no parking. Parking has always been an issue, but one that we have overcome. We are much better off with access to the garage than we have ever been.
Accessibility is our biggest campus issue, not parking. It would be less expensive to rent space in the Newspaper’s garage than to try to create parking on our campus. We should evaluate lighting on our campus and along Beaver Street.