Introduction

An ad hoc committee was named by the Parish Pastoral Council in July 2005 to gather design proposals and cost information for the long-term utilization of and needs for additional space. This committee was formed as a result of a recommendation from the LRP II study. Ken Patla and Susan Barber served as co-chairs for the committee, also serving were Mark Derridinger, Betty Coniff, Kathi Ley, Martha Stuber, Rick Panther and Dick Kline.
The committee saw as it objectives to:

• Review and implement the recommendations of LRP II committee;
• Analyze the data provided by each of the Parish Pastoral Council standing committees;
• Decide on the scope of design proposals;
• Determine a methodology to be used in  selecting an architect;

The initial business of the committee was to make the Community of Epiphany aware of the Long Range Planning committee’s recommendations. A summary of LRP II was inserted in the August 22, 2004 bulletin.  Informational Q&A sessions were held after all liturgies on the weekend of September 12, 2004.

The committee met monthly and more frequently when needed from October 2004 through May 2005.  Chairs of the standing committees, the Administrative committee and a Business Manager were invited to review data from LRP II and provide additional information. LRP III worked with the Worship committee, pastor and fire marshal about handicap access and adding additional emergency exits.

Reviewing data from LRP II, committee and staff updates, recommendations from other churches, checking with the Archdiocese, discussions with the environmental concerns committee, preliminary meetings with architects, and finally presentations by five architectural firms LRP III reached consensus on three recommendations.  What follows are: a)  LRP III recommendations; b) responses to each charge from LRP II;  c) a list of the participating architects.

Recommendations
Following are three recommendations of the Long Range Planning III committee:

1. The Parish Pastoral Council should retain the services of Bayus Evola Architects to proceed with a planning and design phase. These plans would include expansion of the Worship Center’s gathering area, renovations to the Community Center and the addition of a Lifelong Learning Center.
2. The Parish Pastoral Council should proceed to a fourth ad hoc committee. This committee should make recommendations for project management and create as many subcommittees as it anticipates will be needed to proceed to an implementation phase.
3. The ad hoc committee should actively solicit input from the Community of Epiphany especially as to parishioners’ thoughts on the building design, use of space and environmental impact before finalizing any decisions.

Summary of responses to the LRP II recommendations

1. The Worship Center needs to be refitted with additional exit(s) in the event of emergency. One (1) emergency exit serves the entire facility, which is located in the same area as the doors to the Gathering area. The Committee concluded that in a panic situation, the sliding glass doors could not be counted on for safe and timely evacuation of the Center. Also, the Committee recognized the increased space requirements for larger Worship events, and while there was discussion with respect to expanding the interior space out onto the apron, no consensus recommendation was reached.

   LRP III after consulting with representatives from the Worship committee, the pastor and the fire marshal recommended the addition of two emergency exits. These exits were installed and allowed us to increase the capacity of the Worship Center from 500 to 600 persons. Additionally, the committee discussed the need to expand the current Worship Center onto the apron. The committee reached consensus that no expansion of the Worship Center is needed in the foreseeable future.

2. Technology enhancements are strongly recommended for the Worship Center to: improve the worship experience for parishioners, especially for younger members (visually enhanced communications are known to improve retention and overall communication effectiveness); accommodate those experiencing difficulty with hearing in our Center, which is acoustically challenging even for those with perfect hearing; introduce new capabilities, such as bilingual text on screen and/or audio feeds for non-English speaking parishioners; and to supplement the printed word, e.g., bulletin announcements, flyers, etc.

   After review of this charge, LRP III was not able to come to consensus on technology improvements. Several concerns were raised about the ability to provide visual presentations in the Worship Center. Hearing aids are now provided during liturgy for the hearing impaired.

3. Additional space is required for serving parishioners in various rites and operations relating to Worship, e.g., changing rooms for wedding parties, quiet areas for spiritual direction, ensemble room for choir and other musicians, etc.

   These needs were considered in the specifications given to the architects.

4. The Gathering area is inefficient with respect to traffic flow, interpersonal communication, and as a means for developing “community’ on an regular basis. The Committee suggested expanding the area and, perhaps, incorporating it with the Community Center, utilizing an enclosed ‘Atrium’ environment between the two buildings. This would allow for a café type experience – in all seasons – to accommodate parents waiting for children, encourage socializing between Masses, and support “Epi-café” experiences as needed. The Committee also envisioned food and coffee service being provided by an improved central kitchen, thereby eliminating the current coffee service in the Gathering area.

   These needs were considered in the specifications given to the architects

5. Move the current Children’s Formation program and Nursery to a dedicated space, ideally, a separate building that could also house an expanded Library (technologically equipped), a Family ministry, and healthcare services with nurse’s office, intergenerational programs, and family/community support services. (This would leave the current Community Center for Adult Formation, Sages, Social Responsibility, and other church services. Some of the needs suggested in the Worship report could also be provided for out of a redesigned Community Center.)

   These needs were considered in the specifications given to the architects

6. Epiphany’s Parish Pastoral Council should proceed to an LRP III to gather design proposals and cost information before finalizing any decisions. It was also the expressed intent of the Committee that any group presenting proposals be instructed as to the environmentally friendly design requirements for any new or renovated facility.

   LRP III committee thoroughly reviewed data from LRP II. It also sought input for additional ideas from standing committees, the Administration committee and the Business Manager. Information was exchanged with environmental concerns representatives and a ‘green’ architect was added to the list of presenting firms. From this information the committee was able to create a ‘wish list’ to present to architects for their conceptual presentations. 

   Recommendations for architects were solicited from the Archdiocese and churches that had recently added new buildings or undergone renovations. Five architectural firms were invited to an initial meeting with the LRP III committee. During this meeting the ‘wish list’ was presented and the architect was given information on the parish, its history, demographics and our vision for additional space. The firm was then asked to return with a presentation that included a conceptual design with innovative ideas for cost effective, environmentally friendly treatment of our grounds.

After all of the presentations were made, the committee met and reviewed each one. Discussions focused on how well the architect:

1. Incorporated our ‘wish list’;
2. Was attuned to our environment, both spiritually and physically;
3. Mirrored Epiphany’s needs, could this person work with our community; and
4. Would be able to assist in selling the project to the community

A decision was unanimously reached by the committee on which firm to recommend to PPC.

List of Presenting Architectural Firms

Bayus Evola Architects
    2908 Eastpoint Parkway
    Louisville KY 40223

Cox Allen Associates
    640 S Fourth Street
    Louisville KY 40202

Grossman Chapman Klarer Architects Inc
    968 Swan Street
    Louisville KY 40204

Potter & Associates Architects PLLC
    333 East Main Street
    Louisville KY 40202

Jill Lewis Smith, Architect, Inc
    12202 Holly Lane
    Louisville KY 40223

Architectural Presentations

A copy of each of the presentations is available in Epiphany House. Please make arrangements with Martha Stuber if you would like to view them.

Long Range Planning Wish List
February 24, 2005

Taken from the Long Range Planning II document

Gathering area/worship center

• 2 rooms for special needs like bridal parties, etc
• Ensemble room which would hold approximately 40 people for choir and musician  practice
• This room should have dedicated/locked storage space for instruments, music, etc
• Enlarge the worship center gathering area to accommodate 300 people
• Possible use of an atrium space between worship and community centers
• Would provide space to accommodate parents waiting for children, café experiences and encourage socializing
• Relocate the after liturgy coffee space to a centralized kitchen
• Sick room

Community center renovation

• Kitchen should be enlarged to accommodate serving 300-600 people at large community functions

Additional space requirements

• Eight classrooms for children’s formation and nursery
• 900-1000 sq feet per 25-30 child classroom
• Access to a kitchen area
• Bathroom adjacent to the nursery
• Secure play area
• Security for dropping off and picking up children
• Ability to display art or appropriate teaching materials
• AV and technology support for programs
• Age appropriate environment; furniture, sinks, etc
• Expanded library, technologically equipped
• Large gathering space – multipurpose for functions like Pathways
• Kitchen – to support small functions
• 4 small rooms for spiritual direction or quiet reflection
• Family ministry/healthcare services area
• Space with technology/ AV for large and small group presentations
• Basement
• Provide storage for inappropriate items in art environment room
• Safe place during bad weather
• Consider additional office space to accommodate formation and parish nurse staff

Additional considerations

• Art and Environment room in Worship Center has become storage room
• Consideration on how additional space will impact traffic, especially as it concerns children’s formation pick up and drop off
• How will all this effect our campus environment