RFI phase2 congregational proposal to proceed with design

Port Nelson United Church
Renovated Facilities Investigation (RFI) Phase 2
Briefing on proposal to
PROCEED WITH PRELIMINARY DESIGN WORK
Recommendation
The RFI Phase 2 committee recommends that PNUC directs the architect firm Reinders and Rieder Ltd to
develop drawings and costs for addition of new space to the PNUC central structure, re-use of much of
the central structure, and demolition of the 1953 structure. The drawings and cost estimates are to be
completed within the $10k that has already been set aside from donations. The RFI concept will retire
the NFI concept which will not be considered further. (Terminology is defined in Figure 1)
Background
Following presentation of a proposal from the New Facilities Investigation (NFI) at the 2012 Annual
Congregational Meeting, a concern was raised that the terms of reference for NFI may have been overly
restrictive. NFI was established to identify the best building configuration assuming that all structures to
the East of the Sanctuary were demolished. The $4.5M estimated cost and the belief that there was
value in the structures east of the Sanctuary led to the following motion which was approved:
That Council prepare a report and make a recommendation for the renovation of the
existing facility, together with a sound plan for financing the improvements, all of which
will be approved by the Congregation prior to the commencement of any project.
The Renovated Facilities Investigation (RFI) was formed. At the December 2012 Council meeting, the RFI
was split into two phases to ensure that money was not spent on drawings without a reasonable chance
of congregational approval. The first Phase of RFI was to propose a high level concept. In March 2013
an RFI Phase 1 recommendation was made and approved at a congregational meeting to proceed with
RFI Phase 2 and to hire an architect to obtain conceptual design drawings and costing. The RFI Phase 1
recommendation was to reuse as much of the Central Structure (as defined in Figure 1) and to demolish
the 1953 structure.
The basis for the recommendation to demolish the 1953 structure was:
-
This was originally built as a temporary structure and costs to bring it up to current codes and
standards would exceed the cost of a new building.
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 1
-
-
The floor elevations relative to the Sanctuary and central structure make access challenging.
Between 1953 and 1960 sewers became available so the new Sanctuary and lower narthex were
made wheelchair accessible but not the other 3 levels.
Much of the space on the lower level is not needed.
Figure 1: Terminology used by RFI
The RFI second phase was to develop that high level concept so that the congregation could then decide
whether to proceed with a full design-build project. That concept would then go to Council and the
congregation for approval to proceed with a full design-build project including detailed architectural
drawings. At that time project costs and a financing plan would also be presented.
The terms of reference for RFI-2 were:
• Remove the 1953 structure
• Retain as much of the central structure as is prudent
₋ Larger gathering space in Narthex
₋ Accessible washrooms and family washroom
₋ Large space for 200 seated at tables
₋ New Kitchen or kitchenettes on each level
₋ One elevator for accessibility to 2 levels plus vestibule (where the parking lot
connects to the central structure)
• Sanctuary structure lower level improvements (windows, space optimization, sound
proofing)
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 2
•
Nominal costs
₋ $2 M (for 2 level central building plus parking lot entrance level, 1953 structure
demolition)
₋ $600k to remediate lower sanctuary level. This cost was not developed in any
detail but was the same value used by NFI so costs between the two proposals
could be compared.
₋ total $2.6M
RFI Phase 2
Current members of the RFI Phase 2 committee are Mat Ardron, Bill Carr, Cathy Greven, Stan Harvey,
Tim Rayner, Brian Snell, Jim Thomblison, June Wright, and John Zinkie. Reverend Michael Brooks and
Pat Gilmore as chair of Council serve as ex-officio members.
A public “Request for Proposal” process was used (postings in the commonly used MERX web site and
Daily Commercial News). Interest was high with 17 applications. Five architects were selected for
interview. McCallum Sather Architects (firm used for the New Facility Investigation) applied but was not
selected for interview. The architect firm Reinders and Rieder Ltd (RRL) was selected for the following
reasons:
• Well suited to PNUC work. RRL focuses largely on church and religious institution work with
experience at hundreds of churches.
• References were very positive. No negative items were identified during extensive
reference checks of solicited and unsolicited clients taken from their client list.
• Breadth of internal engineering and specialist design expertise.
• The committee felt that working directly with the principle Glenn Reinders would be
positive.
• The process RRL proposed would work well for the PNUC congregation.
• Price was highly competitive.
Work with RRL has proven these expectations to be true.
Direction to RRL
Throughout the RFI-2 initial work, concerns were raised about the adequacy of data and the process
used to support the decision to demolish the 1953 structure during RFI-1. Several opportunities were
used to understand these concerns and to better explain the basis for the RFI-1 recommendation. These
opportunities included: a detailed congregational e-mail and paper handouts, three discussion
opportunities after church, a mid-week evening discussion opportunity, a box for suggestions and
comments, and an open-RFI meeting to which anyone was invited.
RFI-2 reflected on the feedback and considered the original motion that established RFI. Part of the
concerns that were expressed involves the interpretation of the word “Renovation” in the motion and in
the RFI title. Some believe that “Repair” would have been a more correct interpretation of what the
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 3
motion was intended to achieve. Extensive demolition was not contemplated by those who initiated the
motion. In light of these concerns, and with the approval of Council, RFI-2 decided to direct RRL to
expand the scope that was in the original Request For Proposal that had been based on the RFI-1
recommendation. Specifically the scope of work and costs were adjusted so that RRL would now include
consideration of re-use of the 1953 structure.
RRL did an engineering assessment of the entire building including the 1953 structure. RRL assessed the
City of Burlington by-law requirements to understand what is possible on the site including set-back
requirements.
RRL worked with RFI to determine the space needs of all the PNUC ministries using the inputs from the
congregation and user surveys. Currently there is more space than is required.
The first two concepts prepared by RRL involved reusing the 1953 structure. One kept the flat roof
central portion (kitchen, chapel, and library). The other demolished the flat roof part. RRL concluded
that while the 1953 structure is fundamentally sound structurally, it requires a lot of work to essentially
replace all internal systems: heating and ventilation, windows, electrical system, handicap provisions,
wall insulation, exterior cladding, and kitchen. The current kitchen does not meet code requirements
and represents a potential health and safety risk. The chronic mould problems (that currently require
substantial maintenance efforts to mitigate health hazards) result from a combination of: longstanding
roof leaks due to design flaws and insufficient roof maintenance, ground water seepage through the
foundation due to lack of a weeping system, and no forced air exchange system. All air exchange comes
only through leakage in the windows and walls.
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 4
Concept #1
The first RRL concept retained the 1953 Hall (Lloyd Auditorium) and its lower level. The flat roof portion
is demolished in this concept. The exact layout of rooms is not significant and could be adjusted.
Figure 2: Concept 1 for retaining only 1953 Hall
RFI-2’s reaction to this proposal was:
–
it exceeded the $2.6M nominal ceiling (see Appendix 1 for a detailed cost breakdown)
since the $2.6M total shown does not include work under sanctuary ($0.6M from NFI
estimate)
–
1953 hall is difficult to get to via only one stairwell and one elevator.
–
Overall traffic flow is awkward.
–
Kitchen is remote from main elevation.
–
Retains lower level 1953 structure space that we do not require but have to maintain
–
Increased parking is achieved by moving North wall to North freeing up space on the
South side. (Considered to be a good idea)
RRL noted that of the $2.6M total cost, the cost to remediate the 1953 structure would be $0.53M. At
the standard rate for new building construction this would pay for 3500 sq ft of a new one level building.
For comparison purposes the existing Lloyd Auditorium without stage is 2737 sq ft.
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 5
Concept #2
The second concept retained the entire 1953 structure, including the flat roof portion. Again the exact
room locations are not significant and could be adjusted.
Figure 3: Concept #2 for retaining entire 1953 structure
RFI-2’s reaction to this proposal was:
–
It exceeded the $2.6M nominal ceiling (see Appendix 2 for a detailed cost breakdown)
since the $2.7M total shown does not include work under sanctuary ($0.6M from NFI
estimate).
–
1953 hall is difficult to get to.
–
Overall traffic flow is extremely awkward.
–
Kitchen is remote from main elevation.
–
Retains space we do not require on the lower level of the 1953 structure but have to
maintain.
RRL noted that of the $2.7M total cost, the cost to remediate the 1953 structure would be $0.67M. At
the standard rate for new building construction this would pay for 4800 sq ft of a new one level building.
RFI directed RRL to produce a concept that was not constrained to re-use the 1953 structure. The result
was Concept #3.
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 6
Concept #3
The third and recommended concept demolishes the entire 1953 structure, including the flat roof
portion. It retains and re-uses the entire central structure and adds new space on the same level as the
central structure, partially extending into the space that had been used by the 1953 structure. The red
line is the old building footprint.
Figure 4: Concept #3 site layout
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 7
PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 8
View from South Dr. looking East.
View from Parking lot looking West.
View from Rossmore Blvd.
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 9
RFI-2’s reaction to this proposal was:
– $2.56 M total including work under sanctuary met the nominal cost ceiling that had
been established. Parking lot costs of $115k, including taxes, were removed from the
cost estimate on the next page to be able to compare costs of this option with the
earlier option costs.
– Reuse of much of the central structure is a good consideration to mitigate cost.
– Creative re-use of central structure; e.g. retains O’Brien room.
– Foyer and Fellowship Hall are a combined space of 4,592 sq ft. Seating at tables should
be possible of almost 50% more people than is currently possible.
– People traffic flow is excellent.
– Kitchen is accessible on the main elevation.
– Creates two way driveway and extra parking at East side of property.
– The improved visibility of the office wing from Rossmore Blvd.
Based on this concept, a pre-consultation was held by RRL with the City of Burlington. This was done
because PNUC currently is zoned for residential use but a church usually has to follow institutional
requirements. Setbacks for residence are not as restrictive as for institutional buildings. The current
building has variances in either case and it was important to see whether the City was likely to continue
to approve these pre-existing variances and whether they would continue to apply residential setback
requirements. These factors largely determine the amount of parking that can be on the site. The
existing parking spaces are already fewer in number than the City parking requirements and so a
variance is needed on number of parking spaces regardless of the chosen plan. If approval was not likely
for continuing variances, the third concept footprint would not be possible. The City did not identify any
significant issues however noted that this does not preclude issues being raised as part of the
application for a building permit.
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 10
Recommended option costs are:
This above estimate includes the parking lot repairs which were not in earlier estimates. Other costs
related to the project will include:
Sanctuary HVAC
$130k
Costs to operate during construction
$30k
Improved signage
$5k
Sanctuary Audio Visual system improvements
$5k
Chancel accessibility (ramp)
$10k
Total Project Cost estimate
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
$2.9M
Page 11
The key features of the recommended option are:
- Large Fellowship Hall can be used as Lloyd Auditorium is used today
- Potential to seat 50% more people at meals than we can handle today
- Fully accessible including accessible washrooms on all levels
- All rooms are air conditioned and ventilated.
RFI compared the benefits of the recommended option to the “Needs and Wants” list that was
generated by RFI-1 as a result of their research into property health, property usage, accessibility, and
energy efficiency. A line-by-line comparison is provided in Appendix 3.
RFI was given four priority areas as part of its mandate. The implications to these 4 areas of the
recommended option are listed below.
1. Accessibility
– Proposal is largely accessible per Burlington Accessibility Design Standard (2011)
– Offices are more visible (easier for visitors to find)
– Fully accessible washrooms on all three levels
– Would allow a lunch to be offered during food voucher pick up. Not practical now due
to accessibility limitations of upper auditorium
2. Space flexibility: incorporates flexibility for current and future use. Air conditioning allows
broader use during summer months.
3. Kitchen function: substantially improves kitchen functionality. A code compliant main kitchen.
Updated and enlarged kitchenette in lower level. Small kitchenette to service offices and
library.
4. Energy efficiency: incorporates some energy efficiency improvements related to removal of the
energy inefficient 1953 structure and related to upgrades to the central and sanctuary
structures.
RFI notes that some improvements are not included in the scope of this project. They are:
Solar panel project
Replacement of steel window frames in sanctuary
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Funded separately
Defer
Page 12
Implications of approving RRL to proceed with detailed
conceptual design
If the motion to direct RRL to complete the conceptual design is approved,
- RFI will authorize expenditure of the remaining approved funds that were raised through
donation. The ceiling is $10k.
- RRL will produce drawings based on additional refinements to Concept #3
- RRL will produce mechanical concept drawings for the Air conditioning, Heating, and Ventilation
systems (HVAC).
- RRL will produce a cost estimate suitable for establishing a construction project envelope and
for the start of fund raising activities.
- Once the RRL concept drawings and cost estimates are complete, they will be presented to
Council.
- Once Council has a funding plan, the RRL concept, cost estimates and funding plan will be
presented to the Congregation for project approval.
- RRL will not produce drawings that are ready for tendering of construction work. This is
significant extra scope and will only be approved when the entire project funding is in place and
approved.
Transition plan
A construction project of this magnitude will take about a year. Work on the Solar Panel project will
proceed independently but will take into account the renovation plans to minimize work at interface
points, notably the electrical system. A concept has been developed that allows most church ministries
to continue through the construction period.
Implications for the New Facility Investigation proposal
RFI compared the recommended proposal (Concept #3) with the NFI recommended proposal. The main
differences are listed in Appendix 4. RFI recommends that as part of accepting that the recommended
option should be developed by the architect, the conceptual plans for NFI should be retired and
considered no further.
Implications for funding a design-construction project
If the recommendation to proceed with preliminary drawings and more detailed cost estimates is
approved, the results will be brought back to Council and the Congregation for approval to proceed with
a full design-construct project. At the same time, Council will bring forward plans arising from an ad hoc
funding committee that has been established.
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 13
Motion
The motion that will be presented to Council and to the Congregation is as follows:
Moved that RFI direct Reinders and Rieder Ltd to develop preliminary drawings including
mechanical/structural designs and costs for addition of new space to the central structure, sanctuary
lower level improvements, re-use of much of the central structure, and demolition of the 1953
structure. The drawings and cost estimates are to be completed within the $10k that has already been
set aside from donations. The RFI concept will retire the NFI concept which will not be considered
further.
Prepared by Stan B. Harvey; Chair RFI
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 14
Appendix 1: Concept #1 costs
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 15
Appendix 2: Concept #2 costs
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 16
Appendix #3: Concept #3 comparison to objectives set by RFI-1
RFI-1 research identified Needs and Wants listed on the left below. The proposed concept addresses
these attributes as listed on the right. Overall, the recommended option achieves the vast majority of
“Needs and Wants” listed by RFI-1 based on the research that was done into Property health, Property
usage, Accessibility, and Energy efficiency.
1. Property Health
Roofs – leaks, eaves troughs
Roof entirely replaced
Exterior doors/windows
New windows, doors, and vestibules
Chimneys
Chimneys removed
Exterior stairwells, sidewalks
Exterior stairwells removed
Air conditioning – heating
HVAC everywhere
Kitchen improvements
New main kitchen close to where needed;
Kitchenette on lower level and near offices /
library ; upgraded kitchenette under sanctuary
Electrical upgrades
New electrical system
Air quality
Air exchange everywhere; dry basement
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 17
2. Property Usage
Gathering space less than adequate
Very large space with overflow; suitable for
coffee after church
Lacking versatility of room usage and
under usage
Rooms well suited to present and future needs
No place for parents to take children
during service for privacy yet still hear
the service
O’Brien room or Foyer separated from Sanctuary
by glass doors
Need Quiet room
Library
Promotional and display areas are
less than optimum
Large areas are available
Inadequate storage
Storage built in
Poor navigation – inside and outside
Good visibility
Dedicated space optimization
Good use of space
3. Accessibility
Accessible washrooms
On all three levels; 5 stalls in main
level women's washroom; 2 family washrooms
added
Access among 5 floors is an issue
Elevator connects 3 levels
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 18
Chancel accessibility
Addressed in this project
Exterior access to building
Improved visibility
Multi-inclusivity – inclusive to all :
visual, auditory, mobility
Will be included during detailed design
4. Energy
Energy efficiency
Renovated building envelope will be energy
efficient. New HVAC. Improvements to exterior
doors in sanctuary building.
Heating upgrade for an 8 year Return
On Investment
All new HVAC.
Renewable energies (solar panels)
towards self-sufficiency
Solar panels were initiated by RFI as a standalone project.
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
Page 19
Appendix 4: Comparison of Concept #3 to New Facility
Investigation recommendation
NFI
RFI
$4.5M
$2.9M
10,114 sq ft main level
11, 070 sq ft main level
No re-use of central
structure
Much of central structure reused;
O’Brien room retained
5,000 sq ft in lower level of
central area
~2000 sq ft in lower level of
central area; this is sufficient to
meet ministry needs
Unused “shell space” of 5550 No unused space
sq ft in basement
9 extra parking spaces
PNUC RFI 2 November, 2013
11 new spaces; 3 regulationsized handicap spaces
Page 20