First United Methodist Church

Katy, TexasPreliminary Master Plan

PresentationSeptember 29, 2009

Process

Site Analysis

Facility Assessment

Master Plan Options

Discussion

Agenda

Process

Economic Resources

Site Resources

User Group Needs

Facility Needs Study

Congregation

Stage One

Written Facility Needs

Assessment

Preschool

Process

Needs Assessment

Draft ofNeeds

NeedsDiscussion

Meeting

Town HallMeeting

Sunday Service

Youth

Adults

Staff

Fellowship

Finance

Contemporary Music

Music

Needs Assessment Method

OptionA

OptionB

OptionC

Facilities Development Plan & Next

Phase Schematic

Design Package

DesiredOption

Site & Existing Building Analysis

Congregation

Information Meeting

ProcessStage 2

Principle Goals of the Design

• Unified and inviting campus that presents strong image to the community

• Vehicular circulation system that is convenient and understandable

• “Way-Finding” clear understandable pedestrian circulation system, both interior and exterior

• Gathering Hall linked to the Worship for members and visitors to use for preparation, gather information and socialize with fellow worshippers

• Offices and meeting rooms that create a comfortable, pleasant, efficient and working environment for staff and members

• A nursery conveniently located that provides care, safety and security for small children as well as piece of mind for parents

• Adequate Sunday school classrooms easy to learn in as well as teach in for all ages

CHURCH CHURCH PROPERTPROPERTYY

SITE ANALYSIS

AA

BB

CC

LEGEND:LEGEND:

A EXISTING WORSHIPA EXISTING WORSHIP

B EXISTING FAMILY LIFEB EXISTING FAMILY LIFE

C EXISTING FELLOWSHIPC EXISTING FELLOWSHIP

CHURCH CHURCH PROPERTPROPERTYY

SITE ANALYSIS

55THTH STREET STREETA

VEN

UE B

AV

EN

UE B

4TH4TH STREET STREET

AV

EN

UE A

AV

EN

UE A

AA

BB

CC

CHURCH CHURCH PROPERTPROPERTYY

SITE ANALYSIS

AA

BB

CCEXISTING EXISTING PARKING PARKING “DEFICIENT“DEFICIENT

” (” (6464 OFF- OFF-STREET STREET SPACES AND SPACES AND 2222 ON- ON-STREET STREET SPACES)SPACES)

MIN. MIN. REQUIRED REQUIRED 100 OFF-100 OFF-SITESITE

CHURCH CHURCH PROPERTPROPERTYY

SITE ANALYSIS

AA

BB

CC

UTILITY UTILITY EASEMENTEASEMENT

CHURCH CHURCH PROPERTPROPERTYY

SITE ANALYSIS

55THTH STREET STREETA

VEN

UE B

AV

EN

UE B

4TH4TH STREET STREET

AV

EN

UE A

AV

EN

UE A

AA

BB

CC

OPTIMUM OPTIMUM PARKING PARKING LOCATIONSLOCATIONS•PUSH PARKING PUSH PARKING TO THE TO THE PERIMETERPERIMETER

CHURCH CHURCH PROPERTPROPERTYY

SITE ANALYSIS

55THTH STREET STREETA

VEN

UE B

AV

EN

UE B

4TH4TH STREET STREET

AV

EN

UE A

AV

EN

UE A

AA

BB

CC

OPTIMUM OPTIMUM BUILDING BUILDING LOCATIONLOCATION•TO PROMOTE TO PROMOTE “CAMPUS” “CAMPUS” ENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENT

Site Constraints:•Existing Utility Easement “limits” Building Options,

•Total Land Owned by 1st UMC : ~3.9 Acres,

•150 Off-Street Parking Spaces Required Currently (per city requirements) : ~1.1 acres (300 spaces future: ~ 2.2 acres),

•Available land for Buildings: ~2.8 acres (less setbacks),

•Existing Trees occupy 85% of the available land,

TREE ANALYSIS

AA

BB

CC

LEGEND:LEGEND:

A EXISTING WORSHIPA EXISTING WORSHIP

B EXISTING FAMILY LIFEB EXISTING FAMILY LIFE

C EXISTING FELLOWSHIPC EXISTING FELLOWSHIP

Congregation Survey Summary:

•Demolish Existing Classroom Building

•Preserve (if feasible) the Existing Fellowship Hall

•Preserve Existing Trees (if feasible)

•Prefer “Traditional” Architectural Style

Existing Facility Assessment Synopsis /

Deficiencies:•Asbestos Abatement (per State of Texas)

•Any Renovation would require entire facility to be brought to current code

•Life Safety, Building Code and Handicap Accessibility requirements supersede

•Existing Education Building “big” energy waste

•The majority of the campus is non accessible to the handicap individuals.

LEGEND:

• PROPOSED FACILITIES TO BE REMAIN

OPTIONS

• PROPOSED FACILITIES TO BE DEMOLISHED

PROS:

• ALLOWS CONSRUCTION W/O DISPLACEMENT OF CLASSROOM

• LIMITED TREE REMOVAL

CONS:

• FELLOWSHIP HALL RELOCATED

• BLDGS. BECOME DECENTRALIZED

• PEDESTRIAN VS. VEHICULAR CIRCULATION NOT IDEAL

• “CAMPUS” ENVIRONMENT COMPROMISED

• FOOTPRINT OF EDUCATION BLDG. LIMITED TO AVAILABLE LAND

PROS:

• ALLOWS CONSRUCTION W/O DISPLACEMENT OF CLASSROOM

• FELLOWSHIP HALL REMAINS

• LIMITED TREE REMOVAL

CONS:

• BLDGS. BECOME FURTHER DECENTRALIZED

• PEDESTRIAN VS. VEHICULAR CIRCULATION NOT IDEAL

• “CAMPUS” ENVIRONMENT COMPROMISED

• FOOTPRINT OF EDUCATION BLDG. LIMITED TO AVAILABLE LAND

PROS:

• ALLOWS CONSRUCTION W/O DISPLACEMENT OF CLASSROOM

• FELLOWSHIP HALL REMAINS

• MAJORITY OF BLDGS. CENTRALIZED

• PROMOTES “CAMPUS” ENVIRONMENT

• VEHICULAR VS. PEDESTRAIN CIRCULATION SEPARATED

• “WAYFINDING” IMPROVED

CONS:

• LIMITED TREES REMOVED

• PARKING IS EVENLY DISTRIBUTED

Proposed Architectural “Church Campus”

Aesthetic Concept…

Assembly of Buildings surrounding courtyard

organized with the intent of limiting impact to

existing trees!

Aerial View of Proposed Option 3 Master Plan

Aerial View of Proposed Option 3 Master Plan

Aerial View looking North

View from Family Life Center

View of Fellowship Hall from Avenue A

View of Playground from 4th Street

DISCUSSION