First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin

In attendance: Members of the Congregation
Facilitation: Building Committee (Chair: Don Smith) and Hurt Partners (Tom Hurt, Architect)

Start time: 1:35 pm

I. Roles and Responsibilities:
? Board: Act on behalf of congregation for operational business decisions.
? Building Committee: Interface between the architect and the congregation.
? Congregation: The client and final arbiter. Input into the process will be key.
? Architect: Will translate the ?program? into the actual building that the congregation has envisioned. Discussed the concept of architectural ?program? (the operations as well as look and feel). This allows the architect to work on a schematic design.

II. Mechanisms for Congregational Input
? Meetings: Internal meetings (two scheduled, more to be scheduled): will be posted in all available methods (online, weekly announcements, email, etc.)
? Written comments:
1) ?Building expansion? link on the website homepage. Representative comments will be compiled and shared with the architect.
2) Labeled comments box on the wall in the office.
3) Communication with the Building Committee: Don Smith, Christy Seals, Jeff Hutchens, Tom Martin, Brian Moore and Melita Noël Cantú.
Building Committee member names will be posted on the website, and there will also be a link to email the entire Building Committee.

III. Scheduled meetings: Open to all members of the congregation.
o Meeting with CPC (Children?s Program Committee): Sunday, 3/16 @ 1:30, Room 15
o Meeting with Adult RE: Sunday, 3/30 @ 1:30, Room TBA
o Architect: To be scheduled at completion of Schematic Design First Draft and Revised Schematic Design

IV. Design Process Overview
? Program Delivered to the Architect
? Schematic Design
? Review of Schematic Design by Building Committee, Board and Congregation?revisions as needed
? Presentation of Final Design

V. Capital Campaign
? A separate committee will run the Capital Campaign (not the Building Committee).
? Currently recruiting for the Capital Campaign committee.

VI. Questions and Concerns of the Congregation: Members of the congregation responded to 3 questions as outlined in the newsletter.
? How do we want to be perceived in the community at large, and how will this building convey who we are?
o Exciting, innovative buildings like the City Hall and the Long Center (a WOW!).
o Development of a theme or brand that includes better signage and identification of the building.
o Emulation of Frank Lloyd Wright details.
o Kid?s perspective: Circular rooms, colorful, places to climb, connecting spaces
o Shows how we are a welcoming, open congregation?perhaps reflected in signage.
o One church, many beliefs: plenty of community activity spaces who are not members to come here?be more visible.
o Very happy with accessibility of this church to the community.
? What shared values should this building express?
o Simple, elegant and clean: fits with existing structure, but also takes it to the next level to feel alive and active.
o Shared value for church is diversity, building should express this.
o Green: passive solar energy to decrease air conditioning costs and one way glass to prevent UV rays in; explore city subsidizing of green aspects.
o Awareness of similarities and difference for designing for children and people with disabilities.
? What changes would you most like to see in the existing facility?
o One multi-use space will be created in Children?s RE wing.
o Challenges of accessibility, especially for wheelchair users.
o Functional, comfortable meeting rooms with enough space and furniture to create new and different programming.
o Comfortable, accessible, private office for minister with enough space for books and technology.
o Equally-sized offices for all (Minister, ED, Director of RE, etc.).
o Infrastructure: increased space for library with more access to books and computers; meeting space to engaged adults, youth (teens and children); improved plumbing (kitchen and bathroom).
o Soundproofing: one soundproofed room for meditation, prayer, etc. as well as all meeting/classroom spaces being more soundproofed.
o Art exhibit space for children?s regular exhibits
o Make the kitchen more central.
o At least have a mini-kitchen in the Children?s wing.
o Childrens? wing closer to the sanctuary to allow for more integration of people with children and without in order to mingle after services and for parents to get to services easily after dropping off children.
o Wi-fi and internet access (wireless)?capability to change with technological demands.
o Multi-level parking.
o Hot water (none in the current RE wing)?perhaps on-demand water heating.
o Each room set up with: sink, counters, space for piano to allow for children?s activities as well as art, music, theater for all.
? Other:
o Children to meet with architect and/or Building Committee.
o Question: How will plan change existing structures and landscape? Discussion: Current plan is to locate new wing in the playground area.
o Question: How is this building used during the day? Discussion: Childrens? wing is used throughout the day and week, and does currently accrue 150% over budgeted amount in rental fees from various groups.
o Built-in art display in new RE wing for children?s work in hallways.
o Rational thought, intellectual inquiry are important parts of our identity– new building might have library component, or existing building renovations might include expanding our existing library.
o Discussed challenges of sanctuary size to fill 1200 people. Discussed and distributed Master Plan Phase I and II?a roadmap, not set in stone. Phase I includes Children?s wing. Phase II includes rebuilding everything between new Children?s wing and current Sanctuary.
o Working timelines for this phase: Schematic design to be presented in late April. Final schematic design will follow depending on feedback, better to keep the process moving. After receiving program, will have something to review within a month.
o This wing will define the architecture for the direction of the entire church over the next 50 years.

VII. Architect presentation: Tom Hurt
? Glad to be a part and his firm is very comfortable with this process.
? Want the design to improve and excel with congregational feedback, not just satisfy. Not attached to the outcome: will present something they are excited about and rework into new ideas with the feedback received.
? They work with models in their office to keep reworking ideas.
? Discussed his impressions of the church: diverse activities and people, comfortable, homey. Congregation has ownership over this space. Clear that the members of the congregation want to be very good and involved members in this community.
? Tom discussed that he will be contacting the architect who designed this sanctuary.
? Very committed to green practices, and will use every sustainable design feature possible. Responded to request for simplicity in materials.
? Response to comments: Benefit of successful architecture as backdrop for human activity?architecture is not an object but support to activities within it. Excited about creating space for youth.

Meeting adjournment: 2:50 pm