Master Plan Q & A

Yes. A Sunday forum will be held on December 13 (after a short special congregational meeting). Depending on the outcome of this gathering, and ongoing questions and comments, an additional discussion may also be scheduled for early January.

As presented, the plan is a “road map” not a finished product. It gives us a way to move forward. Even when approved by the congregation, changes to the concept drawings are to be expected.

The proposed master plan is just that, a single proposal. If approved, the congregation would then consider possible phasing options in conjunction with fund-raising options. The plan could conceivably be undertaken in 2 or 3 phases. From a construction standpoint, completing the west addition, before the east remodel, makes the most sense. The nave work (rear balcony and chancel area) could occur simultaneously with either the west addition or the east remodel.

According to Vogel Construction, construction could take approximately 12 months for the demolition of the west building and the construction of the west addition; 5 months for the east wing renovation; and two months on the two nave projects that could be done simultaneously with either the east or west projects.

As a city landmark, we are required to get a certificate of appropriateness from the city landmarks commission for any exterior work. This would include approval for the proposed west addition. Landmarks approval for the east remodel is unlikely, as exterior changes to this wing are not proposed.

current proposal for the west addition includes infrastructure for internet, wi-fi, audio visual equipment and a PA system. But the proposal for the east remodel does not include most of these items; however, it certainly could.

This question was not directly addressed by the master planning task force. If approved by the congregation, the master plan could address the question in either the west addition or east remodel.

The proposed master plan includes utilizing the nave’s west transept as a chapel, with direct door access to the west addition. Such a plan could provide opportunity to consider some alterations to our worship as well as ongoing use by Lutheran Campus Ministry for the Wednesday Campus Communion service. The Wednesday Campus Communion service started using the west transept this fall.

The proposed plan includes changes to existing exterior signage. If approved, signage consistent with Madison signage ordinances would be sought. How to repurpose existing signage can be addressed as the process moves forward.

Anyone who has spent time at LM knows interior signage needs improvement. A master plan would address this issue in both existing and new spaces. This issue is particularly acute for those with special needs and first time visitors.

The current heating system is in good shape and has undergone some improvements over the past several years. It should last many more years. The current AC system needs some work. The master plan includes improvements to the AC system with the nave restoration (adding AC to the choir balcony) and the east remodel (adding AC to 3 of the 4 floors that do not have it currently.) These additions of AC improvements will require an upgrade to the current system, and are budgeted in the proposed master plan.

Yes, the proposed west addition would replace the entire building at 325 Mills St.

The building at 325 Mills St (often known as the campus center) is owned by Luther Memorial and currently leased for use as campus ministry. The current building, constructed in 1978, has some significant physical issues that need addressing. These include but are not limited to: water infiltration in the garage; an air handling system in the garage in need of replacement; the need for full roof and flashing replacement on both the flat and peaked roofs; a defect in the west wall closest to the nave (in need of urgent repair); as well as a number of smaller items. In short, if the current building is not removed, these urgent building issues will need to be addressed.

As of December 13, 2015, Luther Memorial has concluded all legal and financial arrangements relating to this property. It is now wholly owned by LM; Lutheran Campus Ministry currently rents this space from Luther Memorial Church.

We have continued dialogue with CSO and kept them informed of our progress on a new master plan. In our ongoing conversation with CSO, we are considering a number of options including a purchase of their building or the inclusion of CSO in our new or remodeled space. As this dialogue is ongoing, it may be imprudent to provide a more detailed answer at this time.

Luther Memorial and campus ministry were formed together in 1907. In 1938 campus ministry incorporated as a separate legal entity, but maintained strong ties to LM and other area Lutheran congregations. Since the mid-1960’s, campus ministry relocated to the corner of Mills and University, first in two houses (including LM’s old parsonage), and then (after 1978) in the current building. LCM has been part of LM’s master planning process including user group surveys, student surveys, interviews with campus staff and ongoing conversation with the LCM board. The proposed west addition includes shared space for student study, services, LCM offices, and related ministry activities.

If a new addition to the west is not undertaken, then two things will need to happen. One, the congregation will need to consider significant changes to the proposed master plan. Two, costly major repairs to the building at 325 Mills Street will need be addressed.

Luther Memorial currently holds a primary mortgage for about $650,000. This debt derives from previous master planning projects, as well as more recent repairs to the building’s exterior (for example the tower, west side nave, and apse restorations).

The use of solar panels was briefly addressed by the architect and the master planning task force. A number of issues argued against their use in the proposed plan: (1) the lack of sunlight for much of the day on the east side; (2) the lack of sunlight for much of the day on the west side, particularly considering the proposed building expansion by the UW for the new chemistry building; (3) the green roof proposal for the west addition.

Yes! The proposed west addition has large bathrooms close to the narthex as well as proposed unisex or family bathrooms off the Great Room to the west. The east remodel also includes new bathroom facilities on the main floor near the narthex. All of which should greatly improve bathroom accessibility, particularly for large events held in the nave.  

Yes. We are looking at various ways to increase parking access, particularly for Sunday worship and other large events. Some regard the proposed 50 stalls in the west addition plus the 25 we own beneath Grand Central to be the minimum we need to accommodate weekday events when campus parking is more restricted.

Yes, with the understanding that the master plan is a road map and will likely undergo changes even after approval by the congregation. One note of caution: part of the exterior design is driven by both building code and historic landmark issues. For example, the new west addition needs a minimum amount of green space, and a green roof counts toward green space; a change to proposed roof size may impact potential city approval.

The proposed master plan includes one level of parking at grade with Conklin Alley. It also includes an optional second level of parking, one floor below Conklin, priced as an option for us to consider. As proposed, each floor contains approximately 25 parking spaces.

No. The HVAC systems will all be interior. There are at least two reasons for this: (1) the proposed green roof excludes the option of roof mechanicals, (2) the need to decrease any ambient noise (i.e. from rooftop HVAC systems) into the nave.

Yes. While hard to see on the renderings and floor plans, there is space for coats on the lower level near the bathrooms; as designed, one may walk beneath the stairs.

The overall height of the west addition (top of the second floor) is almost identical to the height of the building at 325 Mills St. In fact the current chimney is taller than the proposed roof-line of the new addition.

Without a second level of parking, the congregation should certainly explore new or enhanced parking arrangements. LM owns 25 parking spots at Grand Central; there are no arrangements with X01, and no formal arrangement with Grainger.

All facilities need regular and routine maintenance; the proposed addition to the west is no exception. A “green” roof requires some minimal regular maintenance, but part of that will depend on the style and type of “green” roof eventually chosen. The underside of the roof – the exposed wood – will need minimal maintenance, as it is designed to change color over time.

Yes. Below ground the proposed west addition goes all the way to the property line (inside of the sidewalk on Mills and University). Above ground it steps back from the sidewalk but is still closer to the sidewalk than the current building. The proposed west addition does have a setback above grade very close to the set back of the current facility at 315 Mills St.

Yes. In structural terms, think of the current building as two interdependent structures, something like a duplex: 325 Mills St and 315 Mills St.

On the plans, the assignment of offices was done merely to be illustrative, not final. As currently proposed the plans call for one extra office, which could well be assigned to the custodian.

According to our architect, a properly maintained building should last 100 years or more.

According to our architect, building height and design impact how bird friendly the exterior of a building is. In the proposed design, the amount of vertical mullions that break up the glass and the large shading overhang from the flat roof will all help minimizing this issue. In addition, we could look at specific types of glass to minimize this issue even more.

This is a difficult question to answer. Some of it has to do with personal aesthetics. Some to do with function – for example, the use of glass on the first floor of the west addition is done in part, to encourage the thousands of students who daily pass by to come in. Part of the design is driven by historic landmark considerations; see related question below. Part of the design is driven by the need for extra green space – see further questions on “the green looking material” and flat roofs.

The green looking material is the same clay tile roofing material on the peaked roof of the 1921 church. The architect is suggesting using these roof tiles (plus similar looking stonework) as a way to incorporate some design elements from the 1921 building into the west addition.

The use of the wood material, plus the hint of a gothic arch over the front of the entrance to the west addition (think of the interior wood roof of the nave) is one way the architect incorporates some design elements from the old building in the proposed addition. Look closely at the wood arch; it should have a similar appearance to the wood arches supporting the nave roof.

Yes and no. As with any conceptual plan, it could undergo further change. But, part of the reason for the flat roof is to incorporate a “green roof” and limit stormwater runoff. With the proposed underground parking, there is little natural green space on our property. The new west addition needs a minimum amount of green space to receive city approval and a green roof counts toward green space; a change of roof design may impact potential city approval as well as the number of underground parking spots we can build.

Not as planned.

Adding AC to the choir loft should make for some improvement to the overall AC system in the nave. But, without major expense, it will never be perfect. Bringing a consistent temperature to the entire nave during the cooling season would require either an entirely new AC system or very expensive alterations to the current system.

The proposed plan includes expansion of the robing room into what is currently the music library and the redesign of the robing room for youth and children’s choir, plus some music storage. This addresses robing room overcrowding as mentioned in user group surveys. The proposed master plan also includes the possibility of repurposing the fireside room as a bell choir practice room. The plan also utilizes one of the old preschool rooms as a practice room for the training choir. Such changes should help alleviate some of the issues in the current choir room, but without costs associated with a major remodeling of these spaces.

Yes. Several groups have mentioned the need for a tune-up in the kitchen. The proposed “catering” kitchen in the west addition allows us to redesign the current kitchen to function better for cooking. And yes, the Great Room needs some TLC. The proposed addition of doors from the west addition directly into the Great Room will require new flooring and paint in the Great Room.

While not directly addressed in this master plan, several people have commented that the existing sacristy could be remodeled to improve its function. Others have commented that the 1993 master plan called for a vestry (or vesting sacristy) to be built where the current fireside room is which would also alleviate congestion in the current sacristy.

The new children’s realm off the narthex and adjacent to the Sunday school wing allows for large group gatherings, small skits and plays, music, and a waiting area for parents. It also can be used for “large motor play” during inclement weather. It could also serve as overflow narthex space during very large nave events.

As proposed, this 2,000 square feet area is divided almost equally between a new youth ministry space and a proposed “ministry partner” space. This allows the consideration of hosting other ministry partners and non-profit groups that may rent ministry space from LM. Long term, the space provides for future expansion of LM’s parish ministry.

Currently it is listed as storage. By improving HVAC systems to this floor, plus the addition of an elevator, as well as the recent addition of some windows, makes this a space to consider for future expansion.

People entering through the alley would not be impacted. Those entering from University Avenue would need to walk a few feet further, either to the front narthex doors or the new fully handicapped entrance at the west addition.

We need to distinguish between Sunday use and weekday use. During the week, the courtyard door will likely remain locked, with the main door at the west addition and the main narthex doors serving as primary entrance points near bathrooms, staff, and hospitality areas. On Sunday the courtyard certainly could be left open, but (as noted above) the door is not currently a functional handicapped entrance. It is likely that the SE double doors near the proposed elevator would be easier and cheaper to make into a legal handicapped entrance, although the courtyard door is certainly a possibility as well.

The master planning task force has discussed a number of ongoing income sources. They include: additional rent from a second cellular company tower; renting some parking spaces in the proposed west addition; renting space to another non-profit--also a possible use for some space on the top floor of the east wing.

Yes. The conceptual budget and proposed construction timeline include demolition costs as well as costs associated with the removal of any hazardous material.

No. See section on General questions about any ongoing conversations with CSO.

While the exact cost cannot be determined without clear design/construction drawings, concept costs are provided. The master planning task force asked the architect to divide costs into various subsections. The estimated costs are as follows: West addition $11.4 million, option lower parking $1.5 million, East remodel $1.4 million, chancel $163k, balcony $263k, children's courtyard $48k.

There are some standard ways to calculate ongoing costs of new construction; such costs will be calculated if the master plan is approved by the congregation. Also, the 1978 building at 325 Mills St. has ongoing maintenance costs the congregation already pays for. In either case, we anticipate some of the ongoing costs to be born by our partner in ministry, Lutheran Campus Ministry.

Yes. LM currently does this with the stalls we own at Grand Central. But, it should be noted that potential income generated from parking leases would not pay for the entire cost of building the underground garage.