The St. Charles Parish Council convened Town Halls on November 4 (English language) and November 7 (Spanish language). The purpose of these gatherings was to present a report on the work undertaken to address the priority need—as identified by parishioners via the 1998 “New Year’s Resolutions” and the parish-wide survey—for a parish community center.
Feasibility Study Phase
The first step taken by the Parish Council and Pastoral Team occurred in mid-1998 with the formation of a feasibility study committee. In the course of the Committee’s investigation, it became evident that any decision vis-à-vis the parish community center had to be made within the context of an overall strategic plan for St. Charles.
Consequently, we launched an ambitious strategic planning effort—led by parishioners Genie and Jim Murphy—that produced a parish vision statement and motto and long-range goals and program requirements. In June 1999, the Strategic Planning Committee issued its final report in which it established the feasibility of a parish community center.
Pre-Design Phase
As a result of this determination, the Strategic Planning Committee reconstituted itself as the “Parish Community Center Committee” and elected a new Chair, Monica Craven, who is a parishioner and a member of Arlington County’s Planning Commission. The Committee also recruited additional volunteers with expertise in architecture, civil engineering and fund-raising to assist in the project.
Between July and October of this year, Committee members consulted with the Diocese, Arlington County planners, the County Zoning Administrator, a zoning attorney, and the neighboring civic associations of Lyon Village and Ballston/Virginia Square. They also visited eleven local parishes that had built multi-purpose centers and/or gyms and interviewed staff and parishioners to hear about their experiences in developing and constructing new facilities.
Parishioner-architect, Kathleen Moriarty, and two licensed architects, who are professors at Catholic University, spearheaded a comprehensive pre-design effort that identified and accomplished critical tasks. These tasks included: the compilation of parking and zoning requirements, the completion of a title search and site survey and the definition of space needs through discussions with St. Charles’ Parish Council, Pastoral Team and staff, the school principal and members of the Board of Regents.
Potential Options
The substantive work completed during the pre-design phase led to the development of a written program outlining space requirements, such as handicapped accessibility, and three potential options for new facilities on our site. Each option, which was presented in diagram form to the Town Hall assembly, maintains the school playground (although its size is reduced in some cases) and incorporates these interior spaces (and corresponding support spaces, such as rest rooms): a parish social hall, kitchen, a multi-purpose hall/gym (that can accommodate a regulation-size basketball court), meeting rooms and storage. A brief description of each scheme is found on the next page.
Scheme A envisions two buildings: a parish social hall (for 250 people) constructed on the circle at the corner of Fairfax Drive and Kirkwood Road and a gym/large hall (for 400-500 people) built on the Washington Boulevard side of our site.
Scheme B imagines one building constructed on the circle that includes both a separate parish social hall (for 200 people) and a gym/large hall as in Scheme A.
Scheme C presents one facility—a multi-purpose hall/gym that would double as a social hall. The structure would be built on the Washington Boulevard side of our site.
Further, the pre-design architects also recommended renovations to the existing physical plant (rectory administrative space, church, convent and school) as part of any construction plan for new facilities.
Two Important Issues: Parking and Zoning
In its Town Hall presentation, the Committee also delineated the project’s zoning and parking implications. Schemes A and C would require a variance from Arlington County because any new facility along Washington Boulevard would not conform to the County’s setback requirements of 40 feet from the centerline of the street. To obtain a variance, a public hearing before the County’s Board of Zoning Appeals is held. Although securing a variance opens the project to public scrutiny, the Committee, in consultation with a zoning attorney, has concluded that obtaining a variance would be possible.
Regarding parking, all three schemes can meet the County’s parking code. This is feasible for two primary reasons. First, the Committee has identified off-site parking within 600 feet of our site, i.e. 75 surface parking spaces at George Mason University available on Sundays and 36 spaces available at Red Top Cab for special parish events. Second, it is possible to gain a few additional spaces by restriping our parking lot to include the maximum number of compact car spaces allowed.
Other Comments Raised by Town Hall Attendees
Besides parking and zoning, a third important point raised at the Town Hall concerned the use/re-use of new and existing space to avoid duplication and unnecessary costs. The Committee demonstrated that it had taken this consideration into account in all three schemes. In Scheme B, for example, if the gym created in the new facility doubles as a cafeteria, the current school cafeteria could be renovated and used as administrative space. A new pre-school, which would enhance the range of the school’s services, then could be housed in the existing school administration offices (which already have lavatory facilities).
Another question concerned the potential availability of the Petco site. It was explained that the land and building occupied by Petco is assessed at approximately $700,000, and therefore, it was unlikely that this property would be available to St. Charles.
Town Hall participants also inquired about specific items in one or more of the schemes. They mentioned that a potential drawback to Scheme C was the possible proliferation of schedule conflicts with many groups desiring to use the one available large space at the same time. Members of the Latin American Community were particularly concerned since most of their activities for adults and children take place on Sundays. A scheme that imagines one building housing a multi-purpose room means that adults and children would not have separate spaces for their respective activities. Attendees felt it was important to have dedicated spaces where the adults and children can spend time with their peers.
Another participant was concerned about egress on Fairfax Drive for the school bus if a new facility were to be constructed on the circle (as shown in Schemes A and B). The Committee explained that the exit to Fairfax Drive would be maintained.
The development of an outreach campaign on the project covering the school (and particularly school parents) represented a fifth area of interest. School parents who are not parishioners at St. Charles received assurances that a communications plan for the parish and the school was envisioned.
With respect to cost, preliminary estimates put each scheme at approximately two to three million dollars (including renovations to existing facilities). One Town Hall attendee suggested that the social hall could be rented for wedding receptions, anniversaries and other events to allow the parish to recoup its investment.
Finally, attendees at both Town Halls expressed their overall support for the project—noting their enthusiasm that three options for new facilities could be possible on our site. They also stated publicly that they would be willing to donate funds to make the project a reality.
Next Steps
Given this mandate from the parish community, the Committee is moving ahead with the project. Plans for the near term are as follows:
Request formal permission from Bishop Loverde to meet with the Diocesan Finance Committee. Status: Fr. Creedon sent a letter to the Bishop on November 15 and received a response on December 3 granting approval for St. Charles to meet with the Finance Committee.
Meet with the Diocesan Finance Committee to seek permission to raise funds for the project. Status: Fr. Creedon and Monica Craven met with the Finance Committee on December 15.
Develop and implement a fund-raising plan. It was noted that the diocese requires 40 percent of the funds in hand before final approval of the project is granted. Also, fund-raising is not permitted during Lent. Some advance gifts may be solicited before Lent begins; however, the major fund-raising effort will be launched in May. Status: The Fund-Raising Sub-Committee of the Parish Community Center Committee met with three professional fund-raising firms on December 3. A fund-raising company with experience in the Arlington Diocese will be selected shortly to work on our project.
Develop and implement a communications plan. Status: The bulletin board at the circle entrance to the church will be dedicated to information about the parish community center. In addition, regular briefings via the parish bulletin, Web site and the school newsletter are envisioned.
Recruit additional volunteers with expertise in contracts and construction for the Parish Community Center Committee. Status: It is anticipated that announcements seeking volunteers will appear in the bulletin and on the Web site early next year.
Conclusion
The Parish Council and the Parish Community Center Committee appreciate the interest and strong support of the entire parish community for this project. We are inspired by your enthusiastic response to the work undertaken thus far. We ask for your continued prayers and look forward to your comments and ideas as together we build the future.
report published 12/15/99