RCL Notes Document: TownHallCteeMtg110513revBfinal
NOTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 2013 RYE TOWN HALL COMMITTEE MEETING
Final Revision B – Provided by the Rye Civic League
Present (counterclockwise around table): Peter Kasnet, Mark Luz, Victor Azzi, Paul Goldman, Lucy Neiman, Selectman Priscilla Jenness, Selectman Craig Musselman, Town Clerk Beth Yeaton, Paula Merritt, Peter White.
Also present (sitting in audience): Michael Magnant, Cyndi Gillespie, Kim Reed, Dyana Ledger.
Present from SMP Architects: Eric Palson
Present from Recreation Department and Recreation Commission: Lee Arthur, Gregg Mikolaities, Janet Stevens, Judy Scott and several others, apparently from the Recreation Commission.
Present from the public: Peter Crawford, Sam Winebaum, Cecilia Azzi, Sara Hall, Marty Klenke.
Summary
2. The architect presented a more detailed designs of the two building option.
The video begins at 6:32:16 p.m.
Announcement of Thursday Public Information Session (0:00 elapsed)
Victor Azzi announced that the Public Information Session will be this coming Thursday at 6:30 p.m. at the Rye Junior High. References in the minutes of the prior meeting to the Library are incorrect as the venue needed to be changed.
Discussion with the Recreation Commission (5:04 elapsed)
Gregg Mikolaities stated that he had been Chairman of the Recreation Commission from 2000-2007. He has since returned recently to the Commission. Lee Arthur has been with the Recreation Department since 2000, serving as Director. Mr. Mikolaities noted that Recreation programs have become increasingly popular throughout the past decade. During that time, a storage shed and carport building was enclosed and bathrooms were added.
In 2003 and 2004 it was clear that they had outgrown the space, Mr. Mikolaities continued. Finally, $30,000 to $35,000 was approved as a temporary solution for space. The Library, School and Public Safety Building were all competing for funds. Money was accumulated at $5000 a year with a number of warrant articles. In 2006 the Commission said that things were not working. Town-wide surveys were done. Everything came back positive and they started planning for a Recreation Community Center.
Recreation Commission Chairman Janet Stevens stated that there is a definite need for a Community Center. The Senior Program has expanded rapidly. There are 177 active participants, 65-70 percent of whom are Rye residents. Luncheons typically have 85-104 guests. Ms. Stevens explained that these luncheons use 4600 sq. ft. at the Congregational Church next door. However there should be a separation of church and state. They are being dictated to with regard to music, speakers and programming. Yoga and Tai Chi exercise programs are prohibited.
Ms. Stevens read a number of resident comments from a 2012 survey, indicating that the Recreation facilities should be torn down, the modulars are pathetic, and people want a senior center. They are losing traction with their programs.
The Great Hall at Town Hall could serve some needs, she continued. However, storage space would be necessary for tables and chairs. The Rye Recreation Department has requested $20,000 for a study in 2014 to go into greater depth.
Chairman Victor Azzi stated that this is important information. He spoke about the need for a Facilities Master Plan being part of what was voted for last March. That is to provide for all of the needs of the Town. It is also part of the charge to the Town Hall Committee.
Lee Arthur asked about the square footage of the Great Hall. Peter Crawford, present in the audience responded that it was 1698 sq. ft. Ms. Arthur spoke about the varying needs of the different programs that are offered. For example, yoga would require rubberized mats to cover the floor. A challenge would be storage of the various items needed to support each program. She then outlined all of the different programs.
The 4600 sq. ft. currently required for the senior luncheons could be reduced, however she does not see how it could be accommodated in the Great Hall. Ms. Arthur broke down the 4600 sq. ft. at the Congregational Church. The Fellowship Hall is 2000 sq. ft., the stage is 500 sq. ft., the dining room is 1100 sq. ft., the kitchen is 750 sq. ft., closets are 194 sq. ft. and there are cabinets and washrooms occupying even more square footage. Selectman Musselman asked how many participants in the luncheons are from out of town. Ms. Arthur responded that it was 35-40 percent. Allowing out of town participants provides funds to recoup the costs of running the programs, she said.
There was further discussion regarding noise issues. The kitchen could be small, galley style kitchen, Ms. Arthur said. Washroom and changing space would be needed. She had really thought that the Great Hall was for meetings.
Peter White asked where the administration portion of the Recreation Department should be. Ms. Arthur responded that that was a loaded question as they do not know what they will have. She acknowledged that administration could be at the Community Center located at the Recreation Area on Recreation Road. However, someone may need to be stationed at the Town Hall if they are responsible for the Great Hall.
Peter Kasnet asked whether it would be advantageous to have administration in the Town Hall. Ms. Arthur responded that there are few connections with other departments.
Chairman Victor Azzi stated that he applauds their vision as it leads to programmatic thinking. He inquired as to the size of the planned Community Center. Gregg Mikolaities responded that the study performed included no money for programming. They came up with the 15,000 sq. ft. as a plug number after the consultant suggested that a facility of that size would correspond with the population of Rye. Janet Stevens added that the $20,000 study will help decide the space requirement. Lee Arthur added that the cost figure in the CIP Plan had been calculated using 15,000 sq. ft. at $150 per sq. ft. plus 10 percent for soft costs. Editor’s note: The CIP Plan draft dated October 18, 2013 includes a project of $2.545 million, the bulk of which is scheduled for 2016. This figure includes design and development costs. Ms. Arthur stated that it may turn out that a cinder block storage building will meet their needs.
Beth Yeaton stated that one large building accommodating Recreation Administration and Programs would be better. Otherwise, it would be inefficient. Lee Arthur acknowledged that ideally registrations would be at the Recreation Community Center. But, space must be programmed here as the other building does not exist yet.
Beth Yeaton asked whether Recreation Administration should be at Town Hall until they move. Janet Stevens stated that they do not know yet. The study will provide that answer. Ms. Yeaton expressed concern about storage for Recreation. If part of the Great Hall is occupied by Recreation storage, less space would be available for elections.
Selectman Craig Musselman stated that the vision of the community is to have the Great Hall as open space for large meetings. Some evening meetings would be there. Most would be in a smaller room. The renovation can be for a dual purpose and also accommodate some Recreation programs. That decision will need to be made in the next 6 months to a year.
With regard to the Trolley Barn, that would either be heated to 50 degrees and used for storage, or torn down, Selectman Musselman said.
Lee Arthur stated that the 1600 sq. ft. Great Hall is not sufficient for many of their programs. Also, proximity to the playing fields is needed. There are issues with flooring and noise problems associated with using the Great Hall.
Gregg Mikolaities stated that Recreation has always been without a home. At the end of the day, he does not think that Recreation belongs at the Town Hall.
Lucy Neiman stated that she agreed with Ms. Arthur’s vision. Balls and yoga belong elsewhere. The Great Hall would be perfect for cultural and senior programs.
Erik Palson stated that there is no free lunch. He has heard people say that everything should be put in this old building. That could be a false economy if a larger addition is needed to accommodate Recreation. Providing temporary lodging for Recreation may be OK. It is going to be tough to build a larger Town Hall than is needed today. He stated that he had talked to all of the other departments. None wanted to be near Recreation, he said.
Mr. Azzi asked how much space was included in Recreation programming in the Space Needs Committee study last year. Paul Goldman stated that it was 680 sq. ft., for administration use only. Ms. Arthur stated that there is not enough space currently. She uses 25-30 percent of the Sewer office for Recreation Department needs. However, that prevents her from helping with visitors to the Recreation Department. Editor’s note: Ms. Arthur also runs the Sewer Department. Ms. Arthur acknowledged that the 900 sq. ft. in the prior AG Architects study was a push. Editor’s note: This is the figure arrived at by AG for Recreation in late 2011. In March 2012, the voters rejected continuing with Town Hall design and development. The 2012 Space Needs Committee was then formed, which reduced the space need from the 15,000 sq. ft. proposed by AG to 10,500 sq. ft., plus or minus 10 percent. Ms. Arthur stated that she does not believe that the building will be overbuilt.
As this portion of the meeting ended, Ms. Arthur and the members of the Recreation Commission left.
SMP work session (66:17 elapsed)
Erik Palson presented a 2 by 3 foot board that he had neglected to bring to the prior meeting. It showed a 26 foot wide addition, connected in an “L” shape to the back of the Town Hall. According to figures on the board, the footprint was 2678 sq. ft., for a total of 8034 sq. ft. with 3 floors. Editor’s note: That would provide over 14,000 sq. ft. once the 6000 sq. ft. of the existing Town Hall is added, significantly exceeding the 10,500 sq. ft., plus or minus 10 percent, that the 2012 Space Needs Committee arrived at. Their report was the basis for the passage of 2013 Warrant Article 4, which provided the funds to proceed with Town Hall.
Peter White, referring to the L-shaped addition stated that he is not sure that what was displayed was the concept that was intended by the 26-feet limit in the warrant article. Editor’s note: 2013 Warrant Article 4 limits any extension in an easterly direction to one-third of the length of the existing building. This has been calculated to be 26 feet. A rectangular addition in line with the building was what was envisioned, Mr. White said. Mr. Palson responded that the addition would be significantly smaller if that were the case, and would take it off the table. It would be tiny, he said. Mr. White then went through the numbers, using a width of 40 feet and arriving at a footprint of about 1000 sq. ft. Selectman Musselman stated that that would provide only 3000 sq. ft. of additional space with two floors and a basement.
Peter White stated that, when added to the 6000 sq. ft. of the existing building, the building would be within 10 percent of the targeted 10,500 sq. ft. Editor’s note: It would be slightly smaller than the 9450 sq. ft. that is 90 percent of the 10,500 sq. ft. target size. Beth Yeaton stated that there was no way that office space would fit within that. Mr. White stated that perhaps it would if the addition is 40 by 32. Chairman Azzi stated that there is a concern as to how large the addition can be and still be subservient.
Mr. Palson then described two solutions to the problem noted last time regarding the lack of restrooms to service the Great Hall. One solution showed two restrooms located between the curvilinear stairs at the western end of the building. The Building Code requirement is one fixture per 60 men and one fixture per 120 men. That can be met with the available space between these stairs. Also there are other restroom facilities throughout the complex if there is a line.
The second option would be to retain the storage adjacent to the curvilinear stairs and locate the bathrooms behind the stage. In that case, a portion of what is now the porch would be enclosed, adding somewhat to the cost.
Mr. Palson then showed a number of boards showing views of the building from various angles. It showed the stairs between the buildings hidden by a tree, with the two buildings within a few feet of each other. Editor’s note: See notes of October 10 and 22, 2013 meetings for a full description of the concept of two buildings. Briefly, in the design proposed by SMP, the two building are joined by a short connector, covered in dirt and providing access between the buildings at the first floor level. Access at the second floor level is across a courtyard that is up a flight of stairs from the lower parking lot, but on a level with the upper parking lot currently used by the church.
Mr. Palson indicated that there is a video fly around of the building on You Tube. Sam Winebaum, present in the audience, pulled out his iPad and showed the video. Editor’s note: Search for “Rye Town Hall site model” on www.youtube.com, or enter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49LoJ4_R04w into your browser.
Paula Merritt suggested that a 3D view be provided showing the Church and cemetery as well. Mr. Palson agreed to add the Church.
The discussion then moved to the format of the public interaction session. Mr. Palson stated that an overview would be provided and then people would be permitted to come up and discuss the plan.
(89:00 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman asked whether they were at the fork on the one building/two building decision, or whether that decision would be deferred until December. Chairman Victor Azzi agreed that the single building option could and would be taken off. Peter White stated that he was not quite there yet on that issue.
Paula Merritt expressed concern that the uppermost issue in many people’s minds would be the effect on taxes. Some might question the cost of a separate building.
Selectman Musselman stated that they needed to explain that debt service costs are coming down and will provide room for Town Hall financing. He cautioned, however, that people will see what is in the CIP Plan for projects after the Town Hall and may become concerned. Town Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie stated that she will bring information on debt service costs.
Peter White asked for confirmation that there is no square footage number yet and thus no financial estimate. That was acknowledged.
Approval of minutes (96:32 elapsed)
The minutes of the prior meeting were unanimously approved, with Selectman Jenness abstaining as she had not been there.
Further discussion (102:37 elapsed)
Peer White asked what the minimum and maximum distances from the old to the new building would be. Mr. Palson responded that the minimum would be determined by “you,” the maximum by the desire not to have a longer and more unpleasant tunnel. He noted that aesthetically, a minimum of 12-24 feet is needed so that there is a break between the buildings. Peter Kasnet asked what the gap was in the example design displayed. Mr. Palson responded estimating that it was about 16 feet, which he described as 5 feet plus another 5 feet, plus a little extra. Historic preservationists will want a clear distinction between the buildings, not anything that is confusing, he said.
Attendance on November 7 by Heritage Commission and other boards (111:14 elapsed)
Chairman Victor Azzi stated that Mae Bradshaw of the Heritage Commission had originally wanted to have the Heritage Commission meet with the Town Hall Committee at the November 7, 2013 meeting. After that meeting had been swapped with this one, she had been unable to attend this meeting (i.e. the November 5 meeting). Peter White stated that a number of Heritage Commission members would be attending on Thursday night, November 7, 2013. Chairman Victor Azzi reported that he had not heard anything from other Boards and Commissions that had been invited.
Public Recognition (112:42 elapsed)
Peter Crawford asked how much more expensive it would be if the buildings were located farther apart. Mr. Palson declined to provide a figure, but acknowledged that it would not be hugely expensive. A longer wall would be needed to resist the force of the earth of the hill. It would not be anything exotic, he said.
Mr. Palson noted, however, that having the second building 40 feet away would create two concerns. First, the cost would be higher. Second, it would be more difficult going from one building to the other.
Beth Yeaton stated that that separating the two buildings would be taking away from the square footage. Mr. Palson pointed out that the building has a funny shape because of the setback. Editor’s note: One of the boards displayed had the second building, which at the prior meeting was determined to be 7982 sq. ft., located adjacent to the 30 foot setback line. As the property line proceeds in a northeast/southwest direction, while the existing Town Hall and the addition are arranged along an east/west axis, the more northerly portions of the addition come closer to the property line and must be narrowed in width to avoid encroaching into the setback. Ms. Yeaton’s comment is correct only if one starts with an assumption that the second building is 7982 sq. ft. (i.e. almost 14,000 sq. ft. for the Town Hall with the addition). Reducing the size of the addition to the 10,500 sq. ft. determined by the 2012 Space Needs Committee study would provide additional room for separating the two buildings. Also the Town is not required to abide by the Zoning Ordinance and may build within the setback.
Sara Hall asked if the surface appearance of the tunnel could be clarified. Mr. Palson responded that one would not know from the inside of the tunnel that one was underground. Editor’s note: Sara Hall is on the Heritage Commission. Mr. Palson did not answer her question, which referred to the exterior appearance.
Cecilia Azzi noted that whatever is done would cost money. Mr. Palson added that putting the upstairs of the existing Town Hall back the way it was would be quick and inexpensive as the modifications were done with reversal in mind. Adding new offices up there would cost more than that.
Ms. Azzi then observed that, at the Space Needs Committee meetings the prior year, the option of a second building that was attached did not come up. Mr. Palson responded that the design was an attempt to satisfy two camps. One camp was concerned about the visual impact of a large, single building. The other wanted a single building with everything attached due to improved functionality. This design connects the two buildings without actually attaching them. Lucy Neiman noted that another key reason was providing access. A second elevator would be needed if the buildings were not attached.
Adjournment (118:47 elapsed)
Whereupon the meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m.
