04/09/1992 (2)
r
? MAAS BROTHERS
TASK FORCE
MINUTES
t
1
I mo
0 Maas Task Force
Members present:
HAAS BROTHERS TASK FORCE MEETING
April 9, 1992
Ed Mazur, Chairperson
Jim Graham, vice-Chairperson (tour)
Hal Ebersole
Stephen Saliga (tour)
Wray Register
Bob Bickerstaffe (tour)
Joshua Magidson
Gregory Jewell (tour)
Debra Weible
Nancy Simmons
David Little (tour)
John B. Johnson
Members absent:
Phoebe Moss
Jackie Tobin
Robert Kennedy
Also present:
Michael J. Wright, City Manager
Jerry Sternstein, Economic Development Director
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk
An inspection tour of the Maas Brothers facility was conducted
at 3:00 p.m. by City staff members Building & Maintenance
Superintendent Steve Kelly, Energy Manager John Peddy, Building
official Vic Chodora, Public Works Director Bill Baker and Engineer
Jim Wood for members of the task force and interested parties.
In response to questions regarding the condition of the
building, it was indicated due to lack of maintenance over the past
2-3 years there are severe corrosion problems in the chill water
lines which need to be replaced. Internal water leaks from the
air-conditioning system caused ceiling damage. The air-
conditioning and chiller systems are the original ones and'two of
the chillers are not working. The fire sprinkler system was
indicated to be in good condition.
Discussion ensued in regard to load requirements and what type
of improvements would be needed. It was indicated this would
depend on the use of the structure. The use of the building and
type of improvements would dictate the amount of-asbestos removal
that would be necessary and the remaining asbestos would need to be
monitored. It was indicated the exits may require widening to meet
1
4/9/92
3. },
fire code and the brackets on the exterior panels of the building
are rusting. The escalators do not meet code.
There was discussion regarding part of the building being free
standing with a southwest addition having been added at a later
date. It was questioned whether just the addition could be
demolished.
There was discussion regarding the expense of meeting EPA
requirements.
In touring the lower level where the restaurant was located,
it was noted all the kitchen equipment had been removed. It was
also noted that some of the wood cabinets and walls in the building
had termite damage. It was indicated the elevator is in need of
repair.
The inspection tour ended at 3:55 p.m.
The meeting of the Maas Brothers Task Force was called to
order at 4:12 p.m. at the Clearwater Main Library.
Approval of the March 26, 1992 Minutes
Member Saliga questioned the figures appearing in an article
in the St. Petersburg Times' regarding the overall cost if the site
? is developed as a park. It was pointed out the cost was noted on
.j page 4 of the minutes. A question was raised if Member Saliga
wanted the minutes to reflect he had made the statement and he
indicated he did. The minutes will reflect this amendment.
Mr. Bickerstaffe moved to approve the minutes as amended. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
In response to a question, Parks & Recreation Director Ream
Wilson said he was in the process of answering the list of
questions submitted by Mr. Little and indicated he would have this
information in approximately one to two weeks.
A question was raised regarding the art center's interest and
it was indicated representatives from the center were present for
the inspection tour and are present at the meeting.
A drawing was submitted by member Saliga depicting a proposal
which combined the Maas Brothers Building with Coachman Park. He
said citizen input had been considered in the design and could be
implemented in phases. The proposal included a restaurant with a
panoramic view that could be used for activities such as weddings,
proms, etc.; ample parking with the possibility of a plaza built
over existing parking which could be used for special events such
as July 4th, Jazz Holiday, etc.; a ferry, cruise and boat dock;
specialty shops, small restaurants, grocery store; youth and adult
?? Maas Task Force 2 4/9/92
activities, an exhibition center for arts and crafts, and a tram
from downtown to the beach.
There was discussion in regard to the 28-foot line and the
City Manager indicated, if the property is developed under the
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) who holds title to the Maas
Brothers property, the 28-foot rule would not apply.
The Chairman indicated a statement had been requested
previously from the City Attorney regarding that issue.
Discussion ensued in regard to the building containing a large
amount of square footage. A statement was made that with some
renovation the building was in good enough condition to be used for
another 10-15 years.
Discussion ensued in regard to whether it was more cost
effective to use the existing building or to build a new one as it
had been indicated the air-conditioning system needed replacement,
the electrical system did not meet code and there were leaks
throughout the building.
It was estimated a new 30,000 square foot shell could be
constructed for approximately $30 per square foot. In response to
a question, it was indicated add-ons such as impact fees, plans,
permits, infrastructure costs, etc. would add approximately 7-10
percent to the cost. It was indicated there could be impact fee
trade offs for current use versus existing use of the building.
There was discussion regarding the building being basically
sound and having the best location on the west coast of Florida.
A statement was made the City should not invest any more money in
the building but rent it on a leasehold improvement basis. It was
felt, due to its size, the building could accommodate almost
anything such as bowling lanes, a conference center, dance halls,
specialty shops, etc.; a statement was made it was hoped the
building would be gone within the next 10-15 years and the property
developed as a passive park.
In response to a question, it was indicated when building use
is changed, for example, from a retail store to a nightclub, the
traffic impacts could be tremendous.
It was felt the City's leasing this building could produce a
great deal of revenue with the right attractions with a majority of
different investors sharing the major repair costs such as the
roof, air conditioning, elevator, etc. (estimated roof repair -
$212,000; air-conditioning costs - $100,000; elevator repair -
$150,000).
In response to a question, it was indicated the City could
designate what type activities would go into the building. Concern
Maas Task Force 3 4/9/92
/'
,,_1
4?
was expressed there are not enough activities for today f s youth and
it was felt something should be included for them.
There was discussion regarding the need to replace the
auditorium that was demolished when Pierce 100 was built. It was
felt it helped to keep the downtown alive.
Using the $30 per square foot figure and an additional 7-10
percent for infrastructure costs, impact fees, etc., it was
estimated it would cost almost one-half less for the City to
renovate the building (approximately $3.3 million which includes
the cost of the property) than for a developer to put up a new
building and lease the property. If renovated, the city could have
control of the building and retain a portion of it for a civic
room, transportation hub, arts and crafts area, etc. and sublease
for far less than a developer.
Discussion ensued in regard to the addition at the southwest
corner of the building being removed allowing a cut for traffic,
opening the vista and still leaving a sizeable structure for
private or public use. In response to a question, it was indicated
this could be done structurally.
There was discussion regarding the estimated $30 per square
foot figure including just an empty shell. It was indicated the
existing structure would be the same as an empty shell once
everything was removed. A question was raised if anything inside
the building was usable, and it was felt not much could be
salvaged.
A statement was made that the asset value of the building was
estimated at approximately $6 million as it would take that amount
to replace what is currently there excluding the parking area.
Discussion ensued in regard to the parking and it was felt parking
costs would be minor compared to other costs. It was pointed out
there is value in the parking area and, if turned into parklands,
this asset would be lost. It was indicated if the building is
demolished, the existing parking lot could be resurfaced.
Concern was expressed, if a new structure is built, the
possibility of this site being developed as parkland in the future
would be slim. it was felt in the next 10-15 years the downtown
would develop towards the east and waterfront service would be
necessary. It was felt the existing building could be leased to
tenants that would provide the services needed in this area to
bring people downtown. It was indicated leasehold improvements
could be amortized over a 5--15 year period and the leases could be
on a 5 year renewal basis; however, concern was expressed this
would limit a potential developer with large scale plans.
Maas Task Force 4
4/9/92
There was concern expressed that tax revenues would be
affected if the building is demolished. It was said a closer look
needed to be taken at what the revenues would be if the City owned
and leased the building or if the property is redeveloped by a
developer and leased from the City.
It was indicated the City would need to make some exterior
improvements as the building was found to be unattractive. It was
felt if the property is sold to a developer, the possibility of a
multi-purpose civic room or auditorium would not be good and it was
indicated this could be stipulated.
There was discussion regarding advertising to see if vendors
may be interested in leasing space in the building. It was
indicated many vendors are going out of business in some of the
strip shopping centers and are looking for other locations.
Discussion ensued in regard to the City offering low rent to
tenants in order to bring in businesses such as beauty shops,
retail, etc. to replace what was lost when Maas Brothers went out
of business. It was felt this building could be the nucleus to
bring people back to downtown especially if space is available at
a good rate.
There was discussion regarding trying to lease property on
Garden Avenue and Drew Street in the downtown area for a number of
years and not being very successful and it was indicated the Maas
building is in a prime location due to the waterfront.
It was questioned if the cost of a transportation hub was
considered when estimating the square footage cost. It was
indicated the tram system is being proposed for the future. There
is presently transportation servicing the beach and the mainland.
it was questioned whether potential tenants would be willing
to make extensive leasehold improvements plus pay a square footage
charge with the possibility of the building being demolished after
a number of years. Using the building temporarily to produce
income was favored.
It was felt the park space could be increased tremendously by
using Drew Street and the tennis court property. A question was
raised as to who would benefit by eliminating Drew street for a
park and it was indicated this would be attractive in making the
park contiguous with the bay.
In response to a question, it was indicated keeping Drew
Street open provides convenience for beach goers and allows access
to parking areas.
Maas Task Force 5 4/9/52
There was discussion regarding possible concessions having to
be made by the City whether they lease space, demolish the building
or have a developer come in.
Discussion ensued in regard to the wisdom of renovating a 30-
year old building due to continuous maintenance problems.
A suggestion was made to allow the entire bluff area to be
developed to create competition from all over the country.
A question was raised why someone would want to pay more to
rent and refurbish an old building when they could rznt newer space
in a mall for far less. It was felt this was not feasible in
today's economy. It was again noted the Maas Brothers site is
waterfront property which makes it more attractive to renters.
Envisioning this property as a convention center was
questioned as it was indicated the beach hotels can provide this
service for less without transportation concerns. It was indicated
there is a need to accommodate smaller conventions.
Discussion ensued in regard to the committee's goal of
providing as much green space as possible while providing the most
for the people of Clearwater.
A question was raised whether the Maas site is or could be a
E catalyst to kick off development in other parts of Clearwater or
whether leaving this area alone would bring focus to other areas of
the downtown.
Discussion ensued in regard to the probability of more than
one recommendation being made to the city commission as it was felt
a consensus would not be reached regarding the use of the Maas
site.
A statement was made that leaving the area from Drew Street to
Osceola Avenue and the entire bluff as open space would encourage
people to look for successful ventures and activity centers there.
Member Saliga moved to consider the drawing submitted to the
task force as the approach to existing building use unless a better
alternative is presented. The motion was duly seconded.
Discussion ensued in regard to whether the committee should be
taking a position before all options have been considered and it
was indicated this drawing could be approved as a point of
reference.
Member Little moved to amend the motion by adding to the
proposal the elimination of Drew Street, the removal of the
southwest corner of the Maas Brothers building for a traffic turn
Maas Task Force 6 4/9/92
r
and the inclusion of a civic auditorium. The motion was duly
seconded and upon the vote being taken Members Weible, Register,
Little, Bickerstaffe and Jewell voted "aye," Members Simmons,
Graham, Madgison, Ebersole, Saliga, Johnson and i1azur voted "nay,"
Motion failed.
Upon the vote being taken on the original motion, Member
Saliga voted "aye," Members Weible, Register, Simmons, Graham,
Madgison, Ebersole, Johnson, Little, Bickerstaff, Jewell and Mazur
voted "nay." Motion failed.
In response to 'a question, the Chairman said he had been
contacted by Richard Gehring and a presentation would be given at
the next meeting by a group working on the downtown bayfront area
of Tampa.
Discussion ensued in regard to the Board coming up with a
recommendation after the first meeting in May and having a package
ready to present to the Commission by the second meeting in May.
The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
ATTEST:
Ci Clerk
Maas Task Force
7
4/9/92
?t