Loading...
03/31/1997 - Clearwater Beach Family Aquatic Center Public Meeting CLEARWATER BEACH FAMILY AQUATICS CENTER PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER March 31, 1997 Present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Robert Clark Commissioner Karen Seel Commissioner Ream Wilson Parks and Recreation Director Gwen Legters Board Reporter Project Design Team: Avinash Gupta Post, Buckley, Shuh & Jernigan Richard Scott Water Technology, Inc. Art Kader Parks and Recreation Asst. Director Steve Miller Recreation Programming Superintendent Staff Review Team: Margo Walbolt Senior Recreation Supervisor Jan Harrison Recreation Supervisor John Llaugett Community Center Supervisor Kathy LaTerza Senior Recreation Supervisor Parks and Recreation Director Ream Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at Clearwater Beach Recreation Center. The purpose of the meeting was to receive public input regarding design and operation of the proposed Clearwater Beach Family Aquatics Center. Mr. Wilson introduced the City Commissioners, City staff, and the project design team. Reviewing the project budget, Mr. Wilson said $575,000 is budgeted for the aquatic center: $500,000 for construction, and $75,000 for professional services. It was indicated the trend in public pool designs is moving away from the traditional rectangular shape with competitive swim lanes, toward more interesting features that might appeal to a larger number of people. Recreation Programming Superintendent Steve Miller discussed the location. He referred to maps, site plans, and renderings illustrating two different options for site configuration, building aesthetics, amenities, floor plan, and ADA accessibility. Discussion ensued regarding construction time table, staffing needs, and facility operating season. While building costs were more than had been anticipated, he said staff is responsible for designing a pool within the designated budget. Mr. Wilson said four competitive lanes are proposed. Adding a fifth lane would add $35,000 to construction costs. Suggestions from the public included covering and heating the pool for year round operation, adding more lanes, and bringing in competitive swim teams. Residents who wished for a competitive swimming facility expressed concerns with reducing the number of lanes from what previously existed in favor of more tourist oriented activities. Concerns were expressed some Long Center programs are already operating at capacity. Some felt Clearwater beach to be a better location for water play activities. Staff responded they carefully considered how to design a facility to replace the former Pier 60 pool, meet residents' needs, add activities to attract tourists, and keep the project within budget. The site is not large enough to support team competitions. It was felt the relatively small number of people who would attend during winter months would not justify the cost overruns for a year round operation. Mr. Wilson stressed the City will continue the competitive swimming programming formerly enjoyed at Pier 60 pool while adding water park amenities to attract the public. Discussion ensued regarding months, days, and hours of operation; cost of admission; appropriate water depth and slope for safe play compared to depth needed for competition; addition of starting blocks; insurance requirements; cost difference to add lanes and increase water depth for competitive use; proposed shade umbrellas; risks of sun exposure; and features of the former Pier 60 facility. One man pointed out the locations of other City pool facilities do not have the aesthetic draw of Clearwater Beach. He indicated bringing swim meets to the beach and staying open during the winter tourist season would provide economic benefits to the surrounding community to help justify the additional construction costs. Staff and the design professionals compared and contrasted features of a general use neighborhood pool to those required for meet swimming. It was indicated the ability to bring in quality swim meets with a 25 meter pool was doubtful because most revenue producing meets would need a 50 meter pool. Discussion ensued regarding whether building design costs could be cut in order to include more of the competitive features wanted by the public. Questions were raised why Ross Norton pool is kept open during the winter if it is not frequently used. Suggestions were made to design the pool to allow the addition of lanes, heat, and other desirable amenities in the future, as the budget allows. Mr. Wilson suggested consideration of seeking community sponsors who might be interested in funding certain amenities. General consensus of public opinion was that more money should be spent to design an option more conducive to competitive use, to include some water park amenities, six lanes, increased water depth, run piping for future heating, and year round operation. Mr. Wilson agreed to look into incorporating these suggestions, stating the City wishes to design a facility that is desirable to the primary users. Discussion ensued regarding public input received prior to demolition of Pier 60 pool; parking for the new pool; flood elevation; stormwater retention; adding a lane marker for a visual barrier between shallow and deeper water; solar versus gas heating; and how the proposed changes will affect the construction time schedule. It was felt the public will not need to meet with the engineering consultants again. Staff will send out a new schedule and meet with neighborhood groups as needed when the new timetable is known. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.