Loading...
03/12/1992 MAAS BROTHERS TASK FORCE MEETING March 12, 1992 Members present: Ed Mazur, Chairperson Jim Graham, Vice-Chairperson (arrived 4:07) John B. Johnson Phoebe Moss Robert Kennedy Wray Register Bob Bickerstaffe David Little Joshua Magidson Jackie Tobin Stephen Saliga Debra Weible (arrived 5:07) Nancy Simmons (arrived 4:09) Absent: Hal Ebersole Gregory Jewell Also Present: Michael J. Wright, City Manager Cynthia E. Goudeau, City Clerk The meeting was called to order at 4:04 p.m. at the Clearwater Main Library. ITEM #2 - Approval of Minutes Member Magidson moved to approve the minutes of February 13, 1992 and February 27, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Presentation: George Athens - Moonbeams David Chianco, Attorney for George Athens and Moonbeams, stated they are recommending the use of Moonbeams for the Maas Brothers property. A packet of information had been distributed to the Maas Brothers Task Force previously. He stated Moonbeams will provide a viable tenant for Maas brothers as well as provide teens with an alternative to cruising. The facility could also provide banquet and ballroom facilities. Mr. Chianco reviewed Mr. Athens background stating he is a graduate from FSU Business School in hotel management, and he has operated many facilities in the country. In response to a question regarding how much of the building the Moonbeams establishment would need, it was indicated it would need 15-25,000 square feet. Mr. Athens indicated his motivation is concern for the area and teens, and the Moonbeams facility is one he is proud of which provides a non-alcoholic facility for teen activity. In response to a question, Mr. Athens indicated the previous Moonbeams was open for two years and, when it was closed, was quite popular. Closure was due to complications with the owner of the shopping center in which the establishment was locate. In response to a question regarding what rental rate Mr. Athens would foresee paying, he indicated it would depend on the facility and what it offered; but he envisioned $3-4.00 per square foot. In response to a question, Mr. Athens indicated he was not interested in taking over the restaurant facility in the Maas Brothers building. A question was raised regarding parking needed, and Mr. Athens indicated the City Code required six to seven (6-7) spaces per 1,000 square feet. He stated they would need additional parking on friday and saturday nights. Questions were raised regarding whether or not Mr. Athens would be willing to do the renovations needed in the building, and he indicated he would be able to do some of them. Concerns were raised regarding liability insurance in the parking lot, and Mr. Athens indicated that would be provided, and the lots would be patrolled by off-duty law enforcement officials. He also indicated the individuals entering the facility have to pass through several check points prior to actually entering. A question was raised regarding why the Maas Brothers site was chosen, and Mr. Athens indicated it seemed to be the most reasonable site, however it was not the only one. Discussion ensued regarding the ability to establish this facility in another location along Cleveland Street, and it was indicated parking would be a problem. A question was raised regarding how long of a lease Mr. Athens would want, and he indicated at least 20 years. In response to a question regarding how this establishment would compare with the current non-alcoholic teen facility called Off Limits, Mr. Athens indicated that, when the Moonbeams facility was opened in another location, it had 95% of the business. ITEM - Police Report Regarding Maas Brothers Building Investigation Included in the packet of material to the Maas Brothers Task Force is a Police Report from an investigation done of the Maas Brothers Building. The City Clerk reported that Mr. Saliga had reported to her a phone call that may have been a threat regarding the security of the Maas Brothers site. She notified the Police; they did an investigation of the property and found there was nothing amiss. Extra police patrols are being done in this area. She further reported staff is researching additional information regarding what is needed to make the building useable in terms of repairs and costs. Mr. Saliga indicated he received the call anonymously one evening and took it to be a threat to the property. ITEM #4 - Position Statements It was suggested the Task Force get a feel for a preliminary idea of what the majority of the Task Force feels should be done with the property. A suggestion was also made that the committee divide into groups and make presentations. Mr. Magidson stated he felt it was in the best interest of the City to have a park in this location, and breaking down into groups would be a waste of time. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not development should take place on top of the bluff, or whether it should be a park. It was suggested discussion return to the initial concept and that each member briefly state what they currently feel should be done on the property. Mr. Johnson indicated he felt the building should be demolished, and the property made into a park. He stated at a later time, consideration for other uses could be made. Mr. Saliga indicated he did not feel a City park would be used; he did not feel Drew Street should be closed to take the park to the waterfront. He stated his position is provided in the paper he submitted at the last Task Force meeting. He stated what needs to be done is to provide something for the most people, and he felt two viable uses were the art center and Moonbeams recommendations. He stated both of these could be done with very few dollars expended. Mrs. Moss stated she did not feel a park would bring people downtown. She felt the City should advertise for developers to see what they suggest should be done with the property to include the entire bluff. She stated the Moonbeams facility would be good if it could be worked in. She indicated concern regarding the release of the East End Project RFQ, feeling it would be detrimental to development of Maas Brothers. She reiterated she would like to see the property developed, and to add the current parking to the parkland. Mrs. Tobin indicated she was leaning toward the Arts Council taking the building. She did not feel downtown would become a retail facility; and she did not see that increased parkland would be used. Mr. Graham stated he felt the City had a viable ability to create a retail atmosphere, and the upper portion of the bluff should be put out to developers. Mr. Bickerstaffe indicated he was waiting to see if there was an ability to use the existing building. Mr. Little indicated he felt the committee should keep an open mind, and there is a need to explore a lot more ideas. He did not feel the park was viable. He stated he wished to hear from staff regarding how much parkland we already have. He has questions for the Art Center, and the only way to get these answers is to go out and ask. He suggested the committee break up into groups. Mr. Bickerstaffe reiterated this site is the only park site the City has on the waterfront. Mr. Kennedy indicated he felt the City should go out for RFQs as it did on the East End Project, and that commercial and not for profit entities could submit proposals. He did not feel the RFQ should limit development to the bluff, while as a practical matter it would probably would be. He felt that during the RFQ process there should be an interim use for the building, and he suggested a trial of using the parking area as a beach transportation hub be pursued. Mrs. Register indicated she felt there was a need for an auditorium in downtown; however, she was not sure the Maas site was the place for it. She does support closing Drew Street; and if the building has to come down because of the need for part of that corner, she would recommend the Arts Council taking over the property. Mrs. Simmons indicated she supports as much green space as possible, and there needs to be something attractive done with the property as the current Maas Brothers building is very unattractive. She did feel the cultural arts proposal would generate the needed aesthetics. Mr. Bickerstaffe, explained his reasoning behind the need to replace the auditorium. He stated the previous one was used for conferences and small conventions, and was on the waterfront. He stated it should be developed within the existing footprint. Mr. Bickerstaffe moved that, considering the condition of the building, an auditorium should be placed on the existing footprint either in the existing building or a new building to simulate the auditorium that was previously on the waterfront, and that this facility should be totally City owned and operated. The motion was seconded for discussion. Concerns were expressed regarding this being a final vote. It was indicated this was just to get an idea of how people are leaning. Concerns were expressed there was no objection to a convention center auditorium, but it was not felt the waterfront was a proper location. Mr. Bickerstaffe indicated he felt it would be an anchor for the development to the north, that the prior facility was very profitable and brought in enough revenue to cover all activities. Upon the vote being taken, Members Bickerstaffe and Saliga voted "aye." Members Mazur, Graham, Johnson, Kennedy, Little, Magidson, Moss, Register, Tobin, Weible and Simmons voted "nay." Motion failed. Mr. Graham moved to direct staff to further investigate to determine the true cost to bring the building into viable use. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued regrading the need for this, with several members saying they felt the building should come down and they did not feel this was time well spent. Other members stated that while they felt the building did need to come down, there are questions regarding the viability of using the existing building that needed to be answered. A question was raised regarding whether or not the motion intended to ask for renovations for a first class operation or minimal use. Mr. Graham indicated the intent of his motion was to address the minimal and, therefore, he amended his motion to include that. Therefore, the motion is stated as "staff be directed to further investigate the true cost to bring the building into its minimal viable use". The seconder accepted the amendment. Upon the vote being taken, Members Moss, Register, Tobin, Simmons, Bickerstaffe, Saliga, Mazur, Graham, Kennedy and Little voted "aye." Members Weible, Magidson and Johnson voted "nay." The motion carried. Mr. Little moved that the Task Force adopt the strategy outline submitted in his March 5th proposal to the Task Force, and there be four sub-committees that will bring back reports to the full committee, and a final recommendation will be approved by the committee at its meeting of May 28th. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued regarding the need to break down into sub-committees and how this wold be done. Concerns were expressed regarding the committee and staff having enough time to prepare the reports for the planned meetings, and to ask for additional input from outside agencies. It was indicated the Task Force would not sunset at the end of May, but they were asked to try and finish their work at that time; it can take longer if need be. Concerns were expressed that the traffic situation still needed to be considered. In response to a question, the City Clerk indicated the Chamber of Commerce along with a coalition of other agencies would be making a presentation to the committee regarding their proposal at the next meeting. A question was raised regarding the ability to break up into sub-committees in light of the Sunshine Law. The City Clerk explained that each sub-committee would be under the same requirements as the full committee in meeting the Sunshine Law requirements, that is that staff would have to be present to do minutes, and all meetings would be open to the public. Concerns were expressed regarding the ability to coordinate this and to have staff available for all sub-committee meetings. Mr. Little indicated he wished to adjust his motion, in light of the requirements of the Sunshine Law, to not require sub-committees. Further discussion ensued regarding how to handle input to the committee on the various options. The seconder withdrew his second, and Mr. Little withdrew his motion. Mr. Little moved to adopt the format in his letter of March 5, to follow the outline that would have the topics of discussion as follows: March 26 - open parkland use, April 9 - existing building uses, April 23 - private redevelopment of the site, May 14 - public redevelopment of the site for public uses; at the May 28 meeting, the final recommendation would be reached. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued regarding the format, and it was indicated presentations scheduled at the beginning of each meeting will not be limited to the topic scheduled for that meeting. Concerns were expressed regarding the ability to obtain input from private developers. A concern was expressed that the committee did not need to be going into this much detail and it was time to start making decisions without additional input. Upon the vote being taken, Members Bickerstaffe, Saliga, Mazur, Graham, Kennedy, Little, Moss, Register, Tobin and Simmons voted "aye." Members Magidson, Johnson and Weible voted "nay." The motion carried. The Chairman asked for specific questions that the committee wished to have addressed at the March 26 meeting regarding open parkland. It was requested that information regarding demolition costs of the building and the parking lot, the cost to develop the property into a park, whether or not there is a need for more parkland, how much parkland currently exists in the City, information regarding the need for the existing tennis courts, and specific operation and maintenance costs of a park be provided. It was requested that, when the existing building uses are discussed, information be provided regarding what would be needed for different types of uses, i.e. floor loading for a dance facility as opposed to an art gallery. In response to a question regarding whether or not the possible use of this facility as a City hall would be discussed, it was stated staff would present pros and cons for that issue at that meeting. It was requested the Arts Council and Moonbeams be notified regarding the discussion for private development, and they need to be sure the building meets their needs. Concern was expressed regarding the need for the Task Force members to see the building again as some members were unable to tour it the last time. Consensus was to set a tour of the building for 3:00 on April 9 prior to the 4:00 meeting. A question was raised regarding when would be the appropriate time to get additional input from the City Attorney. It was indicated it was felt this would be needed when the Task Force is reaching consensus. Mr. Magidson expressed his opposition to investigating in such detail, stating that was the City Commission's job. He stated the committee is here to recommend to the Commission what they feel is the right thing to do with the site. The Chairman indicated he is no different from any other member, except he can not make a motion. He requested members make motions whenever they feel they need to get an idea of how the committee feels about a certain topic. ITEM #5 - Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.