Loading...
04/09/1992 MAAS BROTHERS TASK FORCE MEETING April 9, 1992 Members present: 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 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 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 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 was expressed there are not enough activities for today'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. 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. 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 rent 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 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 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 Mazur 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.