He's got a beautiful. For me to. See. I grew up in. I grew up in a small. I grew up in. You have
35,000 people with five public schools.
That's part of the job. 630 I called to order the planning and zoning meeting of
Monday, March 16th, 2026. 26. Okay. Before we start, before we go to the roll call, our clerk has made a special request that everybody talks
into the microphone. I'm loud enough that I can get it from far away, but okay, got to hit that mic. Can we have a roll call, please? Thank you, vice
chair Vessey. Vice chair. Vessey. Yes. Here, Mr. Rocklin, present. Miss Swenson here, Mr. Collins here. Miss Wade here.
Chairperson Curtis is absent as well as Miss Early. Let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance
and invocation. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it
stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And if you can remain standing just for a
quick invocation. We live in a city, albeit small to medium sized in comparison to many. But this is our home. This is
our jurisdiction. And what's going on nationally, what's going on in the hemisphere, what's going on in the rest of the planet sometimes has a
trickle down effect to many of us, or our families or our friends, regardless of how distant it might be. So I just ask, regardless of what side of
the aisle you may sit on or where you're, you know, allegiances may lie that you pray in your own way for the safe return of those who are
serving our country abroad, and also the power of the righteous decision making by our leaders on every level of government, because it's important. And
sooner or later, whether you feel there's not a trickle down effect or not, whether it's us when we're older or our children or grandchildren, it usually results from what we
will refer to as history back then, which of course is now today. So let's just let's just give that a thought and a
prayer sometime today. Thank you. Amen. It would be the
moment for the quasi judicial announcement and the swearing in of all speakers. This is a quasi judicial proceeding where the Planning and Zoning Board
acts in a quasi judicial rather than a legislative capacity in a quasi judicial hearing. It is not the board's function to make law, but rather to apply the law that has already been
established in a quasi judicial hearing. The board is required by law to make findings of fact based on the evidence presented at the hearing, and apply those findings of fact to previously
established criteria contained that is contained in the Code of ordinances and make a legal decision regarding the application before it. The board may only consider
evidence that the law considers competent, substantial evidence that is relevant to the issue before it. If the competent, substantial evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the
applicant has met the criteria contained in the Code of ordinances, then the board is required by law to find in favor of the applicant. If the competent, substantial evidence finds that the applicant has
failed to meet the criteria contained in the Code of ordinances, then the board is required by law to find against the applicant. The only one
speaking. Anyone else who might speak, if you might speak, raise your right hand. Hold on. There's more people. Do you
swear or affirm your testimony before the Planning and Zoning Board shall be the truth, so help you I do. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll move on to our
one item of business for the evening ordinances and resolutions. We're going to hear for resolution 2026 Dash
16, which is quasi judicial. And the application is 26 dash 18. And we'll start with the
staff report, please. Okay. Thank you. Pat McNeice, planning Supervisor this
evening. Your item this evening is a site plan approval for the Tarpon Springs Municipal Golf
Course. Clubhouse replacement. This is a request to replace the existing clubhouse at the
golf course, which is about 116 acres in size. It is in a recreation and open space. Future land use map. Miss Mcniece, I'm going to interrupt you. I'm so sorry. I made a
small technical error that I'd like to correct. Before we go any further, are there any ex-parte disclosures that need to be made? That's true. I'm
sorry, I forgot. No, it was me. And that's a fancy word for gel chat with anybody about this here resolution we're about to hear with anybody else or know anybody or anything like that.
Anyone want to announce any ex-parte disclosures, anybody in the audience that's going to speak? Okay, super. Thank you, Miss Mcniece. Continue. All
right. This property is in the recreation open space future land use map category. And it is in the Agricultural Zoning District. The proposal is to
replace the clubhouse at the existing municipal golf course. The owners, the city of Tarpon Springs and the the agents
basically are here, which is our public services department, staff and DRM PR consultants on the project. This is just shows
the site. The golf course, of course, is the. Like I said, about 116 acres, the site of
slated for construction is just under a third of an acre or, I'm sorry, three quarters of an
acre. And this is an oblique aerial of the site. The proposed for construction. There's the existing park parking lot. There's an
existing clubhouse, obviously golf cart storage and a couple other buildings. It's basically surrounded by residential development. And then the
hospital across the street. This is the surrounding zoning. Again, all residential, pretty much except for the residential office, zoning across the
street for the hospital and professional offices, the agricultural zoning that covers the course is, as you can see,
it's kind of a holdover from from when this area was undeveloped. But agricultural zoning allows golf courses as a
conditional use. Of course, this is an existing conditional use. It's the oldest municipal course in the state, has been in continuous use for many
years. So the use is existing and all we're doing is replacing the existing clubhouse. This is a survey,
the little kind of orange area there is the existing clubhouse. So we have an existing parking lot and that will be used for
the new clubhouse. This is the site plan. So we have the new larger clubhouse, new parking added to the existing parking
and will be I'll show you the landscaping here in a minute. We'll have some additional added landscaping to this
project. The project we'll see in our standards or criteria for review is does meet the land development code. Overall,
the site layout, the existing parking lot serves as an emergency helicopter landing pad for the hospital when the
golf course is not operating. So it'd be mostly pretty much evening hours. So that parking lot has not been designed up to
current code parking, SOPs, landscaping, all that. It's it's remaining as is at this time. If in the future something changes that that can
be a project. If the city wants to do something with that parking lot to bring it up to the the current code. But that
is an agreement that's in place. So. So really just the new parking lot added just north of
the building is, is built to the current code or designed to the current code. This shows the landscaping. So there's quite a bit of landscaping
planned around the building for the new added parking. And up on the north side bordering the green dolphin development in
those areas. The northeast corner in particular has a large stand of Brazilian peppers, so that's going to be all be removed and they will be landscaping there. They'll be
screening the dumpster. So this will be a great improvement to the site. These the elevation views of the front and the back
of the building. And then this is just a rendering of the front of the building. So with respect to your review criteria,
the site plan is was found. It was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee on March 5th. It was found to be in compliance with the Land
Development code. The site layout is fine. There are some technical details that they have to revise to meet the kind
of the letter of the code for utilities and for stormwater. So those two items are added as conditions. Not so much. They are going to be done. But on
these resolutions, when we add those conditions, it's a go to for staff to remember. Oh, we got to check these boxes when the building permit comes in.
So those details will be added to the building permit application plans that are put in with the submittal for a
building permit. The project is in compliance with the recreation, open space standards and with the Agricultural District, so it is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. This is replacement of an existing clubhouse with a larger clubhouse. So we're going to have more fixtures and perhaps
more restroom facilities. So we will have an increase in potable water and sanitary sewer impacts. And the bill,
the city has the ability to and capacity to serve those for those impacts. And the other facilities will not increase
the change. The golf course chain use is not changing. It's still an 18 hole golf course.
And again, this was reviewed by TRC with our our building department fire. You know, our FEMA coordinator. So we expect this project to meet all the
technical codes. So staff is recommending approval of the proposed site plan subject to five conditions. Those are
written in detail in your staff report and in the resolution. Just to summarize, we're going to be looking for the final details of the utilities and stormwater on those plans
submitted with the building permit, construction plans and feed plans need to be consistent with this approved site plan. And really, since
this is a city project, probably one of the the only fee I'm aware of is going to be the public art fee. So this project is subject to public
art and the city has chosen to pay in lieu of providing public art. So that fee will be due. And then that all just the
general statement that all land development code provisions will be met. Any other jurisdictional permits will be obtained, and the site plan shall expire within six months
unless a permit is pulled for the project. Are there any questions? We're going to start
questions on our left tonight. What's the expect? What's the expected time for building? How
long? I'll let the applicant answer that one. When you ask them questions. Any other
questions? Good evening. You mentioned two things that I wrote down that I would like clarification. One was the city will pay in lieu of an art
project. Seems kind of weird that the city is the owner and we will be paying the city. Does that come from a different fund? Is that taken from the
golf Cart golf course fund to another fund? I'm just kind of it seems weird to me why a city is paying for their own, like,
penalty or fine. So that that is a requirement of the public art ordinance. So that that is in the code, the fees will be
going to the public art fund. I'll let the applicant answer. I mean, you know, it will come from some some funding category
in the city budget, but our staff, our public services staff can answer that. Right. I'll bring that back up. But yeah, and I guess the other
thing I could talk to the staff, but I was looking at the potable water, almost three x of what it currently uses. The square footage isn't that much
bigger or I'm just trying to say, is that like a very conservative number? Are we hosting events? Is this like, why so high? Would be my my
question. And I could also bring that up. Yeah. Well, the building will be more more than twice the size of the existing.
I'm sorry. Oh. Wow. Okay, so question and we can let the applicant answer the question, but it's more based on on water and sewer use. So it's going to
be the number of fixtures. What's in the building. So thank you. No questions. I appreciate it. Okay. And then
down to our right. Questions for staff. Yes, Susan. Okay. I had the questions on the potable, but I know that that's exact multiplier and so is the
wastewater. So my question is on the solid waste and the transportation. But I'll wait until they come up then. Okay. Thank you. And I will say the
transportation again is a is is calculated based on the I t e trip generation manual that I referenced there for an and
it's calculated by home. So it's still an 18 hole golf course. And that's what we're looking at. Well, you know, it's going to it's going to have a certain number of
players, a certain parking. The pro shop may be bigger, but it's still, you know, things like that, but they may be able
to give you more information on that. Any more questions? Susan?
Okay, Mr. Rockland, thanks, Patricia, for the for the presentation being that this is kind of a parallel use, albeit a slightly greater volume
facility, was there any necessity for notification to the residential apartments that are just to the north of it that may be impacted by noise
or dust or anything when construction begins, or would that be something that would be caused to happen by the issue of the building permit? There
will be no mailed notice or publication other than that the item is appearing on tonight's agenda. It will be on the Board of Commissioners agenda for
Tuesday the 24th. That's the notice for site plans. Thank you. I have a couple questions
I'd like to drill into the parking lot element of the project that. So and there's two elements of this. I'm hoping that you might be able
to provide some clarification. One of them's probably going to be pretty limited, but the other one you have a good handle on. So the first one is,
is how the. Use by the adjacent hospital of the parking lot as a helicopter pad. Allows for
noncompliance of the balance of the parking lot. So how does that go down? And that's only the first question and it'll go a little bit deeper. But just
in a nutshell, what is it about the helicopter pad? We know it gets used that way, but how within our law and our planning and zoning framework, does that
create an instant pass for the noncompliance of the rest of the parking? Go ahead. So what we're looking so the parking
numbers are in compliance. So I just want to clarify that they have actually a couple extra parking. So the number is fine for the building that's
proposed. It's the design of the parking lot. So the requirement for for landscaping is a big, big part of it, you
know, landscape islands and those sorts of things because it's used for that emergency access. I would say it's
similar to some site plans we've had on 19 that are under the Duke Energy Power Line corridor. We've had projects
that cannot install trees because of that. This would this would go along those same lines. So that would be, you know, something that just
because there's a, an overriding kind of agency. Agreement, prohibition, call it whatever, you know, whatever we want to, it's just not
something we can do at this time. Okay. So that helps, that helps. But I'm going to go just a little bit further. So I'm
going to add question 1.1. I still have a second one. So coincidentally I drive by a helicopter parking lot, parking pad twice a day, every day at
8HC hospital or h c h wherever it is. Frankly, it's not that big. It's just slab of concrete. It's got some circles around it and there's parking lot all
around it. So I want again, I want to be more specific since we don't have an overlay. So is the, the you may not be able to
answer this question. Okay. So is the entire parking lot, the helicopter landing pad. And then when that helicopter comes in, emergency services gets the
entire parking lot. Or is it just the section where the helicopter lands? And last but not least, this is still just 1.1. Is there a bona fide
operating agreement that occurs between the city and the hospital that designates that we can't touch that because of that? So is there a contractual document somewhere that should
be submitted with the site plan that's implementing this? Because it seems like kind of a big deal. That's kind of just being. Well, don't look over here, okay? Please. Okay. I'll
let the applicant answer the second question. And part of the first, I'll just start out the first question with when this happens, there are
multiple emergency vehicles that have to be involved, close the road, etc. So it's not just that there's a circle with the helicopter landing, then
they're transporting someone either to it or from it, etc. so I'll let the applicant elaborate on that for you. Fair enough. Okay, last but not
least, this is the actual other question, and this is very, very special. I appreciate that it's special, I do, but. If
this development were this proposed project, were not to be public and were not to be the city, I struggle with the
fact that they would get the same ease of disregarding the rules that are very clear, very
concise, that we endeavor as a community to enforce and improve, such as getting rid of hot spots or heat pads, or old
parking lots that don't have any landscape in them. Now I understand why, but it kind of smells funny to me as and so
I'm just curious, was there any TRC discussion and how that pass was given just kind of carte blanche because it doesn't take too much to look
at it go. Well, there's a whole bunch of parking lot there, and maybe some of it could become compliant. So and then here's
my question. I want to repeat it. Would we provide the same pass to a non city entity? Should they come up with a
pretty good reason not to comply with a really big parking lot while they're redeveloping? Because we have other, let's say strip malls that have non-compliant parking lots that we would sure like to
be cleaned up one real close to this. And if we ourselves don't follow our own rules, makes it really hard to enforce those rules on someone else. What are
your thoughts? Yeah, I understand your concern. I mean, really, when we look at this stuff and, and, you know, Mr. Saltzman can can help you with
this if we need to. I mean, the this is clearly to, to staff and overall public health safety, welfare issue because
we have a hospital that that needs to use this this space now is everything the city builds an overall health safety know we have a fire station, we have a clerk's office. We have
these things being built that have to comply with everything. You just just mentioned. You know, that's kind of the short answer to this is if there is
an overriding issue that rises to that extent, most private developers would not. There could be a situation, I suppose,
but but most private developments would would not rise to that. So I know those were hard questions. I really appreciate you staying with me
on that. And I'm going to add one more. I want to follow up and ask the same question, the same way that my gentleman to the left asked in regards to public art, because I said it
myself, this is less a question of why it happened, because we don't have that purview, but more how it got through t r c
and how you all came up with the final decision in regards to public art, because Gali, the public art part of our ordinances are written by the
city to promote public art. We could I could read the paragraphs. It's kind of we're supposed to be the leader in that. And it strikes me as odd that the person that wrote the
ordinance saying that we need public art specifically because it improves our community. We're going to be the first one to ask for that pass. Now, of course, it's written in the
ordinance that anybody can pass and that they can pay into it, but that was not the intent of the ordinance. The intent was to encourage and to put public
art in place. And yet here we are building a brand new building that's going to cost a bazillion dollars and take a long time, and we are not going
to put a piece of public art in. So to your best of your knowledge, how did the city and or planning department come up with the idea that we're just going to pay in, and why they
chose that pathway to the best of your knowledge? Yeah, that would be that would be up to the department that's managing the project. So I'll let I'll
let our public services department answer that. Thank you. Okay. I mean, can I clarify, I guess to clarify the
question you're asking, why didn't we do why aren't we proposing to do public art on this project instead of paying in lieu? Well, thanks. I'm kind of asking why the planning
department didn't say no. This is what our ordinance is, and it's yours. We're supposed to do this. We wrote this ordinance. So the public art for capital projects is in
section 300 of the public Art code. And it gives the choice just like a developer. In this case, we're treating the city like a developer. It gives the choice. It doesn't give a
preference. So we can either pay in artist for a piece of art that rises to that, to the calculated amount. Or we can
just put that art amount in the public art fund, and that that fund has rules as to what it's used for, which I must, which I
think primarily is public art. I've never read the fund rules, but, you know, that's what they use it for is public art doesn't have to be on that site. In that case, it could be
anywhere in the city. So I mean, it's a choice. It's not a it's not a preference. So so planning could not invoke a, a
requirement that that it be that you have to do the art and say why you can't. It's a choice that helps me understand better. Thank you. Pat, can I
ask one thing you know, we can ask all the questions we want. Go ahead. Sometimes the city has I don't know who the city is. Something in the back of their mind that they would like
to buy a bigger piece of art. And so now they have this fund that several people have donated to, and then they can use it for that. Think of the dumpster container at Sunset
Beach, which definitely could be a great mural scape. Then it could be allocated to that. So sometimes think of it as a savings account for something
bigger and better that the amount they're donating wouldn't cover. But this one, plus the Bingo Hall Ace Hardware's donation, plus somebody else's donation would
make it enough. Think of it as kind of a savings account. I think that helps. Thank you. Yeah. You is. If it's from staff, it's from her. Yes, it's
to her. Okay. Yes. Right. My question is, do you know how many people actually how many of these actually do the public art versus how many paid to the
public art? Most pay. I can think of. The I carry apartments now called Ten-x.
Yeah. That the art that's in your roundabout, that was their project. The include Harbor Apartments has a project
approved that's not built yet. And the bingo hall that was just built, for example, has a mural on the side that was just installed and approved. So so
there are some around. Can't think of any more right on top, but it is kind of few and far between. But but to Miss Wade's point, like, like the bingo
hall level was was a lower cost project. A couple of those others are higher cost projects, but some of those, especially those lower cost projects, do make a pool of funding that
public art can use for, like the art you see around town sponge docks, the oh, in front of the cultural center, some of the, you know, art that we see
around town, that's those are the kind of projects. So my other question is, how do we define artwork? Because, you know, I look at when we go into Tarpon Avenue and Pinellas,
Tarpon and Pinellas, you go downtown, they have a beautiful entryway. I mean, artwork isn't just artwork. I mean, maybe it could be a mixture of other
items to make something really pretty as you enter that is more of a groundskeeping or a
floral or a welcome to the golf course kind of thing. Or is artwork really defined as it has to be something else? So so
if, if this project were to propose artwork that they would take that to the public art committee and get it approved. There are definitions, but but
they're pretty broad. So I think it speaks to, you know, it's art talk like, you know, any medium form, whatever, and it gets into these art terms,
but apparently they will consider almost anything. And it probably could include a decorative landscape garden or something. But yeah, so thank
you very much for your patience with us, miss McNeese. Any other questions for staff before we move on to the public or excuse me, the applicant's presentation? I had one question, Pat. They spent a lot
of time on the signage. That brick sign in front of the golf course. I couldn't see where that was. Are they moving it? Changing it like three years
worth of planning for that sign? Yeah, they will not be moving. Actually, it's not quite on the slide, but it's at the entrance
on the south has a. So that's staying and remaining the same. Yes. Yeah. They actually have proposed the the small. Those
aren't even shrubs. I think they, they can respond. But but these would be small plants around the, the sign existing planter. There's a planter,
some landscaping to it. Thank you. Okay. I missed it the first time. Yeah. Me too. Any
other questions for me? I think we're ready for our applicants
presentation. Thank you. Thomas, the public services director for the city. We don't have a formal presentation for you today, but we just wanted to
say thank you for your time, and we're happy to entertain any questions. And is that better? Okay. Thomas Geiger for the Public Services Department.
I don't have a formal presentation today, but we want to say thank you for your time. We're here to answer any questions about the project. And also we're very excited about this project for, you know, beautifying and, you know,
modernizing a important city facility. Okay, so if anyone has any questions for is it Kiger? Yes, sir. How do I spell that? Right. K I g e r. I had
it right. All right. Any questions for Mr. Kiger? Starting down on the right? I have some easy ones. I think again, we were talking about. I just did a simple multiplier
for the potable water and for the wastewater. It seems to be just a easy, quick multiplier when you go from 1479 to 41, 73 of 2.813 for the what the
square footage was before. And that's my only question is, and maybe it's a minimum. Solid waste does not not have any
scaling factor and transportation. It assumes it seems like no existing difference to the traffic pattern because it's 52 to 52. Can you just explain those to
me? I'll start with do you have a do you want me to talk about the portable first or. No, no, really, why is there no delta on either the solid waste or the transportation? Well, it's
leads to the other question, so. Okay. So the the water and sewer numbers are based on fixture counts. Okay. And because we're adding a catering kitchen, it won't be in use most of the time. So, you know,
but those, all those fixture counts for the, the separate catering kitchen for sort of after hours events will go into the fixture counts for the total water demand for the building, for the solid waste. What's we talked about this
quite a bit, I believe where we landed was that the large driver for solid waste generation for the building is, you know, the total number of golfers. We're expecting to have similar numbers of total
rounds sold. You know, after the after the clubhouse. So that I believe that's what led to the the solid waste numbers. So on the solid waste, you
don't include like items like more food being sold, more waste of the food, more waste of the packaging, more waste of anything, you know, like that.
Or is 50 already this minimum that it all falls into usage is expected to be similar. When you go from 3000 to 4000 8000
usage is similar. Yeah. My name is Bruno. I'm with the civil engineer for for the project. Yeah. I think the, the way we, we, we, we went about this is,
you know, the usage will be likely the same, you know, the same amount of golfers and usage, the facility will be bigger, obviously, you know, the new clubhouse, but that was
the thought behind the the waste. Okay. And what about the transportation. So for the transportation, I think we we
use the, the I t system for golf course under, you know, that goes by the number of golf holes versus the number of
people that may be using your facility, right? How many more employees are you going to have working in that place? Additional employees, I don't think they're going to increase.
Right. Not expected. We haven't made a determination on if there will be additional staffing requirements at this point. Right now, our staffing, you know, does vary depending on, you know, how busy the
course is. So sometimes we'll have more staff, sometimes they'll have less. I just would expect, you know, my my husband's a golfer. Sure. And, you know, his complaint with a
lot of others is that he loves that golf course. But the, you know, the, what we're talking about here, the clubhouse is old and probably doesn't serve
all the drinks and all the food and all that. So I would expect you to have many more when you improve that and you don't really expect expect to see
many more when you improve that for the employees. No, just for people coming. I would say that right now talking with our golf
professionals, yes. We're doing about 68,000 rounds of golf a year, 65, 68,000 rounds of golf a year. And to be quite honest, we're that's really kind of approaching the maximum amount
of folks that the course could serve. Okay. In the past, you know, we are a little bit of a, you know, a high point for golf as an industry. You know, we've had years in the mid 50s, but
the, the big driver for golf, like the busyness of the course is going to be sick business cycles for, for golf. And we're very much close to maxed out right now. It's a good place.
Very good. Thank you. Thank you. And Miss Swenson, still one of one of my questions about the potential trip generation and the fact that you may have more
employees. And I know it may wax and wane if you have some special events from time to time, or if there's the possibility of folks renting it
out for their own parties or celebrations or events or something like that. So the only question I had left do you have construction by fDOT on
all 19 currently? Has that changed any of the ingress or egress to the parking lots at all during the construction phase for d o t yeah, you know
what? What will result when that construction is done and this plan is implemented? Will anything be a greater capacity
or or safer because of egress with and egress with not in the immediate vicinity of the entrance to the course? If you go a little bit further south, I believe I was curly place. They are adding like a left
turn lane, which should help with some traffic issues down there. But the as you go further up northbound on the d o t road, it converts back over
to just a mill and resurface project. Yeah, I would just say if, you know, you could give some weight to the fact that the potential for greater numbers would exist. And if
there's anything that can be done to facilitate ease of entry and exit and, you know, customer satisfaction, I know it's long overdue. I know a lot
of people have complained for years. I was in the old one just as part of the the city Citizens Academy course and it
looked, you know, poor in my opinion, compared to many other places that pride themselves on clubhouses. And a lot of those are not municipal. They're they're private clubs and things like that. But I think
the potential for greater benefit for not just the golfers, but for maybe other city organizations to use it from time to time, it's win win, provided that all the other
factors are compensated for. So thank you, thank you. Questions down at the end. Good evening.
My question regards on hole 18. Is that going to get shortened. The the green leading up to are you potentially talking about
hole nine. Is it hole nine. Yeah right. The the what would be the back of the clubhouse. Where is that going to go? We're, we're, we design the projects specifically with the
intent to avoid tinkering with the course layout. So nothing gets to move any greens that are part of the course. So it's going to be pretty close to the clubhouse then. Yeah, that we,
we looked at that in quite a bit of detail with the design team. It's on an upslope. So there should be some additional buffer. And there's going to be some plantings and things like that. And the clubhouse itself
will be elevated sort of well above the green. So the slope should tie in nicely. And we think that it'll yeah, it might play a little different if you hit a ball long, you know, it'll be like kind of rolling
up the hill towards the clubhouse a little bit. But we think it should be a good layout that doesn't interfere with the the existing course. Okay, that's good to hear.
Regarding the after hours catering, do you think the it will pay for itself? Going bigger, renting it out? Is it
going to be a benefit to the city in addition to the golf course, so as to whether the additional area will will pay for itself? I think the the the
question that I'd like to answer there is. So we have a business plan. We do assume this is going to be. This is a debt financed project that was approved by the board. It's been a long time coming. The.
We've got a business plan for the clubhouse to self-fund under a variety of business scenarios for the golf course. Over the next ten years. We do
have, you know, one of the knobs that we can turn the business plan is a, a one time sort of bump in revenues associated with the new clubhouse. You know, maybe people are a little more likely
to, you know, come in and buy a shirt or, you know, come and buy some beer or like, you know, and also to account for potential rental revenues in
the after hours times. So we do think that this is a good investment for the course and that will help. Right now, we're very much at a high, but golf is a very competitive
business, and the city wants to reinvest some of those revenues in the course so that, you know, right now it's making very good profits. And we want to make sure we're not killing the golden goose through neglect. So that's that's how we're
viewing this as a city asset, a place that people can come, a place that, you know, folks or citizens groups can rent out. We can host more community events there after hours. But and we think it's a good business sense too. Yeah. No,
for sure. So it's projected the golf course. So funds it is projected to be paid off in ten years. Yes. It's part of a board approved, you know, debt
issue that was just recently approved by the board. And so it'll it'll over ten years. We have a business plan to self-fund. Okay. My last question. It goes back to the
art. It's really I can't wrap my head around. We are the city and we're going to pay us to not do something. But if we're
the golf course is a self-funder and it's going to take it out of that money instead of benefit the golf course that brings in revenue to purchase the art. Like
that's where I'm trying to like, understand or why we're doing it versus just benefiting the golf course or. Instead of
going, taking it out of a golf course to put it into a different fund, certainly. So that is kind of a curious question about the use, you know, city projects and how
they invest into the public art fund we've had within my department, we've had to answer that question quite a few times. Like, for example, a few years ago, we did a large solar project at the reverse osmosis
water plant, and that triggered a threshold where we needed to look at public art. And it was a sort of energy efficiency project. And so in lieu of trying to shoehorn public art
into a solar panel project on a facility that's not readily accessible to the public, we elected to contribute. So it is interesting that that's what
the code requires, that we participate in that the public art fund requirement for us, the choice between doing an on
site project and contributing came strictly down to schedule and construction risk. We're looking to we're doing this project through a unique procurement method called Cmart
stands for Construction Manager at Risk. We're trying to deliver this in an accelerated manner that also minimizes impact to golf course operations. So every month that
that project is under construction could potentially result in a reduction in revenues as people don't want to go golf at a place that's under construction. So in this case, we're very, very
sensitive to avoid disruptions to golf operations. It's a $2.8 million annual revenue stream. And so with that, the choice was do we contribute a little
bit more than $40,000 to public art and let that become a benefit to the city through other public art projects? We also do plan to beautify the site and things like that. But
because a $4 million project. Yes. Okay. It's the equivalent 1% either paid to to the city or 1% to an art. There's not a discount if you pay for it is
no, there's no, there's no that's fine. And when you are full steam construction and there's cranes and trucks, I have a hard time believing you
got you're going to fill up the 78 available spaces currently or whatever it is, the 8090 available. Like where are you going to? How are you going to
not affect play when you got all those trucks there? It's already a small parking lot. It's just hard to think that you can do both going into it
with like, hey, we're just going to hope, hope for the best without really affecting play or affecting parking. Yeah, I think that's part of why
we're trying to schedule some of the key stuff for like for the construction activities for, for off season. So we've got a lot more flexibility in the summer. The beauty of having
116 acres is you've got a lot of room to like move stuff around. So we've explored using like. Not just the parking lot, but the, the maintenance area further back by the reclaimed
is the staging area and things like that. But we do want to have the majority of like the major interruptions happened over the summer. Is there any
thoughts of like using cross street parking when Dixie, anything like that, shuttling them in so you don't have that? Just a thought because I, I
think it will be a great place to play in construction because no one's going to go there because there's not going to be parking. That's going to be like, you'll probably play really quick rounds because no one's going to be there. That's,
you know, that's kind of what I'm thinking. But from a business perspective, I hope that that proves not to be the case. So like I said, we're we know that it's a delicate balancing act. That's part of
why we're going through this new procurement method of construction, having a city construction manager on board to manage that, that'll give us a lot more flexibility as opposed to going low bid where
you're sort of, you know, there's a lot more back and forth between, you know, your, the contractor and the and the owner. So we think that by using this procurement method,
this will get us a, an accelerated project delivery timeline. We're thinking, I believe miss Wade had a question about the construction schedule. We're hoping to have this be a 10 to 12 month
construction time frame, which would be quite quick for projects. And this is also our first foray into CSR delivery. It's a collaborative sort of semi design build process. So
we're going to be trying to move as rapidly as we can and working carefully with our construction manager to try and minimize the disruptions. Everything about this building going to be built on site or fabricated and brought in,
that's we're still working with the I mean, I imagine there'll be some things like roofing systems and things like that that'll be partially fabricated off site, you know, but we're not doing a prefab steel
building or anything like that. Right. Appreciate it. One more comment. You've had a long time to dream about this. Have you met most of the things that you
were hoping to. Move all the pieces around in the way you think is best? I think we're pretty happy with it. Yeah, yeah, we're very pleased. We're we're excited about the project.
You know, there's again, that other balancing act of what would you like to have? And then there's managing costs. So we're also very cognizant of that. This is a lot of this was made through, oh, hey, it'd be
nice to have a X or a be nice to have a little bit more space or it'd be nice to have this, but it's like, all right, but we also have to make it make sense inside the business plan for the course. And within that
context, I think we're really pleased with what we have. Thank you. Hi, I, I want to I just have a couple questions I asked some really tough ones about. So I'm going to come up
with those, but I want to just repeat what I thought that I heard in regards to the public art is that. That the city feels that it's inconvenient
and would slow down the process as to why you opted not to put public art in? I would not say that. I would say we had a binary choice between meeting
the code requirement for public art via a donation to the public Art fund, or going through a separate set of committee processes to include public art in the design
process. We're very schedule sensitive on this project, and so and also knowing that we this is a unique project delivery mechanism that we're using for the first time as a
city, we want to be able to get to a guaranteed maximum price with our construction manager as rapidly as possible to get through that, that contracting
and procurement phase. And again, we're not at all opposed to including public art elements within the building. We actually plan to do that. You know, we've talked quite a bit with the architects about
like getting historical photos and, you know, of the old, you know, the course goes back to like 1907, I believe. So getting some historical photos and trying to incorporate
elements that honor the, the history of the, of the course and make it esthetically pleasing. But as far as meeting the code requirement for public art, that was the way that lets us do that with the least
amount of budget and schedule risk. Okay, then I'll want to talk about the questions that I
asked Miss Mcniece. So you may or may not be aware I don't. Is there a. Some type of operating
agreement that is between the city and the hospital in regards to the use? I guess an easement might be a better way. What's your knowledge of that operating agreement with the
helicopter pad and the parking lot? Certainly that. Yeah, that is an interesting question. I was I found out about this a few years ago. We had a helicopter land on there and it
was out of the scheduled time frame. So that was that was an interesting morning. But what I will say there is right now, there's not a written agreement. This is something that happened that started a number of years
ago. Pardon me. Would you repeat that? There is no written agreement. There is not an agreement. There's not a written agreement. There is not. I want to say this out loud a
little bit. There is not a written agreement for easement or use between the hospital and the city for landing a helicopter on the public
parking lot that I I'll say this, that's currently the case. We looked into this issue, you know, when this came up, that we need to continue to maintain this use. This originated a
number of years ago when the hospital. You can stop. Okay. That's all I needed to know.
Okay. So ask a question. No. So. Would it be fair to say and you can just answer yes or no that
there is not any. Legal basis for the city abandoning its responsibility to make the parking lot compliant with its
own rules, regulations and ordinances? Yes or no? The leading question. And I don't mind you can help me rephrase
my question. Council, did that make any sense? The way I said it? Say it again. Well, is
there any legal recorded, legal basis for the city, the applicant, to bypass and abandon its own rules and
ordinances in regards to parking lot construction? Because they say that someone gets to use the parking lot at their convenience? Well, that's
a loaded question. It is help me, I and and I'm not trying to avoid the answer. I would really have to look at that issue. I'm not going to give you off the top of my head
because there could be some legal requirements that we have to meet, and there could be ones that we can go past depending on the basis for that. So I don't want to just give
you a willy nilly answer there. I would, I would stay out of that weed too. So I happen to know that even though it doesn't make any sense to most people, that verbal agreements are enforceable contracts in
some contexts, but it's very limited if they can be met within a year. Thank you. So it appears I just have to pontificate for a moment,
because I need to ask this question again. And here this again, is that the city you have based an entire set of
projected drawings and construction of a $4 million project on a supposed easement that is nothing more than a verbal agreement between the
hospital and the city, that the insurance implications of that are off the charts. I, I mean, again, I have to see if we have
any kind of agreement. You just said we don't we don't have a use agreement. So I'll say this, we looked into this issue in quite a bit of detail,
regardless of. So this is a verbal agreement. Currently, this is an actual use that is happening and happens on a recurring basis, where the hospital does frequently land helicopters. I live, I live
right on the flight path. I know I see it all the time. I live next door to the to the course. So, so. And this makes sense to you? I didn't say that. I said what we're Thomas Thomas
Kryger this makes sense to you as our lead project management? What's your title? I'm the public services director, public services director that you're about to undergo
construction for $4 million public project, and you don't have an agreement in place for the use of the parking. As soon as we became aware that there was not a written agreement, we
started talking to other city staff, and the fire department is the lead on coordination with the hospital, and they're working with the hospital
administration to formalize this agreement. Super. And so I'll ask the second question that's going to come easily from this is that that even if
there were an agreement, there were you're using that use as a pass not to conform to the city's own rules. In regards to the parking lot construction,
we're getting a pass not to do what we make everybody else do. Is that right? If we were, I'll just go across the street. If
because we happen to have this conversation in regards to a underdeveloped right now more or less abandoned strip mall that has a non-compliant by
stormwater, non-compliant parking by heat area, and if they were to do a major reconstruction, we'd make them comply with the current rules. And here we are doing the same
thing, but we're not going to follow our own rules using this non-existent agreement for the helicopter pad. Does that make sense to you personally? I
would say that the design process had to be realistic about the current uses of the property, and that's how we that's the basis of design for the site plan was, you know,
incorporating the existing uses of the property, including through verbal agreements with the hospital. Thank you for answering my questions, I
appreciate it. Does anyone else have any more questions of the applicant, please? When we talk about all this is that is the golf course parking lot
primarily used for advent? Because I live over by the canal across from that park. You know, that park, baseball park. And we have t g h landing
there all the time. So is are we using it primarily for advent or does Tampa General go there also? You're speaking about Rotary Park. Yeah. Of of your you know, of the golf
course who lands there, helicopters there. Is it primarily advent or is it for t g h or I would say, you know, I'm not familiar. It's used for like inter-hospital transfers.
So it's for advent health as to who's transferring and from what other facilities. Yeah. Because primarily it's t g h from what I see in most of them
because they have the high risk or high, you know, so it's not necessarily an advent. It's t g h going because they go to where I am all day long. So
they must only land there at, at night. But so you get into the situation. Is it really advent or is it another hospital anyways? So it's certainly part of advent. Yes.
Adventhealth's operations. Yes. But then you asked the question about advent property. That's actual property is owned by the
city. So you get into a complicated situation. But thank you. You. I just have one follow up. It seems that the
parking lot is the contention here, albeit it's needed use for emergency services and such. Would the redesign of the
existing non-conforming parking area reduce the capacity even though you're adding to other spots? So there's you know, as Miss Mcniece indicated, there's more than enough parking based
on the square footage and type of use. Would buffering for landscaping and, you know, trees and tree islands and things like that. In your
opinion, that would reduce the parking capacity of that existing lot, correct. Most likely. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, you caught between a rock and a hard place. I mean,
I, I on the side of having the emergency access rather than that. And if there's other things that can be done, you know, within the 1 to 2 to three foot level curbside or
something like that, that might just be something for consideration. And I know you were improving the, the signage area planter and things like that, whether it's lighting or,
you know, like I said, minimal things of color. I know the city has added a lot of annuals and perennials around that of course, require attention and watering. But if there's
anything that could kind of brighten up the area, I think that may be something that's a compromise for the exclusion of
having to conform. Thank you. Any last questions for staff? Excuse me for the applicant.
Any public comment? Interchangeable staff for it is it is. We don't have any public I don't think and and I don't think we're doing any online
anymore. So I'm not going to wait and see if there are any questions. Okay. Well then let's see. Was there any follow up from the city sometimes called the rebuttal, but this
would just be any follow up from our staff. No. Okay, super. So then we're going to close
and we would be at the moment where the board deliberates the evidence criteria. Motion seconds in, the clerk will do a roll call. So we would need a
motion for put forth and seconded. And then any discussion. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would make that motion for the purpose of discussion that we approve. Application 26 Dash
18 and resolution 2026 Dash 16, which includes the five staff recommendations as necessitated conditions and to approve as
such, would someone like to second that motion? Okay, so now is the discussion period. Would anyone like to discuss
the motion? I will say something as a career flight mechanic on helicopters who landed at hundreds of places
and pads, we will land anywhere. So if we need to get down, we'll we will land. Sorry. And that being said, it doesn't matter if there's shrubs.
Bushes will land on your 18th hole, like at the. If that's what I'm saying. Like I don't know how important this agreement is when someone's on
life life threat, they will land anywhere. They'll shut down alternate 19 to get somebody in the back. So I don't think this agreement is a
good enough reason to not do something because at the end of the day, the helicopter will land where it does. So I just
want that brought up. I thought you were professional golfer. Any more discussion? At this point we can ask for more
buffering plantings that you are suggesting and added. I would definitely like to do some of that. So let's add a condition for the use of of
that. So before you revise yours, I would like to ask that you entertain the idea that we do some housekeeping, unless
within one minute our council can show me good cause that the city should not have some type of written operating agreement, I think it makes common sense
that this is a terrific opportunity to clean up this previously forgotten element of business, and that this project
should be tied to the city and entering into a proper operating agreement and easement with the current hospital. I do understand that the city owns the property.
Yeah, it would it would be a use agreement, a use agreement. Certainly you can make that as part of the conditions that you're recommending and or just a recommendation to the
Commission about this situation. Okay. And I don't want to be so firm as to say, stick my foot in the mud and say, it's got to be that way. I just think it kind of makes common sense. And
if and if you're raising it as a concern that you want to see this at least addressed one way or the other. So we will express that concern to the POC, right. If Mr. Rochlin could
find it to add that to the motion, and then we maybe take a good hard look at the additional planning. This is all discussion right now. The planters or I think I hope that
my intent came across right, is that it's critical that the city does not provide an easier path than what we would provide the public in any other
applicant. And so we need to go above and beyond. I would even say that I'm not really a big fan of bypassing the art for convenience, although he answered the question twice and really didn't hit on it, which
is nothing more than, you know, it's just not convenience for us right now. Except that that's not the intent of the ordinance that we wrote it to begin with. We want to encourage public art, and it
baffles me that this pretty new building that's going to be the front door of the golf course, I know they're going to put some cute pictures on the inside, but that's not the intent of the ordinance as it
was written. So maybe that could be tossed in and look at that again, because that the art later it doesn't have to go in. Right. And I know you're listening. I'd politely
disagree because that could be carved out. That doesn't even have to be part of the construction project. It could just be a set aside. It's just one of those do as I say, wait, do as I want you to do. But I'm
not. As I say. However, that saying goes, the advantage of putting it in the savings account is you might get something more grand and something that you can actually
see. We need a bigger clock should not clarification. Yes, the art. If they were doing art on site, it would have to be finished before they could get
a CEO. Oh, look at Miss Mcniece putting the stake in. Okay, that makes a wonderful point because to be able to find an
artist, get it done, probably would take forever. For a long time, that probably would have been the right answer. And she saved it right there. Nice. Okay with that? That's the end
of my discussion. If anybody else has any more. And then if Mr. Rockland was willing to amend his motion, there was discussion of the helicopter pad when the city went into the
agreement with advent. I remember at the meeting it was being discussed. I bet you it's written in there somewhere, but we got to look it up and find
out. I remember this discussion. Okay, that being said, in addition to the five recommendations from the staff to be included in the
resolution that we highly encourage some sort of compromise in the landscaping, whether it's curbside or various places in the lot of a low, low height scale that
would not interfere with the aviation use and that some sort of exploration go into the fact that whether there is or isn't
a use agreement between the hospital, the city and possibly other entities in regards that that kind of be distilled and
defined enough that both sides feel comfortable with it. I think that's good for. Do you
think you could send confusing. I understand it. I'm making notes for. Okay, so then let's make sure they understood what
you said. I know it's ours, but I think some of that was not clearly defined. When you first started talking, it sounded like it's a solution. Okay, I
don't want to be called that name again. It's called it sounded like it was an option. If you can just repeat what you said. Well, does anyone else
not understand Mr. Rockland's motion? It is an option because you're making a recommendation to the board and that's to the board. That's not to them. No.
All of this is to the board on your motion. Yeah. I mean obviously it goes to staff. Would someone like to second the motion. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second.
Can we have a roll call, please? Thank you, miss Wade. Yes, Mr. Collins? Yes, miss Swenson. Yes.
Mr. Rockland. Yes. Vice chair Vessey. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Good luck. Okay. We're at the
board and staff comments portion of the meeting. Does staff have any thing they'd like to share with us? No comments. And are there any comments that the board members
would like to share amongst themselves? Not really, but I do know that she mentioned earlier we don't have any other applicants yet, so now we have
our new full time and we're still looking for applicants, right? We're talking about the board membership. The clerk does not have currently have
applicants for the board. So of course miss Wade is the alternate. So she will be filling that seat that Miss Weaver is is now vacated until
the board can either confirm her as a permanent member, or if there are applicants they would choose, you know what they're going to. It's up to the clerk to schedule that
before the board, so I don't know when that will be exactly. But if you know anyone that wants to be on this board, we would love to have a new new person. The city is always
accepting applicants for all the boards. So if you know anybody who is interested, certainly we we would love to get the names of those people.
And then if I, if I could make a recommendation that we use this free time per se to continue with some workshops for the special area plans and
the overlays that we kind of, you know, we talked about, but we haven't really proceeded with yet because I think clarifying a lot of that
verbiage and such is warranted. Yes. Thank you. It's. 744, and this meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board is adjourned.
Love that part. So were you pilot or.