Killearn Golf Course Owner Seeks City Approval to Pave Way for Memory Care Facility

Killearn Golf Course Owner Seeks City Approval to Pave Way for Memory Care Facility

The owner of the Killearn Estates Golf Course is seeking approval from the City of Tallahassee of a development agreement that will allow for the demolition of the Inn and protect the owner’s right to build a 60 bed memory care facility on the property.

The agenda was released on the City’s website today.

It appears that the developer is seeking to reserve the traffic and stormwater concurrency impacts for a period of five years even though he has no plans to operate an Inn on the property.

The language below is from the agenda item:

The developer has a longer-range plan to redevelop the Country Club, but would like to demolish the Inn now and reserve the traffic and stormwater concurrency impacts that would result from the Inn for a period of time in order to reconstruct it or another use at a later date.  The developer has stated that there are currently no plans to operate an inn on the property.

The proposed agreement provides that the developer would maintain credit for the traffic and stormwater impacts associated with the Inn for a period of three years from approval of the agreement.  That period could be extended by two years if a final development order (such as a site plan or building permit) is issued for development of the property.  This would provide for the traffic and stormwater credit to remain available for up to five years.

If not an Inn then what?

Tallahassee Reports has reviewed documents that are part of the ongoing lawsuit that indicate the developer is planning to build a 60 bed assisted living facility. In an email dated January 13, 2015, a real estate representative informs Barton Tuck, the golf course owner:

“Attached is the footprint for the memory care facility. They would have an interest  in doing that and waiting out the deed restrictions to potentially do the apartments later.”

The concurrency rights reserved in the development agreement would be required to build the memory care facility.

City staff indicated that prior to any use of the reserved traffic and stormwater approvals, the developer would be required to go through the standard development review process, including a site plan review if applicable.

It is believed the “do the apartments later” refers to a proposed development on land where holes 7, 8 & 9 are now located.

Tallahassee Reports reached out to the Killearn Homeowners Association and a representative said he was not aware of the proposed development agreement.

TR will have more on this story tomorrow.

8 Responses to "Killearn Golf Course Owner Seeks City Approval to Pave Way for Memory Care Facility"

  1. 1. I wonder if Mr. Waterman has ever considered the 150 home owners who live on the north course that Mr. Tuck unrepentantly intends to throw under the bus? Mr. Tuck never even knew how many homes were on the north until 11/3/14, almost a full month after his announcement 10/8/14.
    2. How does Mr. Waterman know that continuing to maintain all 27 holes is “not economically feasible.” Has Mr. Tuck shared financial information with Mr. Waterman that he has refused to share with the rest of us (including many in Mr. Waterman’s “majority”)?
    3. Is Mr. Waterman aware of the article Mr. Tuck wrote regarding the many advantages of a golf club’s having more than just 18 holes?
    4. Isn’t Mr. Waterman at least a little bit concerned about the genuiness Mr. Tuck’s stated intentions in that 1) he essentially pocketed the $800K that American Golf paid him to buy out of their lease instead of using it for long overdue maintenance to KCC or saving it for use for a new clubhouse, 2) that he tried to sneak though a “development agreement” for an Assisted Living Facility (Alzheimers unit)next to the swimming pool with no prior notice to KCC members or the KHA, and 3) that between 1995 and 2014 he took approximately $11 million out of KCC? Assuming debt service required $5 million of the $11 million, where did the other $6 million go? That’s enough to build a very nice new clubhouse!
    5. Is Mr. Waterman aware that Mr. Tuck promised members of The Club at Viniterra in Virginia, when he took it over in 2011, that a new clubhouse would be built within 2 years? It’s now 4 years later and the “clubhouse” is still a trailer (Mr. Tuck has made several revised promises, however).

  2. Fred Waterman, seems to me that the only misinformation is coming from the majority group. Read the following email and check out those “Thoughts to Consider.” Sounds to me like “REAL MISINFORMATION” is being proposed by your close friend and supporter. Oh by the way, was that your family name in the email.

    Sunita Dias

    From: Sent: To: Subject:

    Robert Parrish Thursday, April 09, 2015 11:40 AM
    Danny Manausa
    FW: Conversation with Becky Rockwood

    On 11/3/14, 11:54 AM, “Barton Tuck” wrote:

    >—–Original Message—–
    >From: Killearn CC General Manager []
    >Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 10:30 AM
    >To: Barton Tuck; Noel Tuck
    >Subject: FW: Conversation with Becky Rockwood
    >Emails are flowing this morning. Itold Linda Owens I would pass this
    >Lori Wilkey
    >General Manager
    >Killearn Country Club
    >From: Linda Owens []
    >Sent: Monday, November 3, 2014 9:44 AM
    >To: Killearn CC General Manager
    >Cc: Steve Owens
    >Subject: Conversation with Becky Rockwood
    >On October 30, Pat Waterman and I played golf with Becky Rockwood. We
    >discussed at length the proposed plans to redevelop Killearn Country
    >Club. She and her husband Tom did not attend the October 8 KCC member
    >meeting where the proposed plans were presented and she was primarily
    >”informed” through the cul-de-sac meetings. We discussed Tom
    >Rockwood’s email that has circulated. Pat and I were able to share
    >quite a bit of information that Becky was not aware of, but I don’t
    >think we changed her opposition to closing the North course.
    >Becky said the North course residents believe the proposed plans are
    >moving too quickly and they should have been consulted. She said the
    >North course residents believe they have expertise to share. She said
    >the North course residents want:
    >l. Something in writing regarding what will be done 2. More details
    >defining what the conservation easement would be

    >She said that out of 70 regular participants in the cul-de-sac
    >meetings, only about 16 are KCC members. The non-members said they
    >used to belong to KCC but dropped their membership due to the
    >disgraceful condition of the clubhouse. She was not aware that Barton
    >Tuck spent seven months analyzing issues regarding the long-term health
    >of the club. She doesn’t believe Killearn residents would allow the
    >full 207 acres associated with KCC to be developed into residential units.
    >Thoughts to Consider:
    >1. The November 4 KHA meeting is likely to be an emotional one. You
    >might consider delaying mailing the ballots this week. This would
    >allow you the opportunity to address within the ballot objections
    >voiced on November 4 and it would allow time for the dust to settle.
    >2. Barton Tuck could put a written proposal together that would define
    >his intentions in writing, but with sufficient contingencies that it
    >was not legally binding. This could be drafted by the attorney to say
    >Whereas (state the conditions that prompted the owner to decide changes
    >were needed), therefore the owner proposes (state what he proposes to
    >do (basically say something similar to what we had at the top of our
    >question sheet last week). The proposed actions should incorporate the
    >specific contingencies the owner needs in order to proceed (such as, 1.
    >club member approval; 2. City of Tallahassee approval for rezoning; 3.
    >successful engineering studies; 4. property sale; etc).
    >Mr. Tuck has probably seen many similar legal documents that express
    >intent but include so many legal caveats that the proposer can’t be
    >held to the plan if the necessary contingencies are not met.
    >Linda Owens
    >This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
    >PineApp Mail-Secure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
    >computer viruses.
    Tuck followed MS Owens advice. See the wording of the ballot!!!!!!

  3. I find it absolutely fascinating that Tuck and company could come up with a professional rendering of the ALF….and hasn’t managed to do the same for the “new clubhouse” that he used to convince some of the less informed membership of his good intentions last October. Of course, this is the same person (Tuck) who repeatedly stated that he was closing the north course…and when in a formal legal disclosure situation insisted he never said that and challenged it be found in writing with his name on it!
    Mr Waterman, as far as character assassination, you are the guilty party,I am a part of the “very vocal minority” and I would love nothing more than for you to produce one example of misinformation that I or my counterparts have produced to defend our position!

  4. As one of the 50 or so KCC members who voted against Mr. Tuck’s proposal to close the North course and build multifamily homes on the property I am compelled to respond to Fred Waterman’s comment.

    The area where Tuck intends to place multifamily homes is adjacent to the Kimberton section of Killearn Estates. The Covenants and Restrictions for this section establish a minimum home size of 3000 square feet. The homes in this area are situated on the largest lots in Killearn averaging around an acre.

    Building multifamily homes in this neighborhood will decrease the property values of some of the most valuable homes in the area. Because this includes my home, I am opposed to any plan that includes multifamily homes on what is currently a golf course. If the homes to be built were consistent with the existing home requirements for the area, I would consider Mr. Tuck’s proposal more favorably.

    Mr. Tuck has evaded providing direct answers to any question asked of him. This evasiveness has given the impression that he is not dealing in good faith with the membership or with the HOA.

    I am unaware of any misinformation that has been spread by anyone who is opposed to Mr. Tuck’s plans. I challenge Mr. Waterman to produce evidence of such misinformation. As a member of KCC, I have received each of the documents that have been provided. I have also received information from people who are opposed to the changes. This is the first I have heard that Tuck intends to put an assisted living facility on the property. If he is operating in good faith, then he should have informed the membership of this plan. Furthermore, he is now seeking permission to demolish the Inn, yet as anyone who regularly visits KCC can attest, he began demolition of the in many months ago long before seeking appropriate permits. His approach appears to be to do what he wants until he is challenged.

  5. There is a right way and a wrong way. The right way is to do this in such a fashion as to raise all boats, and not just Mr. Tuck’s boat. The right way is easier than the former.

  6. As a part of the 80 plus percent of Killearn members who support the owners plan to make Killearn viable for the long term, I want to voice my support for the project. A very vocal minority have impeded this project through misinformation and character assassination at the expense of the large majority long enough. Maintaining 27 holes with our membership is not economically feasible. Golf courses are closing each day due to over supply and lack of demand. Failure to downsize and improve facilities will eventually lead to bankruptcy and closure of the club.

  7. “Wait out the deed restrictions” is a key phrase. Sure sounds like Mr. Tuck plans to let the covenant expire and then develop the entire golf course property. The city and the residents better be very careful with this man he is not dealing from a fair deck.

  8. Looking forward to more. No doubt TR’s views (if any) will address a landowner’s right to do that which he wishes with his land, so long as it is reasonably within the law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.