7091 AMENDING SPECIAL USE PERMIT - SUMMER HAVEN SWIM CLUB

Home Browse Search

, � �'�� � City Plan Cor.unission Minutes � Page 11 P�eeting of May 6, 1976 The petitioner, Mr. David �rown, was present. Nir. Jim Alling, attorney, represented the petitioners. He reported the Browns had operated the Summer Haven S�vim Club since 1968 and the additicr. of a golf putting course was a logical extension of the Special Use Permit granted at that time. �Ie pointed out that the petitioners were restricting the golf putting course as follows: 1. Members of Summer Haven Swim Club and their guests only. 2. To be �perated from 12: 00 O'clock Noon to 9 :00 P.M. only. 3. To be operated from Memorial Day to Labor Day only. 4 . No artificial lighting is to be used. There were no objectors present. Zoning Committee Recommendations: Mr. Cusa.ck reported the Zon- ing Cam�-nittee had r_�co.-�mEnded apgroval; however, he stated the�� had expected to hear from objectors at today' s meeting. Mr. Menzies reported that staff had received no letters , hut had taken tPlephone calls in the office from residents objecting to the request. Chairman McCann also indicated he had received calls objecting to the petition; however, he did note that no objectors had appeared. Staff Recomm�ndations: Mr. Menzies reported that staff had no objection to the Special Use Permit request, subject to the limitations tne petitioner had placed on himself. However, Mr. Menzies stated that the Commission might wish to place a time � limit of two years on the Special Use Permit when it would be reviewed for continuation. He said residents were concerned that it might become an eyesore and setting a time limit would maintain some control over this possibility. Mr. Grossman stated there was no quieter sport than miniature golf. He pointed out that the one at the airport had operated with powerful lights and late into the night and was located as close to residences as the one being proposed and he did not believe anyone had considered it objectionable. �Ie stated that � placing a two year limitation on the Special Use Permit would be unfair to the petitioners. Motion was made and seconded (Grossman/�assett) to recommend the petition to Council, subject only to the restra.ctions listed in the petition. Vote was unanimous for approval. a.