03-02-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCII, MEETING, MARCH 3, 1982 -3- 8. CIMARRON CUP - CONTINUED: --Mottaz - Would like.to see figures on increased liability costs, --Ahrens - Cimarron would not like to communicate in writing to the City the plan the Council Aas proposed for sound and the level, of responsibility. If this is what the City wants written in the Permit, in order to grant it, this is what they will live with. Cimarron''s position is that they cannot say that they are liable - insurance company says they are not - however, they have said they can do this sort of thing if it is requested as a condition of the Permit. --Fraser - could you not come back to the Administrator with the steps taken on the muffler question. --Ahrens - Cimarron would like to be allowed to have a piece of equipment out on the grass area prior to the time indicated in the Ordinance (7 - 7:30 a.m.), with muffling. --Mottaz - you are telling us to write up what we are demanding and then you are going to have to do something to live with it. --Ahrens - have met with the Council -both sides¢ -stated and under- stood. This is a permit they would like granted. If you feel that there are conditions to it - specifically noise and insurance this is what they will abide by. In response to Mottaz's question on providing insurance figures - Does not believe Cimarron would have insurance coverage for the plan, as suggested here, they would not use insurance coverage - would self insure.. MIS Fraser/Mottaz that the Conditional Use Permit for. Cimarron Golf. Course be drafted with the following conditions: 1. Cimarron be responsible for any -damage to passing persons, vehicles or adjacent buildings as a result of activities on the golf course. 2. No mowing will be done within 1000 ft of residences before 7 a.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m, on Saturday and Sunday. Discussion: --Fraser. - not tied into 1000 ft. - just wants something specific for discussion. --Novak - disagrees Cimarron should take total responsibity. Golfers have to take some responsibility. --Mottaz - difficult to police golfers who do damage. Only way homeowner can be protected is if the golfer pays a certain amount towards his liability each time he _golfs. Resident Comments: Don Moe - Agrees with Fraser and Mottaz on liability. Concerned on the noise nuisance factor. People work and do not want to be awakened at 5 a.m. in the morning. Cimarron is proposing to continue as they have in the past - mow when they want to. Would like to see the Ordinance requirement adhered to. --Tom Guindon - has researched the insurance question. Surveyed the majority of golf courses in the Metropolitan area on how they handle this question. Three major courses indicated that their insurance picked up the cost. By Cimarron requesting the City to give them a letter stating they have to pay 1/2 the homeowners deductible, thb(aVomeowners will have to turn in a claim each time there is damage, thereby, riskinq cancellation because of too many claims. Cimarron is coming out ahead by this action vs the homeowner who will face problems with their insurer. Opposes this idea.