Planning board recommends approval for indoor youth sports facility at 1010 Park Court, with noise and parking conditions

The Safety Harbor Planning and Zoning Board on May 14 voted 5–1 to recommend the City Commission approve a conditional use (case 202506 CU) that would allow a 4,750-square-foot warehouse at 1010 Park Court to operate as an indoor commercial recreation facility focused on youth baseball and softball.

The recommendation includes conditions that the applicant pursue the parking-lot construction plan required by city staff and implement noise-abatement measures offered by the applicant; the City Commission will make the final decision at a public hearing scheduled for June 2, 2025.

City planning staff said the site is roughly half an acre in the Service Corridor 2 character district and is an allowable conditional use under the city’s land development code. The applicant, Brandon Auburn of Auburn Properties LLC, proposed interior renovations only and four indoor courts for practices; staff’s preliminary parking estimate—based on two spaces per court—was eight spaces but said a formal parking determination will be made during site-plan review. Staff recommended a condition requiring the parking-lot construction plan be approved through the permit process per land development code section 147.01(b) and 147.02.

Neighbors raised noise and parking concerns during public comment. Eric Burns, who lives at 1005 Sumner Boulevard and owns adjacent properties, said the proposed use would produce repeated, loud impacts and would “significantly impact our ability to enjoy our outdoor spaces and potentially even our indoor spaces.” Burns also disputed the applicant’s parking estimate and cited a different standard he found that would require 16 spaces for the proposed layout.

Lehi Buchanan, who lives at 1004 Sumner Boulevard, told the board she and other neighbors have ongoing problems with noise and parking from Crooked Thumb Microbrewery nearby and said that history shaped residents’ skepticism about new commercial activity in the block. “Will he later apply to turn it into a bar?” Buchanan asked, pressing whether future changes could create additional problems.

Applicant Brandon Auburn said the proposal is not a bar or entertainment venue and emphasized controls he intends to use: limited, appointment-based access, indoor turf and wall padding for safety and sound attenuation, insulated roofing, and large fans for ventilation. “I have no interest in owning a bar. That’s the last thing I wanna do,” Auburn told the board. He also said many sessions would be scheduled as drop-off activities and that the facility would be insured.

Board members debated how to weigh residential complaints about noise against the property owner’s right to a conditional use in a service-corridor zoning district. Board member Miguel Hicks said he thought the indoor sports use was appropriate for the property. Other members and city staff noted the board’s recommendation must apply the seven criteria for conditional uses and suggested enforceable, site-specific conditions—such as hours of operation, requirements to keep certain doors closed while activities occur, and documented noise-mitigation materials—rather than an unenforceable decibel standard.

The motion before the board recommended approval of case 202506 CU with two explicit conditions: that the applicant pursue the parking-lot construction plan as recommended by staff (per land development code sections 147.01(b) and 147.02) and that the city commission consider noise-abatement options presented by the applicant (padding, turf, insulated roof) as part of any approval. The motion passed on roll call: five yes, one no. The Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Commission for its June 2 hearing and final decision.

If the commission approves the conditional use, staff said the applicant will still need to submit permits and a site-plan/construction plan before interior or exterior work begins. The board’s recommendation emphasized measures the applicant proposed to reduce sound transmission and required the formal parking plan so the city can review circulation and curb-cut impacts during permit review.