HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.a. Mike McDonough / Dakota Trax Site Plan Appeals
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 16, 1991
AGENDA ITEM:
AGENDA SECTION:
Mike McDonough/Dakota Trax Site Plan Appeal
Old Business
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA NITEMRA
Lisa J. Freese, Director of Planning
ATTACHMENTS: Appeal Letter, Site Plan, PC
APP ED_ Y:
Minutes, PC Staff Review, Misc. Information
,�/ 2�K
At Mr. McDonough's request, the City Council tabled dYscussio n the
Dakota Trax Site Plan appeal at the July 2 meeting until the ext Council
meeting. No additional information has been submitted to Staff by the
appellant.
The Planning Commission reviewed Phase 1 of the Site Plan for the proposed
Dakota Trax Commercial Recreation Center at the June 11, 1991 Regular
Meeting. At that meeting Mr. McDonough presented a revised Site Plan for
Phase 1 to the Planning Commission. This Site Plan proposed a concession
cart track, a kiddie cart track and a sand box/tot lot to be developed in
the first phase. The Commission and the citizens that spoke at the meeting
expressed a number of concerns. The most significant of these concerns
were: 1) traffic safety and access to the site from Trunk Highway 3; 2)
noise impacts on the neighboring properties, especially Rosemount Woods and
St.- Joseph's Church and Cemetery; 3) the handling of petroleum products on
the site; 4) crowd/parking lot control and parking lot location/size; 5)
lighting plans; and 6) site excavating, grading and landscaping plans.
There was also discussion regarding the appropriateness of a Commercial
Recreation Center in the C-2, Community Commercial Zoning District.
The Planning Commission voted (5-0) to deny the Site Plan for Phase 1
because of inadequate information. In a second related action, the
Planning Commission voted (5-0) to recommend denial of the Petition to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow outdoor commercial recreational uses in
the C-2 (Community Commercial) District.
On Friday June 21, Mr. McDonough submitted a letter to the City appealing
the Planning Commission's denial of the Site Plan for Phase 1. In filing
an appeal the appellant needs to demonstrate the Planning Commission erred
by their decision to deny the Site Plan either in fact, finding or
procedure. Mr. McDonough stated in his letter that he had addressed all
the issues regarding access, lighting, parking and that he believes that
the denial is based on reasons other than the requirements of the zoning
ordinance. The City Council must decide whether Mr. McDonough's Site
Plan is adequate. If the Council overturns the Planning Commission Action
and approves the Site Plan, the Council must also approve the Zoning
Ordinance Petition to permit outdoor commercial recreation uses in the C-2
zoning district before Mr. McDonough can obtain a building permit.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: A motion to uphold the Planning Commission's
decision because the Site Plan does not meet the minimum requirements
for approval.
COUNCIL ACTION:
RECEIVED
JUN 211991
CLERK'S OFFICE
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
6721-91
City of Rosemount
Mayor
Council e,
RE: DAKOTA TRAX ZONING APPEAL
The intent of this appeal is to bring into the open, underlying
reasons of the planning commissions decision to.deny everything that
DAKOTA TRAX has worked towards.
The council had previously indicated to the planning commission
their interest in working through the incidental issues connected
to the first phase of DAKOTA TRAX with the zoning and planning
department. Issues presented at the June 11 meeting were parking
requirements, lighting impact, grading and landscaping. These were
addressed in Mike McDonough's presentation.
3 concerned citizens were present at the meeting.
Karen Schuller: over reacted, but now favored the venture
Scott Rynerson: questioned impact of noise to residents
impact to Carrolls Woods
impact to environment
impact to Town Park
impact to Catholics
Joe Walsh: questioned other C-2 districts
Air Pollution
Oil Spilled
Gas engines
Storm water
Ground contamination
Rubber .from Track
Wildlife
Softball fields
Lack of utilities
Garbage flying around
Parks
Carrolls Woods
Cemetary
Joe Walsh questioned the bias of the sound testing data
from the manufacturer, even though
in April when Joe was presented with
the concept, he suggested contacting
the manufacturer because it would be
difficult to develop our own.
Joe Walsh stated:
"'Ya, I'm in favor of recreational activity"
"but it has its place."
"I don't like a general change of a C-2 district"
"I would not like someone doing this in other
C-2 areas or his backyard."
In response to a question from John,,Edwards asking for help
in visualizing a total dailf
y uel consumption of 15 gallons, Joe
Walsh compared a gallon of gasoline to one stick of dynamite.
John Edwards then described a vision he had of 4 to 5 people
traversing back and forth all day from "Larry's Standard" carrying
explosives. He felt that this was a danger to the public safety.
By every stretch of the imagination this comparison was
"off the wall" and overshadovred the entire project.
In summary, the planning commission had options: approval,
reapplication, revision and denial.
Denial:of the plan anal zoning amendment gives the
"kiss of death" to'the project anywhere in the city! Before a
decision_on the zoning request is made, the city council is
requested to explain its position on the =following questions
as a matter of courtesy to the developer since a sizable
investment of time and money has been made at this point.
Where in the city could a venture such as this locate?
Who's backyard is Sunrise Builder Supply and Dakota Trax in?
What has Town Green, Carrolls Woods, City Parks and the Armory
got to do with Sunrise Builder Supply and Dakota Trax?
Sinc
Mike McDonough
r
Planning Commission
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1991
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly
held on Tuesday, June 11, 1991 at 5:00 p.m. Chairperson Hathaway called the meeting to order with
members Gundacker, Edwards, Meyer and Busho present. Also present was Director of Planning
Lisa Freese; Planning Consultant Dean Johnson, Resource Strategies Corp. (RSC); and Planning
Assistant Cindy Carlsson.
MOTION by Edwards to approve the May 28, 1991 Regular Meeting Minutes as presented. Second
by Meyer. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0.
Planning Consultant Johnson introduced new Director of Planning Lisa Freese to the Commission
who welcomed her and congratulated her on her employment with the City.
Fred Hoisington, consultant, was in attendance for continued review of the proposed Policies and
Objectives for the revised Comprehensive Guide Plan. Discussion focused on suggested objectives
and policies for industrial and conservancy land use districts; of economic development;
transportation, including major arterial and local street guidelines and standards and continued public
transit uses and regulation; strategies for replacement and expansion of existing public facilities and
services; and guidelines for other public facilities and services.
Chairperson Hathaway recessed the Regular Planning Commission Meeting and opened the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments to conduct a public hearing scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m.
Chairperson Hathaway opened the public hearing to consider the variance petition submitted by
Thomas J. Schiltz.
The recording secretary presented for the record the Affidavit of Mailed and Posted Hearing Notice
and Affidavit of Publication.
Thomas Schiltz, 14926 Canada Avenue, was present to request a variance to construct an 864 square
foot detached garage to within five feet of his side yard property line. The required setback for the R-
1 District is ten feet. Due to the position of the existing home and lot configuration, alternatives
suggested for accessory structure placement appear to be less desirable for both the applicant and
abutting property owner. Director of Planning Lisa Freese advised that several exceptions exist within
this subdivision due to construction completed under the former five-foot ordinance requirement.
This proposal is in compliance with all other ordinance requirements.
There were no comments from the audience.
Chairperson Hathaway closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Hathaway to approve the variance petition as submitted by Thomas J. Schiltz because it
meets the requirements of Section 15.2 of the Ordinance B - Zoning Ordinance. Second by Meyer.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0.
Chairperson Hathaway closed the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and reconvened the June 11,
1991 Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
Planning staff advised that the City Council has directed that the City proceed with the formal local
review process of the petitions submitted by USPCI to amend the City's comprehensive guide plan to
allow construction of a Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility (MICF) on the USPCI property in
eastern Rosemount. Processing of the amendments will require a public hearing to be held by City
Council.
MOTION by Hathaway to recommend that City Council schedule a public hearing to consider the
petitions by USPCI to amend the guide plan. Second by Meyer. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0.
Consultant Dean Johnson, RSC, presented an overview of Planning Commission recommendation to
defer action on Mike McDonough's petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow outdoor
commercial recreation uses in the C-2 District. It was further recommended by the Planning
Commission that analysis of the Dakota Trax Concept be reviewed under the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) process. Mr. McDonough's proposal to develop an outdoor commercial
recreation center on his property located at 14000 South Robert Trail, where he currently owns and
operates a lumber supply retail business, was referred back to the Commission by City Council. In
response to Mr. McDonough's request to be allowed to open the go kart portion of his proposal by
June, 1991, the City Council, at their June 4th Regular Meeting, requested the Planning --Commission
to "fast track" the review process as soon as possible to allow for the go kart track phase only and to
include recommendations on issues such as hours of operation, lighting, noise, etc. and conditions
and that these be addressed by means of a development contract agreement.
Mike McDonough presented details such as parking alignment, access to site and lighting proposed
for the go kart phase of his proposed recreational development. The Planning Commission
discussed the lack of detailed information regarding pedestrian/traffic safety studies; landscape plan;
security for the site, as well as the abutting St. Joseph's Catholic Cemetery; crowd control strategy;
and impact on all abutting and nearby properties. The Commission concurred that comments should
be solicited from the police department and Independent School District 196 for analyzing impacts.
Scott Rynerson, Cameo Avenue, and Joe Walsh, 3050 Lower 147th Street West, were in the audience
and addressed the Commission of concerns regarding the following: noise; proximity of site to a
cemetery; environmental impact on "uses" surrounding this site; pollution; traffic issues;
ingress/egress to the site; site screening; transference of gasoline as a fire hazard; and handling of
garbage and debris typical of this type of use. Mr. Walsh also discussed his concern with the change
in uses in the C-2 District and how this may impact other C-2 Districts. Karen Schuller, Biscayne
Avenue, stated she was impressed with the sincerity of the proposer of the development, but noted
her major concern was for that of noise levels.
The Planning Commission concurred that there were too many unanswered questions with limited
details.
MOTION by Edwards that due of inadequate information provided in the original plan submitted by
the applicant this plan be denied for lack of detailed information. Second by Meyer. Ayes: 5. Nays:
0.
MOTION by Edwards that the applicant's request for an ordinance amendment be denied. Second
by Meyer. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0.
MOTION by Hathaway to adjourn. Second by Meyer. There being no further business to come
before this Commission and upon unanimous decision this meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Quintus
Recording Secretary
o Rosemount
PHONE (612) 423-4411 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota MAYOR
Vernon Napper
FAX (612) 423-5203 Mailing Address:
P. O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510 COUNCILMEMBERS
Sheila Klassen
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION John Oxborough
Harry Willcox
Dennis Wippermann
FROM: LISA J. FREESE, DIRECTOR OF FLANKING ADMINISTRATOR
Stephan Jilk
RE: JUNE 11, 1991 REGULAR MEETING REVIEWS
DATE: JUNE 7, 1991
ATTACHMENTS: SITE PLAN
BACKGROUND MATERIALS PROVIDED BY APPLICANT
4b. DAKOTA TRAX -- SITE PLAN REVIEW
MIKE MCDONOUGHr APPLICANT
CASE UPDATE:
Previous Planning Commission actions regarding Mr. Mike McDonough
are summarized in the minutes of the May 28, 1991 Regular Meeting.
On June 4 the City Council held a Public Hearing regarding Mr.
McDonough's request. The Council indicated support for the concept
of the project. Because of the length of the PUD process and the
seasonal nature of his proposed business, Mr. McDonough asked the
Council to consider a way to allow him to begin with Phase 1 of
his project. To facilitate his request, the City Council tabled
action on the zoning Ordinance Amendment and requested that the
Planning Commission review the Site Plan at the June 11, 1991
Regular Meeting. The City Council specifically requested that the
Planning Commission make recommendations regarding the content of
a development agreement for Phase 1 of the proposal. The City
Council indicated that if Mr. McDonough agrees to enter into the
contract they would consider the necessary actions to allow him to
proceed with Phase 1 on of the proposal prior to the Planned Unit
Development Review. One of the requirements the Council intends
to stipulate is that Mr. McDonough will need to complete a Planned
Unit Development before expanding into the additional phases
proposed.
SITE PLAN ISSUES:
The site plan submitted by the applicant to the City Council was
reviewed by staff and Dean Johnson, Resource Strategies Corp.
Several areas of concern were identified and are listed below.
While some concerns of staff's involve the later phases or may not
be critical in implementing Phase 1 of the development, they have
(Sverydting s �oming `C/l CJ osemoun� ��
Planning Commission Meeting Reviews
June 11, 1991
Page Two
implications for the design of this phase. Therefore, it is
important to identify them at this stage so the City is in a better
position to require modification of the site when the PUD is
developed.
Drainage:
The Storm Water Master Plan shows that 1/3 of the property is
within a peak storage area. The property is generally located on
the easterly half of the site and is not part of Phase 1. The
applicant has not provided a drainage/ grading plan for the project.
Access:
The site plan utilizes the existing entrance near center of site.
This entrance was moderately "improved" when Sunrise Lumber took
over the property. It is still substandard in terms of site
distance onto Trunk Highway 3 and because there is no "landing
area" for vehicles. The grade of this driveway is fairly steep
(over 8%). Considering the anticipated increase in traffic, the
grade/location of existing entrance does not appear to be adequate.
Ultimately, turn/bypass lanes should be developed
to the site, but given the uncertainly the site
development of the site it may be best to decide
process for phases 2 and 3.
for the entrance
design for full
this during PUD
Parking•
There are two main issues: the amount of parking needed and the
proposed location. It is very difficult to determine parking need
that will be generated from this use from the information provided
by the applicant. In order to make a better assessment the
applicant should provide some description of the peak time usage
anticipated for Phase I. Included in this assessment should be a
listing of the number of concession carts and kiddie karts and the
capacity of the sand box, the free style skating area, volley ball
court and the radio control toy area as well as the capacity of the
spectator areas for the different activities. Also the applicant
should indicate whether or not he intends to sponsor any contests
or tournaments that may affect the parking needs.
Phase I shows 21 parking spaces developed. Staff is in the process
of contacting other metro area cities with similar facilities in
order to make a better assessment of parking needs and will report
our findings at the Planning Commission meeting.
The location of the proposed Phase 1 lot is not desirable. There
is very little setback from the highway right-of-way for any
landscaping or snow storage (storage is not as important in Phase
1 but may be important if the facility adds a year-round indoor
activity center in a later Phase).
The lot's close proximity to the highway leaves virtually no
stacking area for cars entering into the site. This problem will
be exacerbated as additional phases are completed and the parking
lot is expanded to nearly 100 spaces.
Planning commission Meeting Reviews
June 11, 1991
Page - Three
The parking lot is located to the west of the proposed tract. The
entrance to the tract is on the east side of the track. Customers
will have to walk around the track to get to the entrance. It
would seem more appropriate it the parking were located near the
center or the entrance of the activity.
Finally, regardless of where the parking is located the applicant
needs to provide more details about how the parking area and
activity areas will be controlled to prevent accidents caused by
customers running out into parking lots or on the cart tracks.
One possible. solution to the parking issues may be to consider
relocating the parking lot to the area where the proposed cul-de-
sac is shown of the site plan.
Landscaping Plan:
The applicant did not provide a landscape plan. If the Phase I
parking remains in- the location shown on the concept plan,
minimally a buffer should be required between the lot and the
highway. Also the landscape plan should adequately buffer
adjoining uses, especially Rosemount Woods, adequately from the
noise and lighting of the development.
site Lighting:
The application needs to show locations and heights of all lighting
fixtures on the site plan. He should also provide specifications
for the light fixture design, the type of element used and the
illumination details. The plan should differentiate and show
parking lot lighting and "function" lighting. The highway entrance
should have only one light and it should meet city design
specifications.
Other Issues:
The City Council indicated to Mr. McDonough that in exchange for
fast tracking the process he would be required to enter into a
development agreement with the City. Some of the items that should
be included in that agreement are 1)hours of operation, 2) security
requirements, 3) adequate insurance coverage and indemnification
of city liability, 4) site plan specifications &requirements, 5)
commitment by the developer and/or future developers to follow PUD
process for the next phases and 6) conditions to revoke the use if
the development agreement contract is violated.
(94 of Rose -mount
PHONE (612) 423-4411
2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota
MAYOR
FAX (612) 423-5203
Mailing Address:
Vernon Napper
P. O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510
COUNCILMEMBERS
Sheila Klassen
TO:
PlanningCommission
John gh
Harry WIIiCOx
y Willcox
Dennis Wippermann
FROM:
Dean Johnson, Resource Strategies Corp.
ADMINISTRATOR
Stephan Jilk
DATE:
May 23, 1991
SUBJ:
May 28, 1991 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Reviews
MIKE McDONOUGH - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PETITION
At the May 14, 1991 Regular Meeting the Planning Commission determined that commercial outdoor
recreation uses were not a permitted use in the C-2 Zoning District. As a result, Mike McDonough is
pursuing a Zoning Ordinance text amendment that would permit outdoor commercial recreation uses on
his property, located at 14000 South Robert Trail. The Planning Commission accepted the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment Petition at the May 14, 1991 Regular Meeting and requested the City Council set
a Public Hearing date. At its May 21, 1991 Regular Meeting, the City Council set a Public Hearing to
consider this matter at 8:00 p.m., June 4, 1991.
Mr. McDonough is pursuing a range of potential uses, which appear compatible and "customary" to an
outdoor commercial recreation center. He has described these uses as seasonal, which is realistic due
to the winter weather restrictions in Minnesota. Mr. McDonough has proposed a phased approach to
the development of such a complex, concentrating at this time on the construction of a go kart track and
support facilities.
The site in question is approximately 11 acres in size. It is currently occupied by Sunrise Builder Supply,
owned and operated by Mr. McDonough. SunriseBuilderSupply consists of a variety of buildings for
the storage and sale of building supplies. The use also includes outdoor storage of building products.
Mr. McDonough proposes to continue operating Sunrise Builder Supply on the premises.
There are a number of questions and concerns that remain unresolved at this time. The level of detail
submitted for review and the lack of specificity in the proposed development make it difficult to identify
the scope of the project or the issues that may arise. In one paragraph of the applicant's 5/8/91 written
submittal, phase one is described to include kart track development, two small buildings, parking,
fencing, signs and lighting. The next paragraph states, `Excavation is tentatively scheduled to start on 5-
15-91 as well as 7 other related projects. With the proper dosage of speed, the venture would be in
operation the week of 6-3-91.'
Based upon the proposed seasonal use of the concession trak and scope of known buildings, Public
Works Director/Building Official Ron Wasmund has indicated that portable toilets are apparently a
permitted alternative to permanent public facilities. While public utilities may be available to the site in
the future, they are not available at the current time. There is a private well and drainfield that serve the
lumber business. Any change or intensification of the use of those facilities in connection with the new
development could trigger substantial code requirements such as building sprinklering. At the present
time this does not appear to be the case.
The review and resolution of all site plan, zoning ordinance, building code and fire code issues will be
completed prior to the issuance of any permits. An understanding of these is helpful in pursuing any
ordinance amendment to permit this type of development. We clearly do not wish to have the applicant
go through an ordinance amendment process, only to determine other obstacles remain.
(Sverylkt-ng's Coovning ` fi gosemount .11
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Reviews
May 28, 1991
Page Two
The options available to Mr. McDonough to pursue zoning compatibility, included a zoning district
change or a zoning text change. As noted earlier the C-2 zoning district does not permit commercial
outdoor recreation. The 0-3 and C-4 districts do permit commercial outdoor recreation, 'provided al/
improvements conform to setback requirements for principal buildings in the district and no facilities are
closer than fifty (50) feet to an 'R' District boundary.'
Based upon past discussions and actions by the Planning Commission and City Council, regarding the
compatibility of C-3 and C-4 zoning in this area, we recommended that Mr. McDonough pursue a zoning
text amendment. Such a proposed text change would permit commercial outdoor recreation in the
existing C-2 District. Enclosed is a copy of a proposed ordinance amendment, which would accomplish
this.
At issue, is the determination whether the C-3 and C-4 Districts are any more suited to support
commercial recreation uses than the C-2 District. Conversely, is the C-2 District any less suited to
support this type of use than the C-3 or C-4 Districts? All other ordinance and code requirements
affecting the permitting of this type of development would be identical.
This particular site has access to TH3. This type of exposure is similar to the criteria in consideration for
establishing C-3 and C-4 Districts. This particular site is not contiguous to the rest of the C-2 Community
Commercial District. The site is contiguous to existing and proposed public recreational uses. It is also
contiguous to a cemetery, a non -conforming auto sales use and the Rosemount Woods manufactured
home development.
Concerns regarding noise, traffic and lighting will need to be discussed and resolved if the proposal
moves ahead. These issues, however, are not unlike those of adjacent uses, such as Erickson Park and
the proposed Armory development. u
Other concerns regard non -site specific issues in a zoning text amendment. In other words, the
proposed text change would result in the potential for commercial outdoor recreation anywhere in the 0-
2 District. The C-2 District is defined as the "community center." It reflects the existence of an "oider,
more traditional downtown." By its nature, however, it is geographically restricted in size and limited to
any realistic expansion. It is also primarily fully developed. The size and existence of vacant parcels or
redevelopment potential in the C-2 District for other commercial outdoor recreation uses appears to have
practical limitations.
There are many remaining issues that require further review, before this proposal may move ahead. On
the matter of the zoning text amendment, it is necessary to move forward. On the basis of the
discussion above, I would recommend Planning Commission consideration of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance text amendment to permit commercial outdoor recreation in the C-2 District. This
recommendation is based upon the apparent compatibility of the proposed public recreation uses in the
immediate area and the apparent practical limitations to other commercial, outdoor recreation uses in
the C-2 District.
I must mention my obvious awareness of the City's major park planning process underway. Mr.
McDonough's property has been the subject of previous discussion with respect to future park
expansion and development. With all due respect to that process, we are not at liberty to put Mr.
McDonough on -hold until the process is complete.
�"_� t VJ" •i
r
CROUSE -HINDS
Designed especially for the
requirements of area lighting
and building lighting.
Ppofi/e light
Model
Lamp Wattages Acceptable*
GAL -1
175/250 Watt
GAL -4
400 Watt
GAL -10
'Lamps not Included.
1000 Watt
General area Mercury and Metallic
Additive floodlight. Cast aluminum door
''. frame. Tempered glass lens. Pre -wired
integral ballast. Galvanized steel trunnion
arm. Alzak aluminum main reflector
hinged to door frame.
4 40OW Profile Light with Lucalox lamp
150`
m
50,
Me
50'
M
150' 100' 50' 0 50' 100' 150'
FC values at recommended 32' mtg. ht.. 30' aiming angle.
4 per pole 90' apart. Scale: 1" = 100'
CROUSE -HINDS COMPANY, SYRACUSE, N. Y., 13201
Photometric Data for estimating purposes
Due to the asymmetric shape of the beam the diagram
below should be used to interpret photometric data. All
Typical Isocandle Curve
p o'
photometric data is based on I.E.S. standard recommended
practice.
Horizontal
Beam Beam Utilization Max. Candlepower Vertical Spread Spread
Model Lamp Type Lumens Small area Large area Max. C.P. At X° VA VB V Total H Total
Metallic Vapor 53,000 89% 99% 86,400 30° 72° B. 8o° 141°
1000 Watt Color -improved 29,000 86% 93% 31,000 30° 80* 171 97* 146°
mercury
Metallic Vapor 15,300 87% 94% 14,000 34° 74° 11° 85° 150°
400 Watt Color -improved 10,000 85% 89% 9,300 31° 74° 22* 96° 151°
mercury
'ficaio�* 0,300 -- 86% --93% -20,000 206 75° —16° -- 91°-- 136°-
175/W Metallic 5,300 86% 88% 2,900 0" 74' 43' 117' 142'
Vapor
175/W Color- r
175/250 Watt improved 3,680 85% 87% 2,000 0° 71' 50' 121' 148'
mercury
250/W Color -
improved 5,600 85% 85% 3,200 —2' 72* 50' 122° 147'
mercury
*Lucalox is a registered trade mark of the General Electric Co.
Aiming Data A
Profile Light has been designed to obtain the best com-
bination of total economy- and lighting integrity at a
particular mounting height and aiming angle.
Recommended AIMING ANGLE "X"
Mounting Height* (degrees from horizontal)
0
o x 1000 Watt 41' 30'
X 400 Watt 32' 30'
175/250 Watt 22' 25*
•Includes distance from top of pole to center of fixture. Actual pole heights are approximately 2' less than mounting heights.
Note: Variations from the above recommended mounting For example:
height and aiming angle may be required to achieve the Increase aiming angle to get more light at greater dis-
desired lighting effect for a specific job. tances from the pole.
Increase mounting height to cover a larger area with a
lower level of illumination.
i
Lighting Vertical Surfaces: r-__=
As illustrated, distance "D" should allow double overlap of
the beams and provide a minimum of vertical beam spill. \ / / "Eee M
I- — o --i
Lighting Horizontal Surfaces:
First determine desired minimum footcandle level. Then
overlap the isolux curves sufficiently to produce the mini-
mum level everywhere (for instance, two .5 lines overlapped
produce 1 footcandle). This will give you the proper pole
spacings.
MAY 1968 SECTION 501 — 3
•
9
i
•
- y
Y
•
9
i
t
w
CL
CL
u
0
u
>
<1
kt
.-
-
L
00"
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, RESIDENTS OF ROSEMOUNT WOODS MOBILE ROME PARK ARE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED "GO-CART" RACE TRACK. ;
NAME
7J
Gull
Q
orm, olilm
ADDRESS
-z 7sy
/3 8 <k L
-7�b /33
770
P
a8r� �a L,2) &r
z cl--,fWc
.2�-x.p Jae,4 � ,
zo�z�� � ST,
X9/5--
-29/�
a
/38_� - G/j
.-3.r5 A sem. Cly
[AA �:ec k:�7,
c"l- w
//V*-" �,Iv- /_9 c
1C-;�7 zv?7-,j �7/
ssaa(rcry
Li
ADDRESS
1,5rw
3
e
ADDRESS
r 41 �
1-4 ` c
a7 `if 38'—'� 5- - Lt)-
z P7 138 V GCS_
7PI
?Sark DeBettignies
2733 Upper 138th Street West
Rosemount, MN. 55068
TEL: 612-423-4218
July 1, 1991
_ Rosemount: City of c;.
28?5 West 145th Street
Rosemount, MN. 55068
To Whom It May Concern
e
RECEIVED
JUL 2 1991
CLERKS OFFICE,
CtTY OF ROSEMOUNT
On Saturday, June 29, 1991 an individual approached my home with a petition
>concerning the Go -Cart race track that is proposed for development in the area to the
southwest of Rosemount Woods, to be located on the property of Mike McDonough, owner
of Sunrise Lumber.- The petition called for the discontinuation of the Go -Cart track
from any consideration. Note these were not the exact words at the top of this
petition but this was the meaning as I read it. The individual carrying said
petition stated that he or she was not against the Go -Cart track but was against the
location.
The individual petitioning for signatures began to explain the proposed Go -Cart
track as a noise problem for the residents of Rosemount Woods. At this time I asked
for any and all material that would substantiate this claim. None was available and
the noise factor was pure speculation. No investigative research had been done to
promote this claim. Other points were also brought up in the discussion of
attracting the wrong crowd, "Riff Raff", oil spillage, gas, lighting, and even
garbage blow over.
We need to get one thing clear right know. As far as noise, it is my opinion that
noise is not and will not be an issue if guidelines can be established. Nothing can
be as loud as the children in the neighborhood as they play, my neighbor's car that
has no muffler, the jet airplains that fly overhead, the train that passes by not
even 500 feet away as I feel the ground tremble underfoot, and the cats that get into
my garbage before the truck even gets there to pick it up.
As far as the rest of the excuses mentioned above, come over to my home and I'll
show you my gas mower, my kerosene heater, my security lights that will blind a
person as they approach my front door, the oil spots in my driveway, and I might even
consider giving you a ride in the Go -Cart I have which all the kids in the
neighborhood like to have a ride in.
As for the "Riff Raff", you should probably start pointing the finger at yourself
before you point the finger at others. Let's put something into the community that
—everyone of all ages can enjoy as individuals and as a family. __I say "GO! " to the
Go -Cart track and any other things for recreation that may go with it.
Res ec f ly
I`.ark DeBettignies