Loading...
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