MESA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION August 30, 2001 Public Hearing MINUTES

A scheduled Mesa County Planning Commission Hearing was called to order at 7:03 p.m., by Chairman Charlie Nystrom. The public hearing was held in the Mesa County auditorium.

In attendance, representing the Mesa County Planning Commission were: Charlie Nystrom, Mark Bonella, Mary Fuller, Jean Moores, Bruce Kresin, Thomas Foster, David Caldwell, and Craig Meis.

In attendance, representing the Department of Planning and Development Division were: Kurt Larsen, Linda Dannenberger, and Tom Dixon.

Janice Ward was present to record the minutes.

There were approximately 130 citizens present during the course of the hearing.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Upon motion duly made by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Kresin, the Minutes of July 26, 2001, were unanimously approved (with the correction of Jeff Over=s name).

CONSENT ITEMS

C130-01 ONE STRAW - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Property Owner: Brian E. Olesen Representative: same Location: 3573 G Road

Staff: Kurt Larsen stated staff received a letter objecting to this matter being placed on the Consent Agenda. Staff recommended the matter be deferred to Thursday, September 6, 2001.

MOTION: (Commissioner Kresin) AMr. Chairman, I make a recommendation that we continue Item No. C30-01 ONE STRAW-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, until Thursday, September 6, 2001.@

Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. A vote was called and the Motion passed unanimously by a vote of 8-0.

This matter will be continued to Thursday, September 6, 2001. 2 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001, Public Hearing Minutes

CONTINUED TO ITEM(S)

C128-01-CUPUPLAND GRAVEL MINE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Property Owner: Gary Rinderle Representative: Bob Engelkey Location: Southeast of the intersection of 35 Road and D 1/4 Road

C128-01-PPI SKYLINE ESTATES MAJOR SUBDIVISION Property Owner: Gary Rinderle Representative: Bob Engelkey Location: Southeast of the intersection of 35 Road and D 1/4 Road

MOTION: (Commissioner Caldwell) AMr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that Item No. C128-01 UPLAND GRAVEL MINE-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, as well as Item No. C128-01-PPI, SKYLINE ESTATES MAJOR SUBDIVISION, be continued to September 6, 2001.

Commissioner Kresin seconded the motion. A vote was called and the Motion passed unanimously by a vote of 8-0.

These matters will be continued to Thursday, September 6, 2001. 3 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes

FULL HEARING

C131-01 GRAND JUNCTION MOTOR SPEEDWAY- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Applicant: Twenty Niners, LLC Representative: Stacey Cook Location: North of I-70 between the 30 Road and 30 2 Road alignments

This is a request for approval of a CUP for a Major Entertainment Event-Outdoor Facilities on approximately 145 acres of land in the AFT zone district in order to develop and use the site for recreational and organized competitive motor race events and non-motorized racing events. Specific race activities are intended for motorcycles, stock cars, off-road vehicles, go-karts and bicycles. Four separate tracks are proposed--motorcross, an oval dirt track, a 1.48-mile road racing course, and a 0.82-mile kart track. Access to the site comes from a frontage road which parallels I-70 after it crosses the freeway from 29 Road.

Staff Presentation: Tom Dixon, AICP, Senior Planner, entered into the record the staff review, file, the 2000 Mesa County Land Development Code, and Mesa County Wide Land Use Plan. There are five exhibits to enter into the record, as follows: Exhibit 1 (aerial photo), Exhibit 2 (layout of proposed speedway development), Exhibit 3 (airport flight zones), Exhibit 4 (major road locations), and Exhibit 5 (Mesa County Current Zoning).

Staff entered into the record and presented 15 slides (by Powerpoint): Slide 1 (same as Exhibit 1); Slide 2, the speedway site from north to south; Slide 3, motorcross looking southwest; Slide 4, Go-Kart track looking east to west; Slide 5, aerial view looking south; Slide 6, aerial view of Go-Kart; Slide 7, view of Go-Kart site; Slide 8, drainage impacts on motorcross track area; Slide 9, motorcross track and drainage looking north; Slide 10, Go-Kart track drainage; Slide 11, drainage flow across Go-Kart track; Slide 12, drainage across Go-Kart track; Slide 13, on-site structure; Slide 14, stored tree trunks and stumps; and Slide 15, south side of property adjoining access road.

The proposal would be to use the track for recreational organized motor race events, and that would include non-motorized vehicles as well. The oval dirt track for stock car racing and a larger 1.48-mile road racing course capable of hosting a range of racing events including motorcycles, sports cars, stock cars, solo timed runs, and similar types of racing. It is also projected that the facility could sponsor bicycle races for BMX, mountain bike trail races and bicycle road racing.

A track was started but not completed, the track needing a finished asphalt covering. Construction on that track was halted until the CUP process went forward.

The site has been partially enclosed by a perimeter fence which is approximately eight feet in height and has been described by thee applicants as a Awildlife fence@ although the Colorado 4 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes

DOW did not define it as such, and Mesa County staff from both the Attorney=s Office and the Department of Planning do not accept that definition. The 2000 Mesa County Land Development Code restricts the height of such a fence to six feet if it is to be placed at the property line.

The site=s primary entrance is from the access road in the northerly I-70 right-of-way, which is owned and controlled by CDOT and parallels I-70.

The site=s parking would indicate there is parking for approximately 800 motor vehicles on the property using the Section 7.1.2. Minimum Required Off-Street Parking requirements in the Code, and would be consistent with a standard of one space per four spectator seats as designated for athletic fields. No Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been provided for this project. The TIA should be prepared in order to evaluate the impact of the proposed development on 29 Road and adjacent roads south of I-70 and to consider any necessary roadway modifications. Staff received an e-mail from Jody Kliska, and that e-mail (dated 8/30/01) was entered into the record (attached).

The slides revealed the general topography in the area, and some of the drainage concerns in the general vicinity coming down from the Bookcliffs. Physical alterations of the site may have changed alignments of drainage courses by disrupting historic flow patterns and re-routing runoff. It appears that the unfinished go-kart track has been partially placed across one of these drainages without the benefit of culverts or diversion drains. A Drainage Report was requested by Mesa County staff and provided from the applicants. There would be necessary conditions with any approval attached regarding drainage. A Stormwater Permit from the Colorado Water Quality Control Division would be necessary prior to any repairing and/or construction activity. Settlement basins capable of removing fine, suspended solids from runoff would have to be constructed to ensure adequate water quality entering drainage ways that ultimately flow into the Colorado River. A Drainage Plan would indicate the specifics of how that would occur and should be submitted to the Mesa County Development Engineer addressing issues of stormwater run-off, settlement basins, floodplain identification, parking lot drainage impacts, and other on-site post-development detention.

There are other on-site activities. There was prior evidence that dirt removal had occurred from the property without the necessary Conditional Use Permit. There is storing of tree trunks, the stockpiling of horse manure and wood-chip products on the property and other incidental activities that are not clearly related to a race operation. Those should be removed at the time any approval is granted for the raceway.

The surface extraction of soil material from the site requires a Conditional Use Permit under the 2000 Mesa County Land Development Code. Under such a process, grading and drainage activities are evaluated and a reclamation plan is always required. Since no such plans were evaluated by Mesa County, because of the lack of a Conditional Use Permit, at a minimum, the County would require that a reclamation plan be supplied and provided so the disturbed area is put back to a reclaimed state. 5 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes

Compliance with the 2000 Mesa County Land Development Code:

Section 3.1.16. According to the Mineral Resources Survey of Mesa County-1978, there do not appear to be any mineral resources identified on this property. The proposal satisfied this criterion.

Section 3.8.7, Approval Criteria for Conditional Use Permits. There are six criteria to evaluate.

A. The speedway would introduce new racing events to the area, and these events would occur on developed race courses where none presently exist. The speedway would also introduce night racing which would necessitate special lighting for the race course and for spectators. This would be a significant change from the site=s current function as an informally established race area for daylight events.

A specific concern to the proposed development is flight safety from Walker Field Airport and how night races might have a Aconfusing@ effect on pilots causing them to mistake the race course for a runway. The location of the speedway and bleacher area are partially within the Acritical zone@ of the airport. Although various types of urban development may not be optimal land use relations with airports, they do not appear to compromise flight safety. Lighting of the race tracks should be addressed with the Walker Field Airport Authority and be consistent with any FAA guidelines or requirements. While expressing significant concerns, the Walker Field Airport Authority did not state that the project should be denied.

A general event schedule and the number of spectators anticipated on the expected build-out of the facility was provided by Stacey Cook (letter dated 08/08/01 from Twenty Niners, LLC). The facility would eventually have capacity for approximately 2,500 spectators for racing events. Spectator viewing would be accommodated with bleacher seating and various open areas for viewing the race courses. Bleacher locations or other concentrations of spectators should not be located within the airport=s approach and departure Acritical zone.@

It is expected that the race activities will produce normal noise levels associated with race tracks. The relative isolation of this site should disperse these noise levels to some degree. The site and surrounding area already experiences background noise affects from the adjacent freeway and airport. The proposal could satisfy this criterion. 6 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes

B. The nature of any land use having spectator events and/or involving a large number of participants is that there are occasions when a high demand of services and facilities is made during special events. The most apparent service needs with this proposed development are domestic water supply, adequate access, fire and emergency response ability, and appropriate sanitary sewer disposal. The Ute Water Conservancy District can provide a domestic water supply from a 36-inch trunk line along or near the site=s southern boundary. Only the southerly parcel is currently within the Ute Water service district; the other two parcels would need to be added into the district.

The marginal condition of the existing access road would not appear to be adequate for the anticipated use based on both the number of potential users of the site and the need for emergency access. The access road is deteriorated and a source of dust generation that would greatly intensity with heavier usage were no improvement to be made. A TIA should be provided to both Mesa County and the City of Grand Junction to identify needed improvements to adequately provide access and assure acceptable circulation patterns in the general vicinity of the site.

The subject site is outside the fire district boundaries of both the Grand Junction Fire Department and the Clifton Fire Department. Comments were received from the GJFD regarding access and fire protection (Attachment D). Applicants should contract with either the GJFD or the Clifton Fire Department for emergency response services. The other option is to provide Mesa County with a separate Emergency Response Plan, for review and approval by Mesa County, outlining how emergency response will occur, who will respond, and how these services will be extended over time.

Public sanitary sewer is not available to the site and the site is outside the Persigo 201 sewer district. Adequate provision to dispose of sanitary sewer would necessitate the use of a septic system (or systems) capable of satisfying the Mesa County Health Department. Comments from the MCHD initially indicated that the use of portable facilities might be acceptable which, from the Planning Staff=s perspective, is problematic. Utilization of septic systems is practical and the potential number of users on the site makes it essential for public health. Certain improvements and/or upgrades will be necessary for this proposal to provide an adequate level of services and facilities. The proposed could satisfy this criterion.

C. The only available access to this site is from the gravel roadway which parallels the site on its south side and which also parallels the I-70 freeway. Improvements to the CDOT frontage road would be necessary. A TIA would identify the level of roadway improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. The proposal could satisfy this criterion.

D. Applicants did provide a description of a program for ongoing maintenance of the property, and that satisfied the conditions they are to adhere to. It should be pointed out that it was suggested that the applicants also identify any building or structures on the site. Examples such as ticket booths, concession stands, pit areas for race cars and one storage facility of less than 7 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes

1,000 square feet should be identified by the applicants and allowed as a part of the Conditional Use Permit providing proper building permits are granted. This criterion would be satisfied.

E. The BLM reviewed the request relative to impacts on abutting public lands. The property is within the Grand Valley Air Shed boundary. Complaints have been received regarding potential dust generation from the site and its possible impact on airplane operations, I-70 traffic and nearby residential development directly south of the freeway. Some mitigation of this concern could be taken care of by the hard surfacing of the CDOT access and by providing dust-free surfacing of the speedway site=s interior roads and parking areas.

A Drainage Report was requested and provided from the applicants. A review of the report=s findings and recommendations by a Mesa County Development Engineer has occurred. A Stormwater Permit would be required from the Colorado Water Quality Control Division to be issued prior to any repairing and/or construction activity occurring, and that settlement basins capable of removing fine, suspended solids from run-off be constructed to ensure adequate water quality entering drainage courses that ultimately flow into the Colorado River. A Drainage Plan should be prepared and reviewed by the applicants and submitted to the Mesa County Development Engineer addressing issues of stormwater, settlement basins, floodplain identification, parking lot drainage, and on-site post-development detention.

It should be noted that the drainage of the areas flows into the Indian Wash Basin, which is managed y both the County and the City for flood control purposes. With a Drainage Plan combined with appropriate conditions of approval, the proposal could satisfy this criterion.

F. The need for the racing facility could serve a community-wide need. The area north of the I-70 freeway and east of the airport has been used for off-road sport vehicles for many years. The potential conflict with airport operations and airplane safety creates a situation where the location of the use presents special difficulties. If spectators are allowed on the site for events, they would be located near or within the airport=s Acritical zone@ and close to or directly in the path of airplane take-off and landing routes. Night racing is also a concern of the Walker Field Airport Authority. The location of bleachers and other concentration of spectators should be located outside the airport=s Acritical zone.@ In addition, lighting of the raceway facility should be coordinated with the Walker Field Airport Authority.

If adequate levels of service and facilities are provided, the community could benefit from the recreation use and the entertainment value of the speedway. The Walker Field Airport Authority indicated concerns about the proposed speedway as an incompatible land use but does not state that the project should be denied on that issue. The proposal can satisfy this criterion.

Section 3.1.17, General Approval Criteria. In order to overcome any noted deficiencies, conditions of approval would need to be applied to the CUP. 8 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes

Review agency comments were received from: Ute Water; Mesa County Building Department; Mesa County Health Department; Grand Junction Fire Department; Grand Valley Power, Walker Field Airport Authority; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; State of Colorado Division of Wildlife; Mesa County Development Engineering; Colorado Department of Transportation, and Clifton Fire District.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval for a Conditional Use Permit in order to develop and use the site for recreational and organized competitive motor race events and non- motorized racing events and activities for motorcycles, stock cars, race cars, off-road vehicles, go- karts, and bicycles in an AFT zone district. The development shall be consistent with the submitted site plan as may be altered by the recommendations of the Drainage Plan, the TIA, lighting of the raceway and other modifications that may be necessary, with conditions. There are 18 conditions recommended by staff. See Staff Review (H, page 10). See Staff Review, Bases for Recommendation (page 12).

Questions: Commissioner Kresin asked for clarification of the location of the power line. Tom Dixon referred to the exhibits to explain the location.

Commissioner Caldwell asked for clarification of Item No. 5 of the Project Recommendation Conditions. Tom Dixon stated staff discovered the flow actually goes into the Highland Canal which opens into the Colorado River.

Commissioner Caldwell asked for clarification of the location of public lands and private lands within the area. Tom Dixon referred to Exhibit 1.

Commissioner Kresin asked about a septic providing services to 2,500 people. Tom Dixon stated the spectator element would probably be smaller for each event. All events would not be held at the same time.

Petitioners= Presentation: Tom Logue, spoke on behalf of the applicants. Also present was Stacey Cook, manager and spokesman for the partnership; and Tom Volkmann, legal counsel for the Twenty-Niners, LLC.

Mr. Logue stated there was a misunderstanding about the intensity and the phasing aspects of the project, and submitted for the record a APhasing Plan@ (Applicant=s Exhibit 1). His experience includes three national major events. Having managed those major events has allowed him to take head counts and record the number in attendance. One thing that could affect phasing--and these are projections--would be the demand for the recreational activities.

Mr. Logue wanted to discuss four conditions of the Staff Review:

Items 8 and 9. Applicants would like to see those conditions tied to the approval of a 9 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes building permit. They would like to see as part of the building permit process, a fire department clearance and a health department clearance.

Item 10. The Applicants are asking the Planning Commission to consider elimination of the TIA requirement. Applicants do not believe it is justified given the nature of this particular activity. Mr. Logue referred to the APhasing Plan,@, Number of Vehicles. That number was calculated using the ICD formula for spectators ratio with automobiles. The carrying capacity of 29 Road, the frontage road, and other intersections is adequate. They also evaluated the Development Code and are of the opinion that it does not require a traffic study. CDOT has a document called the State Highway Access Code, and it does have provisions for traffic studies to be done at the request of the department when applying for an access permit. Applicants did not request one. 29 Road is designated for major improvement over the next five to ten years. One of those include a major diamond interchange at 29 Road and I-70B. Applicants believe the TIA would be more appropriately done at that point in time in conjunction with the design of that interchange.

Item 13. For point of clarification, the stockpiled materials are ancillary and incidental to the operation of the facility. The wood chips and manure are used on surfacing of the motorcross track. Applicants= purpose is to provide an appropriate riding surface and control dust. The large tree trunks are used at another motorcycle event. Applicants would like the Planning Commission to consider eliminating Item 13.

Item 18. There has been a lot of discussion concerning the fencing. Applicants would like to construct a 8-foot wildlife fence on the property line. The purpose of this fence is to control wildlife. There are a lot of public lands surrounding the property and applicants do not want anyone inadvertently walking across the race track while a race is in progress. Applicants submitted for the record, two photographs showing antelope in the vicinity of the go-kart track during construction (Applicants= Exhibit 2).

In closing, Mr. Logue recognized staff for their excellent job in showing that the location of this property is appropriate for the use applicants are planning to develop it to. The historic use is also compatible with the proposed use.

Questions: Commissioner Bonella asked about the sewer and water being tied to a building permit. He stated a building was already in place. Mr. Logue stated it does not require sewer and water. Stacey Cook stated the building was sitting on blocks at this time, and applicants will apply for a building permit once the decision is made where to set it. Mr. Cook stated the building is boarded up at the present time.

Commissioner Kresin asked if applicants were in agreement with CDOT to pave the road from 29 Road to the development. Mr. Logue stated they have been in conversation with CDOT and have asked them to reconsider allowing applicants to grade the roads to an acceptable level. That road provides access to several other private parcels, plus thousand of acres of public lands. 10 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes

Mr. Volkmann stated with regard to the requirement to obtain permits from other government agencies, it would be his request that the Planning Commission put language in there that makes it clear to the extent that permits are required under regulations and are met by the applicants, impose that agency to issue the permit. 11 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes

Commissioner Kresin asked about the fire and emergency services and whether applicants were anticipating contracting to have a unit on-site during events, as opposed to calling in an emergency. Mr. Logue stated all events will have an ambulance on-site.

Commissioner Bonella asked about events per year. Mr. Logue stated they were organized, related events.

Commissioner Bonella also asked about the hours of operation. Stacey Cook the car track would be open from 10:00 a.m., until perhaps 10:00 p.m., eventually seven days a week. Commissioner Bonella addressed the issue of a business opened seven days week, cars coming in and out every day, and that is how he looks at the traffic count. Stacey Cook stated it would be kids coming out with their go-karts to practice, motorcycles to practice, etc.

Commissioner Fuller asked after this project gets developed, would all four events be going on at one time. Mr. Logue stated that not all of the events would be going at one time. However, there may be two events in one day. Stacey Cook stated he envisioned having the track open, having an event--and if kids wanted to bring their go-karts out to practice, they could. Commissioner Kresin stated there are times now heading west on I-70 on a Saturday afternoon when you cannot see the highway for the dust, and that is a major problem. He believes CDOT=s requirement to pave that road to keep the dust down is accurate. Stacey Cook agreed that the dust is also their enemy as well. With their supercross events they do at the fairgrounds, that is a man-made track and they constantly water it.

Commissioner Kresin also expressed the dust control problem on 29 Road. Stacey Cook stated where the asphalt ends at the cattle guard to Applicants= property is about 600 feet. Stacey stated they are fine with maintaining the road up to their property. The majority of the people they envision at the facility are the same people who come out there now.

Tom Dixon submitted into the record: Petition circulated by Mr. and Mrs. Henry N. Sisco (August 28, 2001) objecting to the proposed development; and a letter from Donald G. Pettigrove, P.E., DGP Consulting Engineers, Inc. (August 30, 2001), who has been retained by the Applicants.

Public Comment: Mark Holmes, 3678 G.7 Road, Palisade, spoke in support of the project. He addressed the issue of noise control, covering the Indianapolis 500. The cars running now are not near as big nor as noisy as the cars that are running at the Indianapolis 500. There are only two tracks in the state of Colorado. He feels bad for the Twenty-Niners, LLC, and feels bad for the community if this does not pass because he feels it is a family sport. If this does not pass, he would like to apologize to he Twenty-Niners, LLC, and also to his 10-year old son. 12 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes

Darren Cook, 224 W. Riverton, is one of the partners, and spoke in support of the project. His dad introduced him to motorcycles in the late 1960's, and they grew up riding motorcycles in the proposed area. Mr. Cook stated he has never had a problem out there, and there are a great bunch of people to be around. It has always been a great time, and that is what he wants to share his children.

Don Pettigrove, 8 Mozel Court, Grand Junction, Colorado, spoke in support of the project. He cannot think of a better place for the proposed facility. This project would be good for Mesa County.

Gary Hunt, 880 19 Road, Fruita, Colorado (owner of Sports Center of Grand Junction, Inc.), spoke in support of the project. His business is retail sales of recreational vehicles, motorcycles, go- karts, snowmobiles, etc. He has been around motor sports his entire life. Grand Junction/Mesa County will clearly prosper with this proposed facility. There are plenty of golf courses, but every time the County looks at a motor sports park, there is always obstacles -- too noisy, too much dust, too much money, and it goes away and dies. The young people want to have a chance to experience the motor sport. They will have good quality people there with regard to safety issues.

Jeff Hazelhurst, 2385 Pleasant Ridge Court, Grand Junction, Colorado, spoke in support of the project to address the lighting issue and runway. A lot of people have been trying to get motor sports here for the last 30 years. He is not an expert in flying, but he knows he can see a runway at night and can see a race track that is lit up (such as Las Vegas Motor Speedway) at night, and knows the difference. He does not see how that would have any impact on this project. Also, if CDOT is in charge of the frontage road, the only time it gets any maintenance is when Stacey Cook puts on a race. Otherwise, nothing ever gets done to it.

Andy Sanchez, 283 N. Pine Street, spoke in support of the project. He has grown up racing his motorcycle. He asked the Board to approve this project for the children.

Mary Shipley, 687 Sequel Court. She lives right across the Interstate from where the race track is proposed. She wanted to addressed the noise issue. She lived across from a race track in Montana at one time, and the noise was the biggest issue. They raced past midnight, but only on Saturdays. Her concerns that the proposed project is going to go on seven days a week. She wants to continue to enjoy her backyard. She hopes there is some way to monitor the noise level.

John Reece, 3018 2 N. Morlan Circle, is adamantly opposed to the project. He lives about a quarter of a mile directly south from the proposed facility. While he understands why they want a facility like this, he asked that they find an alternative location. It is too close to the Interstate, too close to the airport, too close to his residential area. He has heard nothing about an alternate location for the raceway. He has heard nothing about plans to shield the noise. He has not heard anything about how to resolve the dust issue. A lot of people that want this facility there do not live 13 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes in that area.

Bobby O=Dell, 616 Peony Drive, Grand Junction, Colorado 81503, spoke in support of the project. He is a motorcycle racer and enthusiast. He has raced at Daytona International Speedway. Everyone is talking about impact. He understands the dust concern, and in his opinion, it is not safe. When he was growing up, his father would not let them race in an uncontrolled environment at night, because of safety issues. The facility the partnership is trying to build will be a class-act in a controlled environment: 1) dust control; 2) crowd control; and 3) safety for the racers and the spectators.

Rick McLain, 1699 Pinyon, Grand Junction, Colorado, spoke in support of the project. He moved here three years ago from Phoenix. His son was ranked nationally with BMX Bikes when they moved to Grand Junction. A lot of the kids are into motor sports--not football, baseball, basketball. These kids needs a controlled place to be involved in motor sports, instead of North Avenue. He does not see how the County has the right to control the fastest growing sport in America today--motor sports.

Garrett McCleary, 3015 Morlan Court, spoke in opposition of the project. He lives just across the Highland Canal from the proposed race track. He stated if we are doing this in the name of the children--like a go-kart race track, he has no objection. But now, there is going to be big car racing where there will be a lot of noise, and the people here tonight say they can live with it. They do not live in this area. He built his home there in good faith, and the Planning Commission should be protecting the property owners rights to enjoy their homes.

Ray Gooch, 670 302 Road. He lives less than half a mile from the track. He has listened intently to the proceedings. No one has mentioned anything about police protection, crowd control. If there is a liquor license, there will be safety issues. Country Jam has had tremendous problems with crowd control and drunken drivers. He is concerned with the spectators. He is concerned about the dust situation, when there will be 600/800 cars out there. The hours of operation are also notable. He would like to see some control on the hours of operation. He would like to go to sleep some time in the night, not listening to motorcycles and stock cars until 2:00 a.m. He also asked about the 29 Road Overpass and how will it interface with CDOT.

Don Campbell, 1074 Cedar Way, Fruita, Colorado, spoke in favor of the project. He is involved every week in motor racing in Delta County -- Thunder Mountain Speedway. It is just off Highway 6 & 50, about a quarter of a mile. The road going to Thunder Mountain Speedway is a gravel road that is maintained by the Speedway. He invited everyone to come and see there is not a dust problem there. He stated that every sanctioning body has required regulated mufflers. Noise has always been an issue in auto racing, and he believes it has been addressed with the sanctioning body that require mufflers.

Mike Montaine, 683 W. Morlan Circle, spoke in opposition of the project. He lives within 14 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes a quarter of a mile of the project, and he is concerned about the noise and the dust. If more is done to address those issues, he would not have that big of a problem with the project. No one has talked about what acceptable noise levels are.

Marcus _____, (address inaudible), Grand Junction. The last time he saw a gathering of this size was when his father was going to put gravel pit on Broadway. He lives less than a quarter mile from a gravel pit and it is not that noisy. The partnership is talking about a paved speedway that is right off the side of the highway. The proposed project is on a desert area, this is waste land. As a business owner, it is important to maintain a good, public image, and you have to give something back to the community. The Cooks will do that.. There is a problem in this valley with the kids having nothing to do, and they need organized events. This is a great opportunity. The community is starved for motor sports.

Patrick McGovern, 101 S. 3rd Street, spoke in favor of the project. He stated this would be a logical choice. Too many opportunities have slipped by the County. This particular concept would be a wonderful creation for those who live in Mesa County, and a wonderful attraction for those who do not.

Rodney Snyder, 805 25 Road, Grand Junction, spoke in favor of the project. He has two sons actively involved in go-kart racing. His family travel around the country participating in go- kart racing--Phoeniz, Southern California, Washington. They have to travel because there is nothing here in this community. He believes the partnership is putting together a professional entity.

Jane ______, 631 Country Lane Court, spoke in opposition of the project. She is concerned about the impact on 29 Road. No one who lives on 29 Road was notified of this meeting, and no one who lives on 29 Road knew about this meeting. She called the Planning Department to inquire, and was told they were not close enough. She believes their rights are impacted by this project, because there is only one access to get there -- 29 Road.

Kevin Feaster, 3366 E 7/10 Road, spoke in favor of the project. He actively participates in motorcross -- 37+ races last year, on about $150 per trip. Of every track he has been to, none of them have a paved entrance. He also addressed the issue of the amount of money Mesa County is missing out on if by racers staying home.

Jim Mackley, 2972 F 3/10 Road, spoke in opposition of the project. He is presently constructing a home at 687 30 Road -- about a quarter mile from the proposed facility. While there is no perfect location, he is concerned because he does not see any hard and fast rules for noise and dust control. There is no real enforceable language.

Brad Leggett, 559 Rio Oso, spoke in favor of the project. He stated he is the owner of KSTR Radio and the morning co-host of the Brad & Steven show. He stated he was representing his listeners of his radio show. The majority of his listeners want a race track. The biggest events held 15 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes are racing. On a personal note, he has worked with the Cooks for almost 10 years and they are very professional. They run a nice operation. He asked the Board to find a way to make this project work.

Richard Proctor, Manager of Grand Valley Water Users Association, stated they were not included as an entity to provide comments. He had a brief letter to submit for the record on behalf of Grand Valley Water Users Association, and the BLM. Their concerned about the drainage: 1) water quantity--the run off from the desert onto the Interstate and Highland Canal; and 2) water quality--it will create more sediment with all the gasoline, oil and dust. He stated the Grand Valley Water Users Association would like to be more involved as issues concerning this project goes forward. Kurt Larsen stated those letters would be entered as Attachment AM@ and AO@.

Ralph ______, (address inaudible), Grand Junction, Colorado, spoke in favor of the project. He has not see anything that cannot be addressed. This is a great opportunity for Grand Junction.

J.D. Bradley, 865 20 2 Road, Fruita, Colorado, spoke in favor of the project. He has lived here in 1980. In 1997, he looked at starting a business--World Kart. It has been a good business for him and it has been good for the valley. He believes this project is a good thing and is long past due.

Floyd Kendall, 3670 F 3/4 Road, is directly across from the proposed facility. He addressed the issue of noise. He wanted to know if the noise is too loud, could he call and have them shut down. He also talked about the lights and landing of planes. He wanted to know this project could be moved to Whitewater where there is already a track that went broke.

Jeanie Anderson, 2069 Bluewater Drive, Fruita, Colorado, spoke in support of the project. Her father and brother have been actively involved in racing and she has attended events with them. The proposed project would be a good thing for the community. There are lots of kids not involved in football or soccer. There are lots of kids that want some where to go and some where to be--and that is motor sports.

Dan Reynolds, Grand Junction Airport Authority, spoke on the issue of compatibility. The issue before the Board is not one of want, is not one of children, is not one of motor-heads, it is not one of whether it is good or it is bad, but one of compatibility. The Airport Authority submits that it is an incompatible land use according to Mesa County=s own regulations. This is an airport overlay. The Acritical zone@ is part of that airport overlay. The Acritical zone@ is an area 5,000 feet wide by 10,000 feet long. The reason for a Acritical zone@ at an airport is safety--not the safety of the pilots, but the safety of the people on the ground. Statistics indicate that over 90 percent of aircraft crashes will occur in the Acritical zone.@ The Board is being asked to approve a Amajor event center.@ The Airport Authority were first told this proposed project was going to be a small club- like motorcross track that would match the existing use that was going on up there right now. Then a building showed up. And, then one day, there were scrapers and dump trucks there, and then there 16 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes was asphalt. The lighting can be distracting, but that is one that the FAA will decide. The comments from staff about other airports that residential and other uses go right up to the airport property, Mr. Reynolds stated that is why Stapleton Airport is no longer in service. Airports around the country are shut down daily because of encroachment. The FAA obligates the County to maintain and implement compatible land uses in an airport environment. The County is contractually liable to do that. If the County does not do that, the Airport Authority stands to lose a million and a half dollars annually in federal grant money. The Airport Authority strongly opposes the location of this facility. What assurances can the County give the Airport Authority that once this project is approved, the 2,500 people does not increase to 5,000 people or more.

Commissioner Bonella stated the Airport Authority is asking the private sector to protect the Acritical zone.@ Gary Mancuso, Realtor for the Airport Authority, made an offer on the property, and at the same time the Cooks made an offer, and the seller decided to sell it to them. Gary Mancuso also stated the Airport Authority owns 160+ acres further east of this proposed facility--about a mile. He spoke with Stacey Cook early on about the possibility of trading that property for his property because it was further out of the Acritical zone.@

Commissioner Bonella stated there were also subdivisions within the Acritical zone.@ Mr. Reynolds stated the Airport Authority can only give its comments; those were approved by the County.

Commissioner Bonella asked if there had ever been a crash off that runway. Mr. Reynolds answered in the affirmative. While they have not been fatal, there have been training crashes and controlled crashes.

Jeff ______(inaudible), stated safety is an issue and concern. (Inaudible).

Jerri Riggs, 6802 Zenobia, spoke in support of the project. She stated she lived right in the Acritical zone.@ She has lived with the airplanes flying over, seven days a week, and has lived with that noise. She is familiar with Stacey Cook and his family. She believes the motorcross has kept her children out of trouble and off of North Avenue. They were always into their motorcycles. She asked the Board to be fair and just.

Bradley Gurule, 3191 Kennedy, spoke in support of the project. While he has heard a lot of things here tonight, a lot of emotions, he asked the Board to look at the sound, lighting, drainage, Acritical zone,@ and stick to the data and facts. It is not about emotion, about whether it would be good for kids or adults. The data and facts should be looked at closely. There is no hard and fast proof to show this project cannot be completed.

Leslie Hamke, 534 ______Court, Clifton. She was born and raised in this community. She is married to a racer. She has also helped in the pit area. Her daughter has a go-kart that she races. On a family level, they spend a lot of time on the weekends participating in racing. 17 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes 18 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes

Melissa Cook, 406 ______Drive, and is a partner in the Twenty-Niners, LLC. She stated the partnership really wanted to make this project work; that they are trying to do what is right.

Aaron Reed, 1338 18 2 Road, is a member of the Western Colorado Astronomy Club, and believes that lighting is a major issue. Light pollution is a concern.

Petitioner=s Rebuttal: Stacey Cook, one of the principals of Twenty-Niners, LLC, stated the biggest dust matrix will be the motorcross track, which will be located to the back of the property to keep it away from the Interstate. The go-kart track and the motorcycle tracks are to the front. They feel those will be the least noisiest. The Interstate will act as a buffer to the residents across the highway.

When holding similar events at the fairgrounds, portable toilets are provided.

Stacey Cook envisions the hours of operation to be to 10 p.m., on weekdays, to 11 p.m., on weekends and open every day. The principals feel the impact will be minimal. Events will be run during the week. Stock car races will be Friday or Saturday nights. Go-kart races are usually on a Saturday or Sunday.

Questions: Commissioner Meis asked Mr. Logue about the TIA. Mr. Logue stated with the 29 Road Interchange, a TIA now would not accomplish what could be accomplished when the 29 Road Interchange is completed. During a major event, they are looking at 360 trips in and 360 trips out over a period of four hours. The Petitioners do not feel the Code requires it.

Chairman Nystrom asked Ken Simms, County Engineer, to address the Board. Chairman Nystrom asked about the capacity for the 29 Road Overpass.

Ken Simms looked at the 29 Road Overpass. He measured the width and found it to be 20 feet wide. The overpass is designed for minimal use. The use is far more limited than the overpasses on 23 Road, 25 Road, etc., which are somewhat wider. As far as a Traffic Impact Study, he would submit that if any one or any two of these events are held simultaneously, they meet the peak hour threshold. Another concern is vehicle occupancy rates. When he was observing the site and measuring the roadways, he noted the guardrail on the overpass had been hit square on by a vehicle coming down the frontage road.

Mr. Simms stated CDOT did not require a TIA. The City of Grand Junction did require a TIA, and the City of Grand Junction is responsible for 29 Road, and that included the 29 Road and Patterson Road intersection. The ITE states that a Traffic Impact Study can be required and should be required for a one to two-mile radius of the site. Patterson Road is within two miles of the proposed project. A Traffic Impact Analysis is protection for the developer, as well as the public. A Traffic Impact Analysis is warranted. 19 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes

There has been no application made for CDOT to begin studying the traffic. An application also has to made for final approval with the Federal Highway Administration in Washington, D.C.

Commissioner Meis asked if the hours of operation were covered by a permit. Tom Dixon there was no real way to police that issue. Kurt Larsen stated the hours of operation were not dissimilar to the airport.

Commissioner Fuller asked why there wasn=t a condition for dirt berms for landscaping along the Interstate to decrease the noise level. Tom Dixon stated there was an enormous drainage issue. Further, there is no irrigation water; it is a desert environment. Mr. Dixon also described the contour of the area.

Chairman Nystrom asked if the Petitioners have talked to Ute Water about running line to the property. Stacey Cook stated they have.

Chairman Nystrom addressed the issue of the septic and leech fields. For the use of the facility for the day-to-day operation, he believed a limited septic tank and leech field might be adequate for the numbers of people coming out small events. Kurt Larsen=s concern is the 30 events per year, in addition to the ongoing day-to-day operations. Kurt Larsen stated it is necessary to have a certain amount of water for an on-sight system. Stacey Cook referred to the Health Department=s comments. He asked how this differs from Country Jam, the drag strip, and the fairgrounds. Commissioner Kresin states those were individual single one-time events.

Commissioner Bonella asked what the use of the water was for. Stacey Cook stated it would be for fire protection. Stacey Cook also stated that in the future they would like to have a place to wash hands and flushing toilets.

Stacey Cook stated the partnership is a group of local people trying to pay for this project out of their pocket. They are own a very limited budget and they are trying to do it as cheaply, but professionally as possible. This is a project they want to build on over the years. Mr. Logue stated that in the interest of good qualify planning, they wanted to put all of the cards on the table, showing the Board the big picture. There is no guarantee they will ever do a road course. If the go-kart track, the stock car track, or the motorcross track do not succeed and the partners do not make enough money to pay the bills, there will not be stock car track.

Commissioner Kresin stated a few weeks ago the newspaper reported this project was a go- kart track for kids. Commissioner Bonella stated because people read the newspaper, that was reason people were at this meeting.

Tom Volkmann asked if there was a regulatory line where chemical toilets can no longer be used and you have to go to septic. Kurt Larsen stated they would leave that to the Health Department. When a facility is being used everyday, an on-site sewage disposal system is required. 20 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes

Discussion: Commissioner Caldwell addressed the issue of leaking oil and gas into the Highland Canal. Chairman Nystrom stated on a go-kart track the chances are slim. Discussion followed about culverts.

Commissioner Caldwell also followed up that the Petitioners wanted an exemption to the 8-foot fence requirement. Chairman Nystrom stated a fence was already there. Kurt Larsen stated that after discussions, staff does not believe that fence is a wildlife structure. Commissioner Bonella asked if the fence is cut to 6-foot, Petitioners do not have to move it. Kurt Larsen agreed.

Commissioner Bonella stated he like the project. The problem is that this project got ahead of itself. The people present tonight need to understand the County is doing its job and we are here for the public safety. He felt a TIA is necessary for safety. The fencing issue would not be an issue if the Petitioners had approached the County and reviewed the Code. There are rules everyone has to follow. If Petitioners are going to put up a large enough structure that a building permit is required, then some type of sewer system should be put in there. Also, the roads should be dust- free.

Commissioner Fuller said the Planning Commission cannot look at the economic value, the Commission has to look at land use. And land use is compatibility.

Commissioner Moores stated the problems she sees is the Acritical zone@, and the 29 Road Overpass. Also, when it rains out at that site, there should be something besides mud or there will be stuck cars all over.

Commissioner Meis recognized Tom Dixon for a fabulous job on the staff review. He is in agreement with essentially everyone of them. He thought Items 8 and 9 could be tied into a building permit, or make it a condition of Phase II. Also, he would like to see certain hours of operation.

Chairman Nystrom would like to the hours of operation be 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Bonella would like the hours extended on Friday and Saturday nights to 11:00 p.m.

Kurt Larsen stated to be careful tieing anything to a building permit.

Kent Wagner, Mesa County Development Engineer, stated that during a rain storm, the desert builds up a hard surface. When the next rain comes, it takes a while for the rain to beat that, and the sediment starts washing down into the channels. With the motorcross and all the dirt areas, it will be continually churned up. Typically, what would be done in a situation like this, there would be a study, pre-development, to find out how sediment comes downstream. You would then figure out how much sediment was picked up by the development.

Commissioner Foster stated the dust on the frontage road is CDOT=s problem. The water drainage is BLM=s problem. Those entities need to deal with it. 21 Mesa County Planning Commission August 30, 2001 Public Hearing Minutes

MOTION: (Commissioner Kresin) AMr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that Project C131-01 GRAND JUNCTION MOTOR SPEEDWAY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, be approved and passed on to the County Commissioners with our recommendation for approval. The bases for the approval would be as outline in Staff Review, with amendments to Item Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, and 16. Item Nos. 8 and 9 will be tied in conjunction with Phase II. An additional condition (No. 19) will be added concerning hours of operation: 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. This recommendation is also subject to review agency comments.@

Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. A vote was called and the Motion passed by a vote of 6. Commissioner Fuller voted no. Chairman Nystrom abstained.

This matter will heard before the BOCC, Tuesday, September 11, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. Mesa State College, Liff Auditorium

ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting, Thursday, September 6, 2001.

There being no further business to discuss, upon motion by Commissioner Bonella, seconded by Commissioner Kresin and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

______Jean Moores, Secretary