Mustang Mountain Coaster loses bid to add more parking

Like a rollercoaster taking a plunge, a proposal to expand the parking lot and to retroactively approve a 20-foot by 20-foot observation deck at the Mustang Mountain Coaster took a few twists and turns before being rejected in a 2-1 vote by the Larimer County Commissioners during a 2.5 hour land use hearing Monday evening in Fort Collins.

The county’s administrative staff, led by Senior Planner Michael Whitley, provided the commissioners with background about the application by Yakutat Land Company, owner of the mountain coaster, for an “expansion/change in character of a nonconforming use.”

Yakutat petitioned to expand the number of parking spaces in its parking lot from the current 19 spaces by an additional 50 spots.

When the parking lot is full, the coaster company shuttles customers from a parking lot at the Sombrero Stables located at the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue and Dry Gulch Road.

The company wanted to expand the number of parking spaces so they could eliminate the need for a shuttle, an option suggested by the county’s planning office.

A traffic study indicated that the shuttle actually increased traffic on Dry Gulch Road as people wanting to ride the coaster drive to the location at 1180 Dry Gulch Rd., and when the parking lot is full, they are redirected back to Sombrero Stables where they have to then take a shuttle back to the mountain coaster.

Gregg Heckler, a Yakutat employee, told the commissioners the shuttle actually increased the number of trips back and forth on Dry Gulch Road.

Background

The mountain coaster has been controversial since it was first proposed six years ago when Cody Walker, owner of the mountain coaster, was the town’s mayor pro-tem.

The project, which is located in an area zoned EV RE-1 – Estes Valley Rural Estate and is within the Estes Valley Planning Area, was approved Aug. 6, 2018 by Randy Hunt who was the Town of Estes Park’s Community Development Director, as a park and recreation facility and not as an outdoor commercial recreation or entertainment establishment.

At the time the project was approved, park and recreation facilities were allowed by the zoning code, but outdoor commercial recreation or entertainment establishments were not allowed.

In 2018, an intergovernmental land development agreement between Larimer County and the Town of Estes Park was in place. Walker’s position as both developer and mayor pro-tem was cited by many community members as inside dealing and a recall vote ousted Walker from his seat on the Town Board in August 2019. The vote was 1,298 to 882.

The IGA between the town and county expired in March 2020 and the Larimer County Community Development Director now has administrative responsibility for permitting land use projects.

Under the county’s current Land Use Code, the mountain coaster project – now considered as a “nonconforming land use” – would not be approved but it is protected by a grandfathered status.

For two years before the developer broke ground, neighbors fought back against the project and appealed the decision to the Larimer Board of County Commissioners at two public hearings before bringing suit against the commissioners in an effort to change the zoning classification.

One of the issues neighbors raised, in addition to concerns about increased noise and traffic in a residential zone, was that a good-old-boys network of deals had greased the skids for the project to be greenlighted without regard for the adjacent property owners’ concerns.

In Langer v. Board of County Commissioners, however, court rulings sided with the commissioners and the developer, former Estes Park Mayor Pro-tem and School Board President, Cody Walker, against the neighbors.

The case was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court which ruled on April 27, 2020 in a 7-0 decision that there was “no error of law in the BOCC’s construction of the pertinent Code provisions or in the analytical framework that it employed.”

Construction began in late July 2020 and the amusement attraction opened to the public in May 2021.

When the coaster was built, only 19 on-site parking spaces were planned. If 20 or more spots had been included, the developer would have needed to seek additional approval from the County Commissioners.

After four years of use, Yakutat petitioned to add additional parking spaces, and the current county code allows a property owner to apply for a “one-time limited expansion or change in character of a nonconforming use.”

Under these circumstances, section 1.10.7.D.1.a of the Larimer County Land Use Code allows that an “extended, expanded, enlarged, or changed use, building, or structure will not be more than 2000 square feet or 50 percent larger or more intense than the initial use, building, or structure as measured by indoor area and/or outdoor use area or as measured by other means deemed applicable by the Director or County Commissioners.”

Whitley and Christine Luckasen, an attorney with the Larimer County Attorney’s Office, informed the commissioners at Monday night’s hearing that they could not use the applicant’s history of code compliance issues against Yakutat in making their decision to approve the petition.

Since opening, neighbors have complained about noise and traffic, and in August 2023, the attraction was cited for land use code violations.

During the hearing Hecker told the commissioners that the compliance issues had been resolved and, as the compliance officer, he was responsible for dealing with problems. Heckler also said that in 2021 and 2022 there was confusion about which jurisdiction had authority between the town and county.

Hecker presented the company’s rational for wanting to expand the number of parking spots, telling the board members that the additional spots would not increase the coaster’s volume of business but would reduce traffic on Dry Gulch Road.

The county’s planning department informed the commissioners that the mountain coaster company had constructed a 400-square foot observation deck for which they had not obtained a building permit and also poured a concrete pad that connected the deck to the parking lot.

Yakutat Land Company, which is located at 911 Kimbark St. in Longmont, asked to have the deck retroactively approved on the 186.75-acre property. According to Whitley, the concrete pad did not need the commissioner’s approval, but the deck did.

Public Comments, deliberation, and the decision

Five Estes Park residents—four in person and one on-line—voiced their concerns about allowing the coaster to expand the number of parking spaces.

Calling the mountain coaster a “good old boy project that had been held under the radar,” Jan Gelhausen, who had served as mayor of Lamar, Colo. and now lives in the north end of Estes Park near the mountain coaster, addressed the commissioners and cited the need to respect the rule of law.

“Rules were disregarded or violated, and I don’t see that changing dramatically because they’ve gotten away with it all this time,” said Gelhausen. She then implored the commissioners to not give their approval retroactively. “No one is above the law and if there are rules, they should be followed by everyone.”

If you approve this permit, why should you expect any county resident to ever apply for a permit before construction,” asked John Gelhausen a retired trial attorney who argued that the approval would undermine the county’s permitting process. “And if you ever try to stop a project that doesn’t have a permit, won’t you expose the county to legal action for selective enforcement because of the precedent?”

Estes Park resident Bob Leavitt told the commissioners that the only way the county would be able to exercise any authority over the mountain coaster would be to approve its petition along with a litany of conditions and restrictions.

The Estes Valley Planning Advisory Commission, which had recommended the mountain coaster’s petition be approved, provided a suggested list of conditions which included limiting the hours of operation to daylight hours, no night lighting, and revegetating areas of the property that had been damaged. Additionally, the county’s planning staff also provided the commissioners with a list of recommended conditions if the petition was approved.

After listening to the public comments, the commissioners heard a rebuttal by Hecker, deliberated for nearly an hour, then voted to deny Yakutat’s petition.

Kristin Stephens voted in favor of granting Yakutat’s application, stating that she was concerned about the problems faced by area neighbors but, based on the code, she believed she had to vote to approve the request.

Jody Shadduck-McNally voted to deny the request citing noise and past non-compliance issues as a concern.

John Kefalas, the chair of the board, admitted to being conflicted by the guidance of the advice of the county staff members, but said the petition to expand the number of parking places exceeded the limits of the one-time expansion/change in character provision of the code by more than 50 percent.

After the meeting was adjourned, Hecker declined to provide a statement on behalf of Yakutat.