A Larimer County judge last week upheld the Larimer County Commissioners’ decision to deny a 50-space expansion of the Mustang Mountain Coaster’s parking lot.
District Court Judge Joseph Findley wrote in his ruling March 10 that the commissioners did not abuse their discretion when they ruled over a year ago that the application did not meet the county’s land use code requirements.
Yakutat Land Co., the owner of the alpine roller coaster property at 1180 Dry Gulch Road, filed its lawsuit to appeal the decision in March 2025.
“We were disappointed that the judge felt moving parking to on-site from off-site was an expansion of actual use instead of expansion of an accessory use,” owner and developer Cody Walker said in an email. “Obviously, we felt that the commissioners made an incorrect decision in the first place, considering the county staff recommended our proposal as well as the local Estes advisory board.”
The property has a complicated and contentious history, with neighbors opposing the attraction due to traffic and noise complaints.
When the business was originally approved in 2018, the development plan included 19 on-site parking spaces and 38 additional spaces at the Sombrero Stables located at the intersection of Big Thompson Avenue and Dry Gulch Road. When the on-site lot is full, the company shuttles customers from the overflow parking down the road.
John Gehlhausen, one of the outspoken neighbors, said that even with 49 years of experience as a trial attorney, he had difficulty interpreting the judge’s technical legal reasoning, but he is nonetheless pleased with the result.
According to Gehlhausen, the fact that the company included the shuttle and overflow parking as part of a variance in the original proposal indicated that it knew all along that 19 parking spaces were insufficient, and that it came up with the shuttle arrangement to avoid a higher level of review. If 20 or more spots had been included, additional county approval would have been required.
“In my opinion, that is the logical reason why it should not have been approved,” Gehlhausen said. “The court has much more technical reasoning based on the various regulations.”
At the time the coaster was approved, Walker was Estes Park’s mayor pro tem. He was recalled the following year.
Neighbors opposed to the development appealed the approval, but the Colorado Supreme Court eventually upheld it.
Although the property is on county land, at the time it was approved, it was governed by the Estes Valley Development Code under an intergovernmental agreement between the county and the town of Estes Park. When that agreement expired in 2020, the land reverted to the jurisdiction of the Larimer County Land Use Code for any future modifications.
The code no longer allowed park and recreation facilities in that zone, but the coaster was grandfathered in as a “permissible nonconforming use.”
All of this change caused legal ambiguities when the coaster proposed replacing the shuttle and overflow parking by adding 50 on-site parking spaces to the existing 19.
Yakutat said that while the coaster itself was a nonconforming use, the on-site parking was a conforming use and should not be subject to the county’s expansion application requirements.
Nevertheless, the Larimer County Planning Division directed Yakutat to apply for an “Expansion or Change in Character of a Nonconformity.”
Even though the planning staff recommended approval, the commissioners voted 2-1 to deny the application after hearing public opposition at a December 2024 hearing. In its written explanation, the commission also cited five criteria under the code that were not met.
In its lawsuit, Yakutat argued that the board of county commissioners exceeded its jurisdiction by misapplying the land use code, that it was improper to consider neighbors’ complaints in the matter, and that the proposal is neither a change nor an expansion of a nonconforming use.
In reply, the county’s briefs argued not only that the board did not exceed its jurisdiction or misapply the law, but that there is sufficient evidence to support the board’s decision. It argued that the proposal to add 50 parking spaces certainly counts as an expansion under the code because it would add at least 12 net parking spots overall and represent a 263-percent increase on site.
Findley ruled in favor of the county. The nonconforming use is the coaster itself, not the on-site parking structure, Findley wrote, but the parking is still part of the nonconforming use because expanding the number of parking spots “would necessarily create an opportunity to attract a greater number of customers.”
The review process was properly applied, and the commission did not abuse its discretion, Findley concluded.
As part of Yakutat’s arguments against the traffic complaints, it cited a study it commissioned that indicated the shuttle actually increased traffic on Dry Gulch Road since customers would first drive to the coaster, see that the lot was full, then drive to the second parking lot before taking another round trip on the shuttle.
“We were looking for ways to reduce bus traffic on Dry Gulch and improve the guest experience,” Walker said. “This obviously was a setback for that goal, but we are looking forward to continuing to provide great experiences to our guests in the future.”