Expansion of Mustang Mountain Coaster non-conforming use (Plan #: 24-Zone3615)

[Frederic Barber]

I am writing in opposition to the proposed increase in parking at the Mustang Mountain Coaster on Dry Gulch Road in Estes Park (Plan #: 24-Zone3615).

 

At the time of the original approval of the Coaster, everyone (including the applicant) knew that 19 parking spaces were insufficient to the needs of the proposed facility.  So why were only 19 on-site spaces, augmented by off-site parking with a shuttle, proposed?  The applicant claimed that it was to reduce the number of vehicle trips on Dry Gulch Road, cutting down on the impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood.  The real reason, though, is much simpler:  Provision of more than 19 on-site spaces would have triggered a review by the Estes Valley Planning Commission, a review that would certainly have gotten into issues beyond just parking, issues that might have complicated, or even prevented, approval of the project as a whole.  Moreover, it was believed that the Planning Commission would be antagonistic toward the proposal, which is likely the case.  With input from the Town’s Community Development Director (who, under the then-current Town/County IGA, was the officer responsible for managing and approving the project on behalf of the County), the applicant limited his request to 19 spaces, supplemented by satellite parking and a shuttle.

 

Presenting a proposal that is objectively nonsensical in order to simplify approval is, of course, an applicant’s right, and it is not inappropriate for staff to recognize and identify such opportunities.  Nevertheless, this practice can lead to eventual complications.  Understanding this factor in the overall sequence of events provides useful context in the evaluation of the current application.

 

Everyone with a brain knew that once the project was approved, construction was complete and the dust had settled, the property owner would be back, hat in hand, claiming some impairment or hardship due to the insufficiency of the on-site parking, or asserting that some benefit might be available to the community, and looking for more.  So here we are.

 

This is a problem knowingly created by the applicant, who should not be rewarded for his efforts in this regard.

 

The applicant now states that the Coaster facility has generated traffic greatly in excess of the initial projections, which were predicated on the faithful use and effectiveness of the approved Operations Plan.  He, of course, therefore claims that the current change is intended to benefit the neighborhood, just as he claimed that the original “19 spaces and a shuttle” plan was intended to benefit those who live along Dry Gulch Road.  Nonsense.

 

It seems obvious that the applicant’s primary motivation in seeking the approval of additional parking spaces is to eliminate certain expenses inherent in the Operations Plan required under the original approval: rental of the satellite parking areas; staffing to monitor the on-site parking lot, to direct visitor vehicles arriving at the intersection of Dry Gulch Rd and US 34, and to attend to the satellite parking facility; and operation of the shuttle.  Compliance with this plan is a specific requirement of the original project approval, as documented in the approval letter, so exposure to these expenses is unavoidable under current conditions.  It is noteworthy that the applicant’s project description does not assert that the Operations Plan has been faithfully executed, or that good faith modifications to the plan were attempted to alleviate the unanticipated traffic.

 

It seems equally obvious that the specific number of additional parking spaces requested by the applicant greatly exceeds the needs of the Coaster.  This belief is supported by the projections contained in the original Operations Plan, projections that are not altered by anything in the current application or supporting documents.  Surely the applicant does not intend to put in all that pavement without a purpose.  Some other, as-yet unmentioned and unapproved use?  That would seem to be the only possibility.

 

There are many reasons that this proposal as presented should be denied.  I will focus on just four: the magnitude of the requested expansion, the absence of required compliance data, the applicant’s failure to substantiate that the requested expansion is both necessary and minimal with respect to the goals it purportedly serves, and the applicant’s history of repeated and serious violations of the conditions attendant to the original approval.

 

1.       The applicant fails to acknowledge the magnitude of the requested expansion in analyzing the applicable review criteria

 

The applicant, in his Project Description’s analysis of the applicable review criteria from the Land Use Code, cites the following:

 

The extended, expanded, enlarged, or changed use, building, or structure will not

be more than 2,000 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;

 

The Modification will not result in the expansion of any

buildings/structures, as it is just for the expansion of an on-site parking

lot, which is a permitted accessory use in the RE-1 zoning district.

 

The parking lot is not an accessory use, it is an inseparable aspect of the recreational use itself. In fact, all of the supporting material, including the applicant’s own descriptions, make it clear that he is requesting an expansion of a non-conforming use.  Being part of the non-conforming use, it is subject to the quoted requirement of the Code.  The applicant proposes to add 50 parking spaces, each of which is  approximately 160 sq ft, or about 8000 sq ft in total.  It exceeds the threshold area identified in the Code by a factor of four, enlarges the parking area by over 250% and is obviously considerably more intense than the existing use.  This alone is sufficient to deny the application.

 

The applicant, in his original Operations Plan, asserted that the facility, counting both on-site and satellite parking, “will provide 57 parking spaces for projected guest levels. Based on historical data of coasters throughout North America with similar volume capacities, 57 spaces is a conservative allotment. Most other facilities are fully functional offering only 30 to 40 spaces.”  If 57 parking spaces represents a conservative allotment, and if 30 to 40 is believed likely to be adequate, how then does the applicant justify a request for a total of 69 spaces on site?

 

The application and supporting documents make no comment on the sufficiency, or insufficiency, of the existing 57 spaces.  No utilization statistics are presented.  The documents have nothing to say about how often the existing 19 on-site spaces fill and satellite parking comes into use.  The applicant never asserts that he has ever, even once, had to implement his “contingency” of selling tickets for later use due to parking saturation, let alone that he has lost business.  One can only suspect that additional uses of the new paved area beyond parking for the Coaster itself, and not included in the permitting, are contemplated.

 

2.       The application and supporting documents fail to show compliance with the applicable review criteria

• The expanded use has not been shown to be compatible with the surrounding area
• The expanded use has not been shown to be free of adverse impact to nearby properties
• The change in traffic volume has been understated in order to claim that the expansion would not result in a change of character

 

My reading of the Land Use Code has not revealed a particular upper limit to the number of parking spaces that may be approved.  Rather, the approving body is trusted to assess compliance based on the review criteria listed in the Code.  These criteria are mainly subjective and, in most cases, do not provide hard limits on the factors they consider, relying instead on the good judgement of the body conducting the review.  The applicant has, appropriately, listed these criteria and his responses in the Project Description.  A number of these responses rely heavily on the applicant’s Traffic Impact Study in claiming compliance.  The Traffic Impact Study includes the original study conducted for initial approval of the Coaster as a point of comparison.

 

The Traffic Impact Study is based on traffic counts collected over the two-day Labor Day weekend (Saturday and Sunday, excluding the holiday itself) of 2023.  It states that “The original Traffic Impact Study (Table 3 “Trip Generation Summary”) estimated that the project

site would generate approximately 350 daily trips, 80 AM peak hour trips, and 80 PM peak hour trips” and that “Over the course of [the two day study period], the site generated 703 trips. Assuming an equal split between weekend days, the daily traffic volume was approximately 352 vehicles. As trips to and from the site are likely higher on the weekend, this is a conservatively high estimate of average daily traffic generated by the project.”  Obviously, the number of trips estimated in the original study and the number measured in the new study are comparable, an observation that is used to conclude that the traffic impact of the facility with expanded on-site parking and cessation of the operation of the shuttle will be no worse, and perhaps slightly better, than is currently achieved.  This simple conclusion is regarded as sufficient to satisfy various review criteria, as we shall see shortly.

 

The predicted and measured worst case traffic volume, while comparable, greatly exceeds the volume of traffic that might be anticipated under the approved Operations Plan – the volume of traffic upon which approval of the project was predicated.  Why is this?  The applicant’s Project Description states that “Since the Coaster opened operations in 2021, it was noted by the Owner that the parking operations and parking plan did not work to reduce trips on Dry Gulch Road as anticipated. It has been found that nearly every round-trip shuttle loop, creates up to four (4) additional trips on Dry Gulch Road. The additional trips come from customers seeking to: 1) customer's vehicle seeking an onsite spot and dropping off passengers, 2) customer's vehicle driving to the off-site lot, 3) customer's vehicle picking up passengers onsite, and 4) customer's vehicle exiting, in addition to the trips generated by the shuttle.” 

 

The nominal purpose of the traffic study is to show that the roadway and intersection capacity are sufficient to handle the worst case traffic, including both visitor and non-visitor traffic, a conclusion that it claims to support with or without the parking changes.  It does not estimate typical traffic impact, time-of-day, day-of-week or seasonal variations, presenting only a single “vehicles per hour” short-term snapshot purported to represent worst case.  It does not describe the methodology of the study, the actual measurements made or any observations other than a single total volume statistic.  It does not describe how traffic attributed to the Coaster facility was differentiated from non-customer traffic.  It does not attempt to substantiate that the claimed customer behaviors exist or in what proportions, nor does it even state that the satellite parking system was in use, let alone analyze its effectiveness.  All of these deficiencies render the study essentially useless in showing compliance with the review criteria.

 

The applicant relies on the traffic study as showing compliance with the review criterion of Code §§1.10.7.D.1.d (“The proposed use will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area”) and 1.10.7.D.1.e (“The proposed use will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject property”).  The study, consistent with its actual objective, only minimally addresses a single aspect of this requirement and is not sufficient to support a finding of compliance.  The claim that current traffic conditions comply with the review criteria is untested, so any basis that “no change of conditions” implies compliance is specious.  The elimination of satellite parking guarantees that all visitor traffic will park on site, generating trips, circulation and potential congestion issues that are not anticipated or analyzed in either the original approval or the current application.  No study has ever been documented showing that the acknowledged or unknown impact of this traffic would be either compatible with neighborhood conditions or free of adverse impact.

 

The applicant further relies on the study and trivial observations related to the absence of change to the Coaster itself to claim an absence in change of character under Code §1.10.7.D.2.a.  This criterion includes “Whether there will be a change in the… volume, intensity, frequency… of the use…. (For example, would there be a significant increase in the… traffic volume… ?)”  The applicant’s response is based on a comparison with current conditions.  This is an invalid basis for comparison, in that the current conditions represent operations that are, in many relevant ways, non-compliant with the conditions of the original approval.  Any relevant comparison must be made against conditions present with a fully operational satellite parking system as described in the approved Operations Plan.  The Traffic Impact Study expressly ignores this case.  Similarly, changes in noise, light and other environmental factors under Code §1.10.7.D.2.d have not been appropriately considered using the approved Operations Plan as the baseline condition.

 

3.       The applicant has failed to consider alternative approaches to traffic mitigation that would not require expansion of his non-conforming use

• The applicant directs traffic to on-site parking at all times, in violation of the approved Operations Plan
• The Operations Plan has not been consistently used as written
• The resulting traffic is entirely the result of the applicant’s non-compliance with requirements of the original approval
• No serious attempt has been made to study the satellite parking system described in the Operations Plan, to identify and address its shortcomings
• No study has shown that the requested expansion of on-site parking will result in the originally predicted traffic levels

 

Third, if we accept that the applicant’s request for expansion of his non-conforming use is justified based on its benefit the neighbors, it is reasonable to require that the expansion be both necessary and minimal, or nearly so, in seeking to achieve those benefits and that the forecast benefits will, in fact, be met with a high level of certainty.

 

The applicant, in the Operations Plan supporting the original approval, under “Traffic Flow”, states the following:

 

a. The Base lot serves as the primary lot. All 19 spaces, on site, shall be filled prior to any

traffic getting directed into the auxiliary lots. A sign attendant will be stationed on the

northwest corner of Big Thompson Avenue and Dry Gulch Road, while a stationary

sandwich board sign will sit on the northeast corner. The primary function of these signs

is to direct traffic, from both directions, off of Highway 34 down Dry Gulch Road to the

base lot entrance. A sign shall be posted at the entrance on Dry Gulch Road to indicate

the lot location.

 

b. Once the 19 spots in the base lot are filled, an employee from the Bathroom kiosk will

radio down to the sign attendant, and the sign attendant will relocate to the N Lake

Avenue access point, to direct traffic down toward the Triangle lot. Once in the triangle

lot, a parking attendant will help guests select a parking spot and inform them of the

shuttle system. This attendant will keep a close eye on the available number of spaces

and shall constantly collaborate with the Bathroom kiosk employee at the base lot to

gauge parking availability. Based on the information from other similar mountain

coasters throughout the country, it is unlikely that this lot will be utilized every day the

coaster is in operation, and unlikely that it will completely fill on typical weekend days

during the summer.

 

c. In the event that the triangle lot fills up, traffic will be directed toward the Office lot.

Only six vehicles shall be directed up to that lot to park, long term. Six additional

vehicles will be permitted to temporarily park, visit our office for ticketing/shuttle info,

and then depart from the lot to free up the spaces. Based on the information from other

similar mountain coasters throughout the country, it is unlikely that use of this lot for

general parking will be necessary (see parking study for anticipated parking space

demand and explanation).

 

d. When vehicles depart from the Base lot, the Triangle lot attendant shall begin sending

guests up there, behind a shuttle. As long as spaces remain open in the Base lot, the sign

attendant will simply remain on the northwest corner of Big Thompson Avenue and Dry

Gulch Road. Only when the Base lot is at capacity shall the attendant relocate and

redirect.

 

and, under “Contingencies”:

 

If all spots are reserved at all locations, guests will be able to purchase their tickets at

the Office lot location and will be asked to return at another time. At no point will

excess vehicles be permitted to park in any lot listed above, nor will overflow vehicles be

permitted to park in lots not listed above.

 

The applicant’s entire justification for expansion of on-site parking is that the Coaster has resulted in many more vehicle trips on Dry Gulch Road than were anticipated during planning.  As previously noted, this is explained as being the result of unanticipated customer behaviors.  In a nutshell, customers who were modeled as entering the satellite parking lot directly from the corner of Dry Gulch Road and US 34 are instead proceeding to the Coaster site first, then retreating to satellite parking.  No substantiation of this claim other than a statement that the behavior has been observed in the course of normal operation has been offered.

 

Obviously, if the facility was operating at capacity with the original approved total of 57 parking spaces located on-site rather than just 19, peak traffic might be expected to be three times that anticipated under the approved plan.  Conversely, in operation with an effective satellite parking and shuttle system, the originally anticipated customer behaviors and the current parking configuration might be expected to have roughly one third the peak traffic predicted in the original study.  And, in fact, it would be expected to have an even greater impact on the measured traffic volume under the claimed customer behavior, since four trips per vehicle (as the claims of observed behavior indicate) would be eliminated rather than only two (as modeled in the original traffic study).  Worst case traffic would, therefore, be reduced from roughly 350 trips per day to under 100.

 

I would assert that this is not a planning failure, it’s a failure to faithfully execute the plan.  It appears based on citizen observations and other data to be discussed in the next section that the applicant has not consistently followed his Operations Plan and that vehicles are not consistently directed to the satellite parking lots when the on-site lot is full until arriving at that lot.  Indeed, on the Coaster website, we find the following:

 

Directions to our Mountain Coaster

 

Starting from downtown Estes Park, travel east on Big Thompson Avenue (Highway 34) for 1.6 miles. Take a left turn onto Dry Gulch Road. Keep heading north for 1.8 miles, and you won't be able to miss it when you reach 1180 Dry Gulch Road!

 

All current signage supports the same approach to the facility.  Large, prominent signs on US 34 announce “Mountain Coaster – 1 mile” with an arrow pointing up Dry Gulch Road.  In the presence of such large and definitive signs, it is likely that the promised “sandwich board sign”, if present, is ineffective in directing visitors to the satellite lot.  Given such prominent and unambiguous directions, it’s no wonder that everyone drives up Dry Gulch to the Coaster site – that’s exactly what they are told to do!

 

The applicant has, therefore, caused the very traffic problems that he is seeking to correct.  This is not some insignificant detail, it is the core of the issue that is presumed to have led to the application.  By specifically directing customers to the on-site parking lot and only then redirecting them to the satellite lots, in violation of his own Operations Plan, the applicant has added a minimum of two trips per customer vehicle.

 

The applicant’s application package never claims that the Operations Plan was consistently followed, nor does it comment on the specific impediments to effective use of the Operations Plan.  It simply places the blame on the visitors, when they were only following directions.

 

I would offer a simple modification to the Operations Plan that will address the traffic problem without any on-site modifications whatsoever, rendering this application moot:

 

The applicant, rather than directing traffic arriving at Dry Gulch Road to the on-site parking when spaces are available, should instead direct all vehicles to the satellite parking facility.  All signage and on-line information should support this initial direction.  Upon arrival at the satellite parking facility, vehicles should be redirected to on-site parking only when space is available.  In slack periods, during which the on-site lot never fills (and I do mean never), this redirection can be accomplished by means of a sign at the satellite lot itself.  Under normal conditions, when the on-site lot fills from time to time, the satellite lot would be staffed and in communication with the on-site staff, as described in the Operations Plan, and would redirect vehicles only when parking was actually available.  (Some sort of entry pass would be issued to redirected vehicles to prevent “claim jumping” by vehicles that ignore the requirement to check in at the satellite lot.)  Discharge of passengers at on-site parking should be strictly limited to cars bearing handicap placards unless the vehicle is parking in the lot.  All able-bodied customers using satellite parking should be required to use the shuttle.

 

4.       The applicant has engaged in serious violations of the original approval that invalidate his claims of compliance with the review criteria

 

Fourth, the applicant has engaged in repeated violations of the conditions of the original approval of the Coaster.  A number of these have been reported to the County.  Some have been rectified.  Others have not, and may be unknown to the County.  I will focus on just one due to its particular relevance to the issues discussed in this note.

 

Neighboring residents have documented extensive and repeated use of parts of the Coaster property outside of the permitted lot for “overflow parking” – in a designated and signed “overflow lot” in the vicinity of the main lot and along the driveway nearly to the road.  This directly contradicts the Operation Plan’s statement that “At no point will excess vehicles be permitted to park in any lot listed above, nor will overflow vehicles be permitted to park in lots not listed above.”

 

The overflow lot is visible in GIS images on the County website and in numerous publicly visible photographs online and is, in fact shown in part, but not legended, in the plans included in the applicant’s submittals.  (It’s the corner of a rectangle at the top center of the drawings, easily identified by the lack of contour lines resulting from the grading.)  At capacity, 20 or more vehicles have been observed in these supplemental parking areas, doubling the permitted parking capacity at the facility.  Under the approved Operations Plan, all of these vehicles should have been intercepted at the intersection of US 34 and Dry Gulch Road and should not have made the trip up to the Coaster site itself.  And under the Plan, when parking fills altogether, tickets are to be available at the satellite parking facility and vehicles should never proceed to the on-site lot.

 

Reliable, dated evidence found online shows that the overflow lot has been in active use since at least the beginning of the 2023 summer season, that it was completed no later than June of 2022 and may have been under construction as early as June of 2021.  Parking along the driveway has been allowed since at least May of 2022.

 

In addition, what appears to be employee parking was added to the site, behind the ticket office.  Employee parking is obviously required to operate any business, but the presence of this lot is not indicated in any of the planning materials or acknowledged in any of the reports and analyses. Moreover, its proximity to the ticket office leads to the clear possibility that customers might park there.

 

At no point does the applicant’s filing acknowledge the existence of the overflow parking lot, for which no building permit appears on the County’s web portal, or take it into account in the supporting claims, analyses or plans.  By virtue of this fact, all of the assertions, analytical results, measurements, predictions of improvement and claims of compliance are completely invalid.  This expansion of the facility and its use outside of the approved parameters is typical of the applicant’s disregard for due process and compliance with established rules.

 

Conclusions

 

The proposed increase in parking capacity is not justified by any projection of need.  It is not compliant with the review standards contained in the Land Use Code.  It has not been shown to be compatible with the neighborhood or to be free of adverse impact to nearby property.  The applicant has failed to provide reliable evidence of compliance with the review criteria contained in the Land Use Code.  He has given no indication that the approved Operations Plan was followed and has shown no inclination to identify its specific shortcomings or to make minor modifications to achieve the results it predicted.  He has, in fact, made his own unpermitted changes to the on-site parking provisions, in brazen violation of specific promises contained in the Operations Plan.  These changes invalidate all of the claims and study results provided in support of the application.

 

As a result, the application must be denied.

 

Sincerely,

Fred Barber

2190 Devils Gulch Rd

[Frederic Barber]

As you may recall, I sent comments on this project about a week ago.  I’m writing again because I read comments sent today by Steve Ryland, who lives across the street from the Coaster.  His comments and the accompanying video were, to be blunt, horrifying!  They confirm every detail of what we, the residents of the North End of Estes Park, saw coming all along.  I don’t know Steve but I can only imagine his distress, his ongoing discomfort and the lost property value he faces due to this ill-considered and inappropriate intruder into his previously peaceful neighborhood.

 

Let me remind you once again of a promise made in the applicant’s Operations Plan:  “At no point will excess vehicles be permitted to park in any lot listed above, nor will overflow vehicles be permitted to park in lots not listed above.”

 

In Steve’s video, which was taken on a Wednesday (not even a weekend) shortly before noon in late July of last year, I counted 20 cars and a motorcycle parked outside of the permitted, paved parking, along with an operating sno-cone truck.  The upper end of the “overflow” lot is not visible in the video, so there may have been more.

 

The Operations Plan was a required element of the original, approved Development Plan.  Compliance is required, as is compliance with all other elements of the Development Plan.  The addition and use of this unpermitted overflow parking is a serious violation of the original approval and must be not be allowed to continue.  Moreover, unless reliable evidence can be presented that the current Traffic Impact Study was performed under the conditions of the Operations Plan (i.e., with no on-site overflow parking and with a fully operational satellite parking and shuttle system), its conclusions must be regarded as invalid and, in fact, fraudulent with regard to any claim that it represents traffic volume under the approved conditions.

 

In short, the applicant’s conduct amply demonstrates that the facility has not been, is not and will not be operated within the conditions of its approval.  Approval of any expansion would be grossly inappropriate and an insult to the law-abiding citizens of the Estes Valley.

[Frederic Barber]

Six months ago I sent comments in opposition to the proposed expansion of on-site parking at the Mustang Mountain Coaster, a non-conforming use of Parcel 2520000003 (1180 Dry Gulch Rd) in unincorporated Estes Park, Plan #24-Zone3615.  Amended documents relating to the proposal have now been submitted and are under review.  The proposal itself, it appears, has not been amended and the applicant’s response shows no sensitivity to many legitimate objections of nearby residents.  Accordingly, I am writing again to renew and amend my objections.

 

To summarize my conclusions, I believe that the amended application package:

 

• fails to address non-permitted changes to the facility that might constitute prior use of the applicant’s “one time expansion” under the county’s Land Use Code
• demonstrates the potential for a reduction of traffic generated by the facility under current conditions, but fails to make any meaningful comparison to the originally approved operation of the facility
• fails to justify the specific number of parking spaces requested in the application, and appears to support a lesser number as sufficient
• fails to address substantive community comments regarding the operation of the facility, particularly with regard to noise produced by the Coaster itself and by patrons

 

On balance, and particularly given the importance of the core traffic and parking concerns, it is my opinion that the project should be approved only if:

 

• the County determines that the unpermitted modifications to the facility are insufficient to warrant their recognition as prior use of the “one time expansion” under the Land Use Code, and required compliance documentation is submitted as part of the current application package.  (The original staff review comments on this topic are no longer on the County website, so I cannot offer additional detail as to the nature and extent of these unpermitted modifications.)
• the number of on-site spaces is reduced to a total of no more than 50 spaces, including both existing and restricted spaces (i.e., handicapped and EV)
• use of the overflow parking and shuttles is limited to peak-season holidays and holiday weekends
• strict adherence to the operating plan, including abstinence from any activities not directly related to the operation of the Coaster itself, is guaranteed by the applicant and rigorously enforced by the County

 

My original objections dealt primarily with the applicant’s failure to justify the requested number of additional parking spaces;  the applicant’s repeated operation outside of the original approvals and use of “current conditions” (including those violations) as the baseline for evaluation of the proposed changes;  and the applicant’s failure to address, and show compliance with, the applicable review criteria in the County’s Land Use Code.  The amended application package is somewhat improved with regard to the first of these concerns but is unconvincing in its conclusions, and it ignores the other concerns entirely.  Moreover, community comments presented in writing and in face-to-face meetings have been minimally, incompletely and insufficiently addressed.

 

To be fair, I would note that the applicant has made certain concessions to the terms of the original approval, at least based on limited personal observations of the operations as routinely conducted.  Specifically, night operations were discontinued (as a result of neighbor complaints), use of the unapproved on-site overflow parking has been discontinued (apparently as a result of comments made in connection with the present application) and use of the off-site overflow lots and shuttles appears to be consistent, though there seems to be no attempt to intercept cars at the US34/Dry Gulch intersection during overflow periods so as to prevent unnecessary trips to the Coaster site.  These changes are welcome and, I hope, represent a positive attitude toward compliance with the terms of the Land Use Code and approvals specific to the facility.

 

The revised traffic and parking study now attempts to justify the 50 additional on-site spaces (for a total of 69 on site, with additional remote spaces as a “contingency”).  I find the study to be unconvincing and insufficient to justify the request.  Specifically,

 

• The study goes to some lengths to establish criteria within, and compliance with, the Estes Valley Development Code.  There is no such document currently in force or otherwise applicable to this request.  The text of the report clearly demonstrates that the consultant believes that this obsolete Code applies to the project.  This is, frankly, shocking.
• There is no attempt to reconcile the new projections of need with the statement in the original application package that similar facilities in Gatlinburg, TN, get by on fewer than 50 spaces, that 30-40 is “typical” and that the 57 total spaces originally approved is “conservative”.  How a total of well over 70 spaces could possibly be required remains a mystery.
• The study bases its conclusions on a survey conducted on a single non-holiday, midsummer weekend day (Saturday June 22, 2024) supplemented by video observations of vehicle arrivals on a single, non-holiday, midsummer weekday (Thursday June 20, 2024).  It  estimates peak holiday demand based only on a comparison of ticket sales on the Saturday to ticket sales on July 4.  While I appreciate the additional data and have no reason to doubt its accuracy, such a limited study – and especially the extrapolation to unstudied periods base solely on ticket sales – seems flimsy in the face of other inputs.
• The study reports that peak measured non-holiday weekend demand was 46 spaces;  that “approximately 33% more rides” were sold on July 4 than on the studied weekday; that accordingly “demand due to holidays [may potentially be] 33%-50% higher”.  Not only does this “analysis” pile estimate on top of estimate on top of estimate, the 50% number, which is pulled completely out of thin air, conveniently results in exactly 69 spaces – the very number requested in the proposal.  If this study was performed in advance of the proposal, that might be regarded as having merit as the basis for the plan in its entirety.  Since the study was performed only after the number of requested spaces was challenged by the community, it seems perfectly evident that the analysis was instead prepared to reach a preordained conclusion.
• If we accept that peak holiday demand might be estimated as 33% greater than peak non-holiday weekend demand, a request for a total of 60 spaces might be justifiable.  The study, however, goes on to recommend maintenance of the remote overflow lots and shuttle system on a contingency basis.  It seems to me that the holiday peak is being double or triple counted, used to justify (redundantly) both the on-site and remote parking spaces, and that the requested total number of spaces vastly exceeds any demonstrated need.  Moreover, the study clearly indicates that patronage peaks in a narrow window of time around and shortly after noon.  Thus, the time periods during which the remote lots might be useful are actually exceedingly rare and brief.
• My own conclusion is that weekday and non-holiday weekend parking should be limited to 50 on-site spaces, which would more than satisfy the demonstrated demand during those periods, and that the overflow lots and shuttles should be used (if at all) only during those few hours during peak season holidays and holiday weekends when they might actually be needed.

 

It is essential that a clear distinction be made between permitted and non-permitted site modifications and uses.  Given the applicant’s history of flagrant non-compliance with Land Use Code provisions, permitting requirements and limits to granted approvals, it might be expected that future transgressions are likely.  While I am encouraged by the applicant’s correction of some past violations – in particular, the cessation of night operations and closure of the unpermitted on-site overflow parking areas – I must note that both were corrected only after community complaints.  Especially in the case of the overflow parking area, it is inconceivable that the applicant could have been unaware that it was a violation of the approvals and Code provisions applicable to the parcel.

 

I am greatly concerned that the applicant might attempt to use both the paved and unpaved areas of the parcel for unpermitted activities unrelated to operation of the Coaster.  I would cite two in particular.

 

First, operation of food trucks or other food vending operations on the site must be strictly prohibited.  Mobile food vendors are not permitted as an accessory use in residential zones under the Estes Valley sections of the County’s Land Use Code.  Food trucks would drastically alter the traffic and noise characteristics of the site, and nuisance odors would likely propagate into adjacent residential areas.  Mobile food vendors are required by Code “not… to be located… in a location in which the vehicle may impede or interfere with… safe movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic [or] parking lot circulation”, making them unsuitable for placement within the paved areas of the proposed parking lot.

 

Second, hosting of events unrelated to the Coaster must be prohibited – weddings, class reunions, corporate events, car- or motorcycle-enthusiast gatherings, etc.  The traffic, noise and occupancy characteristics of any of these are not analyzed in the application, are unlikely to fall within the identified parameters for use of the site, and would constitute an additional, unpermitted principal use of the parcel.

 

Note that maintenance of the overflow lots and shuttles contribute to the feasibility of these impermissible uses of the site.  Elimination of those lots and shuttles would reduce the likelihood that violations of this type would be attempted.

[Frederic Barber]

Please find my comments on the referenced project, attached.  As you’ll see, the document as a whole is quite long, but I’ve provided what I hope will be a useful summary at the front, the remainder providing the details by which my opinions were developed.

 

Thank you for your attention to this controversial issue.

 

Best regards,

[Rebecca Everette]

Mr. Barber,

Thank you for your comments. These will be added to the file for the Board of County Commissioners' hearing next Monday.

-Rebecca

	Rebecca Everette, AICP (she/her) Community Development Director
	Community Development Department  200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, CO 80521  Phone:  (970) 498-7690 reve...@larimer.org | www.larimer.gov