Atlas Towers has applied for a 70-foot tower, disguised as a pine tree, at Bridger Bowl. The application is on the agenda for the June 16 P&Z Commission hearing.

Here are some of the application documents:

CUP application form

FAA no hazard finding

maps & design

notice to neighbors

view visualizations

Update: Atlas Towers’ renditions are at http://zoning.posterous.com/atlas-cell-tower-mockups

Here are some very rough renderings of cell towers at locations currently under discussion. Bear in mind that these are probably worst-case, as tower heights are likely to be lower. The renderings do not represent tree cover, which would reduce the appearance of height, though neither location offers dense tree cover. A stealth tower design and smaller antenna arrays could also reduce the visual impact.

“Bridger Ski” tower

Bridger Bowl, with a 130′ tower just south of the propane tank in A lot. Very rough envelopes of the Saddle Peak lodge and ski patrol building shown for scale.

As seen from Bridger Pines, looking across the base area:

As seen from the entrance off Hwy 86:

“Bridger South” tower

A 150′ tower on the Brunner property, at the bottom of Kelly Canyon. I placed this about halfway upslope on the narrow parcel, though the actual location is not known to me.

From the Schoolhouse:

From Kelly Canyon at the Bridger Woods Rd. turnoff:

Bridger South – Taller

Update: There are conflicting reports about the location of the South tower needed for connectivity. If the tower would have to be tall enough to see over the ridge to the south, it would look more like the following:

Tree cover would conceal the bottom portion of the tower, possibly diminishing the impression of height. But it would be difficult to maintain tree cover with foundations, roads and other site improvements on steep slopes.

[google-map-v3 width=”350″ height=”350″ zoom=”12″ maptype=”hybrid” mapalign=”center” directionhint=”false” language=”default” poweredby=”false” maptypecontrol=”true” pancontrol=”true” zoomcontrol=”true” scalecontrol=”true” streetviewcontrol=”true” scrollwheelcontrol=”false” draggable=”true” tiltfourtyfive=”false” addmarkermashupbubble=”false” addmarkermashupbubble=”false” addmarkerlist=”45.816051° -110.894324°{}1-default.png{}Proposed cell tower at Bridger Bowl|45.692992° -110.927496°{}1-default.png” bubbleautopan=”true” showbike=”false” showtraffic=”false” showpanoramio=”false”]

Last week, Atlas Towers representative Tierney Rowe met (separately) with Bridger Bowl’s board and BCPOA directors. There is not currently a proposal before the commission, but discussions are progressing. The following coverage maps are one product.

Hi Folks, these are .jpgs which you can download and then zoom into, showing the various types of coverage that the towers currently proposed by Atlas Towers would accomplish.

There are two proposed sites, one at Bridger Bowl called BridgerSki and the other at the Brunners’ property [in Kelly Canyon] called BridgerSouth.

Each individual site has two propagation maps representing coverage by 850 MHZ or 1900 MHZ. Apparently each frequency has pros and cons so they are mixed for best results.

Then there are two “composite” maps that show coverage over the entire Canyon with Bridger Ski and Bridger South coverage mixed, at each frequency. Not sure why we didn’t get a map that shows both frequencies together over the entire canyon.

Remember that these maps are based on a 130′ tower at Bridger Bowl and a 150′ tower at the Brunners. Clearly, the taller the tower, the better the coverage. I understand from several sources that the BB Board is not considering the 130′ tower and wants to see something in the 60′ range. And I think it fair to say that an 150′ tall tower at the Brunners would elicit considerable local concern.

That being said, when you look at these propagation maps keep in mind this is a best possible scenario which is based on tower heights that are very unlikely to happen. [In particular, the 130′ tower at Bridger Bowl was a no-go with the board.] Hence, coverage will be less complete than what is shown. See Tierney’s comment below about tower height.*

Kent Madin

* “The primary goal is good coverage and tower height directly correlates to the quality and density of coverage in these locations where terrain issues place limitations on signal transmission.”

Composite coverage maps at 850 and 1900 MHz. Click to enlarge.

Update: Overlays of the coverage map with zoning district boundaries (blue), parcel lines (yellow) and structures (orange dots).

850MHz:

1900MHz:

The response rate to the BCPOA Cell Tower Survey was phenomenal – clearly this is an issue of considerable interest.

The outcome is mostly what one would expect: considerable enthusiasm for cell service, and considerable concern about impacts. The leading benefit of service was perceived as safety (though some argued in the comments that distracted drivers would likely degrade safety). The leading concern was for views. Support for towers was about 1 point lower, and concern for impacts 1 point greater, among respondents who also took the time to write a comment.

Enthusiasm for service was highest where it does not now exist (Upper and Lower Canyon) and lower where there is now coverage (Jackson Creek) and the threat of impacts is most imminent (Aspen Meadow).

Some wondered why the cell site could not be collocated with existing infrastructure, on the ridge at Bridger Bowl, for example. Unfortunately, we don’t know whether this is possible or under consideration. Many also wondered about coverage and broadband availability, and again we don’t know much. Coverage is complex, because cell signals don’t strictly require line of sight, but also can’t tolerate too much obstruction. However, it seems unlikely that the proposed tower would do much for reception in Kelly Canyon or on the SW side of Green Mountain, particularly if the design were lowered to reduce visual impact.

Two surprises:

Almost 1/3 of respondents rated themselves as “indifferent” to negative impacts of towers, which seems to be at odds with the 85% who expressed concern for views. A look at the comments suggests that some expressing indifference are assuming that intelligent siting and design would sufficiently mitigate visual and other impacts.

Similarly, feelings about the particular proposal in Aspen Meadow were very polarized, with about 1/3 expressing “strong support”. We suspect that the strong support would be tempered somewhat if we had emphasized that (a) the design, as stated in the public notice, would stand roughly 100 feet above the treetops, and (b) the covenants in Aspen Meadow forbid nonresidential development.

A sampling of comments:

I am most concerned about the creep of blight in the name of convenience. BC is an extraordinary region, we have only to look to the west of downtown Bozeman to see the benefits of zoning that puts community input and values first over expediency or commercial demands. With each small, incremental affront to the BC landscape, the bar is lowered, making the next affronts that much more possible.

Dependable cell service in Bridger Canyon will provide a real convenience and possibly cost saving to those not wanting to pay for a land line. It also provides a vital safety tool for hunters, skiers, snowmobilers, etc. as well as motor vehicle accident victims and additional communication channel for Bridger Canyon Fire. The visibility of the tower is not ideal but cell towers are a way of life in many areas and I feel the benefits outweigh the visual impact.

I believe that cell service in Bridger Canyon poses significantly more benefits than detriments; however, the placement of the cell tower is of critical concern. It needs to be placed so that it has minimal environmental impact and does not materially distract from the area’s natural beauty and unspoiled vistas.

The views of the Bridgers are not to be taken for granted. They are precious and the reason many have chosen to re-locate here. Once they are gone, they are gone forever. A tower of the proposed height is a disservice to all who live here and appreciate the wide open views and skies.

For me, it comes down to balancing preservation/conservation of canyon resources — including aesthetics — and benefits to be gained by canyon residents. Always a very difficult path to navigate!

Detailed comments – stripped of any identifying information – are in Cell Survey Details.