Note – this page is currently archived, but links and files will be restored as soon as possible. We hope this threat is now behind us, as the Base Area is now owned largely by Bridger Bowl and Crosscut Mountain Sports.

Proposed Development in the Bridger Bowl Base Area

• What Does it Look Like?
• Status
• The Big Picture
• Planning Dept. Staff Report
• BCPOA’s Initial Top Ten Concerns: In Brief
• Links

In 2006, we heard from Bridger Canyon Partners (BCP) about their plans to develop Bridger Mountain Village in the base area. Just before Christmas, the developers submitted their Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application for their proposed project, Bridger Mountain Village, to the Gallatin County Planning Office.

What Does it Look Like?

See our Map Gallery to get a sense of the scale of the proposed development.

Status

The Development Committee of the  Bridger Canyon Property Owners’ Association (BCPOA) reviewed the PUD with respect to its compliance with Bridger Canyon’s planning and zoning documents: Bridger Canyon General Plan and Development Guide, Bridger Bowl Base Area Plan, and Bridger Canyon Zoning Regulation. We developed a list of concerns, which we shared with the developers. We were unable to negotiate substantive changes to the project; therefore BCPOA does not support the application as it currently exists.

The Bridger Canyon Zoning Commission heard public testimony on April 12 and April 17. Hearings resumed on May 15, 2007 for board discussion; at that point Bridger Canyon Partners (BCP) asked the Bridger Canyon Planning and Zoning Commission to table its decision on their planned unit development (PUD) application. A continuation of the discussion to a later date, they argued, would enable BCP to engage in facilitated discussions with BCPOA. Facilitated discussions with BCP were delayed due to the busy schedule of the facilitator, Mike Lilly of Berg, Lilly & Tollefsen. Lilly has already met separately with the developers and, on August 6th, with members of BCPOA’s board and Base Area Development Committee.

Public comment is still closed. When the application returns to the Commission calendar, BCPOA expects public comment to be reopened, at least for consideration of design revisions, stipulations imposed on the project, the May 15th Staff Report, and new information.

Update: see news for the latest.

We have added a page documenting our research into legal and procedural issues with the application, particularly with density transfers that we believe to be ineligible.

The Big Picture

Our initial concerns about the project’s noncompliance with our zoning regulations are outlined in brief below, with links to a more complete discussion of the issues.
Stepping back to see the big picture, we now feel that there are much more serious problems with the project. Many are described in our testimony before the zoning commission. In particular,

• In spite of assertions to the contrary, BCP is obligated to provide significant community benefits in exchange for the huge density bonus available under the PUD process, but these are not evident.
• The phasing of the project and allocation of reserve overnight units makes it likely that the portions of the project most attractive to the community (and least profitable to the developer) will never be built.
• There is no protection for public access to amenities claimed as benefits, and no enforcement to ensure that overnight accommodations serve the public
• The development provides no evidence of traffic mitigation, though that is a fundamental objective of the Base Area plan. The type of accommodations planned are likely to increase traffic.
• There are numerous technical and procedural problems with the PUD and CUP applications.
• Water and sewer constraints are serious.
• Rather than clustering units, the proposal scatters structures widely over the entire base area, violating both the zoning and the settlement agreement, and increasing visual and wildlife impacts.

See our written testimony page for excerpts and details.

Planning Dept. Staff Report

The Gallatin County Planning Department’s Staff Review of the proposed development is out. We have posted a copy here: StaffReport
Update: the Planning Dept. has released an amendment to the staff report, containing additional conditions, which we have posted here: StaffReportMay15 At first glance, the revisions appear to be minimal. A supplement responds to BCPOA: StaffReportMay15-BCPOAresponse

BCPOA board members had a productive meeting with Randy Johnson and Greg Sullivan of the Planning Department following publication. We have not had a chance to analyze the details of the report, but it does appear to impose stipulations addressing a few of our concerns. In other areas, for example the legal interpretation of the requirement that the properties in a PUD be contiguous, we disagree. It is important to recognize that the Planning Department’s job is to assess compliance of the application with the explicit design standards in the zoning regulations; it cannot address matters of the spirit or intent of the regulations. Those matters are left to the commissioners. Stay tuned for updates as we analyze the report. Update: See the testimony page for analyses of problems with the staff report, particularly from Alex Eby and Bruce Jodar.

BCPOA’s Initial Top Ten Concerns: In Brief

Update: testimony by BCPOA board members and many residents identified a number of issues not discussed here. See the testimony page for more concerns.

1.    The proposed PUD appears to be in conflict with the intent of the Bridger Canyon Zoning Regulation’s Planned Unit Development section.

• BCPOA finds that the proposed PUD would negatively impact the district by reducing existing visible open space, impairing existing view sheds [particularly from Bridger Canyon Road], heightening the visual impacts of development, significantly increasing traffic, reducing wildlife habitat, encroaching into wetland areas and stream setbacks, precluding agricultural activities, increasing fire danger, and consuming unprecedented levels of water, etc. As many of these negative outcomes are in direct conflict with the purposes of the PUD designation, BCPOA believes that the current proposal is not in the best interest of the community.

2.    BCP’s proposed development begins in an open meadow and close to streams and wetlands.

• BCPOA fully supports the intent of the General Plan to protect open meadows, streams, and wetlands.

3.    As proposed, much of the development would be visible from Bridger Canyon Road.

• BCPOA fully supports the intent of the General Plan in preserving visual aesthetics by clustering development in areas of tree cover so as not to be visible from Bridger Canyon Road.

4.    Configuration of development may increase traffic problems instead of alleviating them as the Base Area Plan sought to accomplish by allowing increased overnight density.

• BCPOA aims to uphold the Base Area Plan’s intention to allow for the expansion of Bridger Bowl without exceeding the vehicular capacity of the two-lane Bridger Canyon Road. BCPOA also recognizes the need to have the traffic report conducted on behalf of BCP reviewed by a qualified traffic engineer.

5.    Important wildlife habitat will be reduced and negatively impacted by a network of paved roads and dense development.

• BCPOA stands by the base area district’s stated purpose of “protect[ing] areas of important wildlife habitat”  (Bridger Canyon Zoning Regulation p. 28) and the General Plan’s insistence on attention to wildlife habitat when considering new developments (p. 3). Further BCPOA encourages BCP to follow the recommendations outlined in their own Wildlife Assessment.

6.    Development would encroach into the county subdivision watercourse setbacks.

• BCPOA stands by Gallatin County’s Subdivision Regulations and supports upholding strict adherence to the 150-foot watercourse setback.

7.    BCP’s fire protection plan does not include building a fully equipped fire station.

• BCPOA fully concurs with the Bridger Canyon Rural Fire Department (BCRFD) that BCP needs to construct a fire station (per BCRFD specifications and fully equipped) prior to beginning construction on its proposed development.

8.    BCP’s PUD application does not provide detailed plans for the overall project.

• BCPOA urges the Gallatin County Planning Department to require BCP to submit details on the entire project before proceeding further to avoid piece-meal development and to allow for a comprehensive analysis of the trade-offs involved.

9.    Developers propose to begin construction prior to receiving all necessary permits.

• BCPOA supports upholding Gallatin County’s Subdivision Regulations in disallowing any construction until all necessary permits have been obtained.

10.    The study assessing the environmental impacts of the community sewer and water systems was conducted by the same firm engaged to design the systems.

• BCPOA acknowledges the Environmental Assessment Association’s Code of Professional Ethics standard regarding potential conflicts of interest and recognizes the necessity for a peer review by an impartial reviewer to analyze the environmental impact of the proposed community water and sewer systems.

Links

Base Area Development Plan

Bridger Canyon Partners

Bridger Bowl EIS – Gallatin National Forest