Summary

BCPOA has been actively researching density transfers and other legal and procedural issues in the Base Area, both as they affect the Bridger Mountain Village PUD application and in terms of their implications for Bridger Canyon as a whole. Our preliminary conclusions include the following:

With respect to density transfers, we believe that:

• 10 of the development transfers claimed to support the density of 75 recreational homes sought for Bridger Mountain Village are ineligible or nonexistent.
  • 7 of the 10 originate outside of the Base Area, and may not be transferred into a Base Area PUD. 3 of the 7 are based on doubling the density from a noncontiguous area, for which only 2 unit transfers were recorded, so the 7 are really only 6.
  • the other 3 of the 10 have already been transferred to Ross Peak Ranch, based on erroneous outparcel logic (the transfers did not originate from actual tracts of record) and a faulty delineation of the zone boundary.
• The North Slope is limited by the 1996 Settlement to 12 recreational homes under an approved PUD (currently the application designates 36 or 37)
• Development of the North Slope is subject to a requirement to develop a second base area.
• BCPOA is unable to locate recorded deed restrictions required by the 1996 Settlement; these restrictions are essential to protect the canyon from future zoning changes increasing Base Area density

Legal and procedural issues include the following:

• If BCP’s assertion that the BMV project does not need to demonstrate significant community benefits is upheld, then the project is illegal spot zoning.
• The boundaries of the BMV PUD are not contiguous. This is primarily critical because BCP seeks double (1-in-20 PUD) density on units transferred from noncontiguous areas (which are also not held by a party to the application)
• The approval process as applied for does not conform to the sequence of approvals required in the zoning, and the application fails to provide critical required information, including location and dimensions of structures and accessory uses

In addition, we are now researching some further issues that have come up in the course of our investigations:

• In the Bridger Park (Ross Peak Ranch) PUD, density units were doubled from 1-in-40 underlying density to 1-in-20 PUD density for noncontiguous parcels not held in common ownership, contrary both to the letter of the zoning and the requirement to provide significant community benefits
• The BMV application seeks guesthouses for recreational homes; guesthouses are not a conditional use in the B4 zone
• The gerrymandering of land in the Bridger Park PUD included a 50-foot wide strip of the North Slope property, totaling about 3 acres. That strip was not a tract of record, so one could argue that the entire North Slope is already in a PUD, such that some amendment is required if it is to be included in the BMV PUD, particularly if density transfers not involved in the earlier PUD are to be considered. At a minimum the roughly 5 acres involved in the earlier PUD should be excluded from the current application’s open space calculation.
• The 1996 Settlement allocated 50 rec home density units to 360 Ranch properties based on the rationale of 1-in-10 density. At the time, the Base Area included the ~110 acre North Slope and ~260 acre Hammersmark properties (the latter is now Ross Peak Ranch), for a total of about 500 acres. The settlement allocated those 50 units to the 360 Ranch properties in general. However, when the commission de-annexed the North Slope and Hammersmark properties from the Base Area, it did not reduce the density in the Base area accordingly, though by the 1-in-10 rationale it should have fallen from 50 to 13. In addition, the Hammersmark and North Slope properties acquired 18 new density units from the underlying zoning in their new RF designation (5 on the North Slope and 13 on Hammersmark). Thus 360 Ranch was the sole beneficiary of an increase in the total density of Bridger Canyon by 18 homes. Now, the North Slope has been annexed back into the Base Area, increasing the total density of the Base Area by 5 homes.
• The BMV PUD seeks to transfer 13 rec home density units from Bridger Bowl. Those rec home units are associated with 48 overnight density units, which Bridger Bowl retains. However, the only justification for providing the rec home density is to provide an incentive or subsidy for overnight accommodations. Therefore the rec home and overnight units should not be separated.

The following sections discuss the above in more detail, and provide some follow-up questions. While we believe our findings to be correct, they are preliminary, and we welcome comments and corrections.

Density Transfers

• BaseAreaDevelopmentTransfers BCPOA’s 11/30/2007 analysis of density unit transfers associated with the Base Area.

Supporting documentation:

• BBxfer12remaining recorded transfer of 13 development rights from Bridger Bowl to BCP Base Area properties (one of the 13 has already been used in Bridger Park/Ross Peak, per point 5 of our analysis above).
• DelaneyNoSlope2ndBase Delaney covenant on the North Slope property, requiring development of the Second Base Area to accompany North Slope development (point 3 of analysis)
• NorthSlopeDorenBB recorded transfer of 4 development rights from Doren/Beasley Creek property, and 2 from Bridger Bowl, per point 1 of analysis above. BCPOA is still checking to determine whether these rights have been previously used.
• RossPeakoutparcels memos from Morrison & Maierle and Base Area Associates describing the disposition of Bridger Park/Ross Peak density transfers, including those from outparcels (points 1b and 1c)
• BridgerPark.jpg map of Bridger Park (Ross Peak Ranch) PUD, showing outparcel transfers from areas that are not separate tracts of record, #1, #2, and #4 on the map legend. LARGE FILE. Note that this map shows the Base Area boundary along the North Slope as south of Bridger Creek. Contrast with Base Area Plan Map 1 and a zoning map in the appendix (which appears similar to the official zoning map in the planning office), which together with the text clearly show that the zone boundary lies north of the creek, coincident with the property boundary.
• NoSlopeDeAnnexResolution resolution de-annexing the North Slope from the Base Area. Note that the resolution removes the North Slope parcel only (not any adjacent Bridger Bowl property) – further proof of the impossibility of an outparcel existing between parcel and zone boundaries.
• StaffReportFull April 12 GCPD Staff Report containing the 1996 Stipulation & Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A, page 48)
• Bridger Canyon Zoning Regulation, Section 13. Section 13.9 provides for density unit transfers, consummated through a PUD.

Legal & Procedural Issues

• LegalProceduralV8 BCPOA’s 11/30/2007 analysis of legal and procedural questions

Background:

• GCPlanningStaffReportRespondingToBCPOA May 15 GCPD Staff Report responding to BCPOA concerns
• Sabol11-13-07letterToGallik+Encl 11/13/2007 letter from BCP counsel, addressing application strategy (conditions, not amendment), PUD/CUP procedures, North Slope density, and total density units. Includes 1996 Settlement and 2006 North Slope annexation resolution as attachments.