Testimony on Bridger Mountain Village
“…we are not obligated under that provision* to provide significant community benefit.” – Joby Sabol, testifying on behalf of BCP, April 17, 5:54
The contention that Bridger Mountain Village need not demonstrate any community benefits was the bombshell of BCP’s rebuttal testimony on April 17th. Their position is based on the notion that BCP is not seeking a “density bonus” under section 13.1 of the zoning regulation . This interpretation apparently rests on the Base Area Plan’s references to an additional hotel/motel density bonus . Under BCP’s interpretation, no PUD in Bridger Canyon, other than a hotel or motel, would be required to show benefits in exchange for increased density. Clearly this is contrary to past interpretation of the regulations and common understanding of the term density bonus, as an increase in density above what is permitted by underlying zoning (for Bridger Mountain Village, the underlying zoning permits 9 homes). The hotel/motel density bonus is simply in addition to the general density bonus available through a PUD in the Base Area, or anywhere else, in exchange for significant community benefits. In any case, BCP should be careful what it wishes for: zoning that benefits a single landowner in a small area with significantly different land use at the expense of neighbors is known as spot zoning, and it’s illegal. (See testimony of Brian Gallik)
BCPOA’s initial analysis of BCP’s proposed Bridger Mountain Village project focused on technical details of its noncompliance with our zoning regulations. Stepping back to see the big picture, we now feel that there are more serious problems with the project. Many are described below in our testimony before the zoning commission. In particular,
- In spite of assertions to the contrary, BCP is obligated to provide significant community benefits, but these are not evident (see Alex Eby, Tom Fiddaman, Deb Stratford, Bruce Jodar, Ken Danhof, Brian Gallik)
- 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 will never be built if water, sewer, or economic constraints limit scale (see Alex Eby, Tom Fiddaman)
- Water and sewer constraints are serious (see Jean Bucher, Mark Cunane, John Wittingham, Allied Engineering)
- There is no protection for public access to amenities claimed as community benefits, and no enforcement to ensure that overnight accommodations continue to serve the public (see Tom Fiddaman)
- 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, while providing few skiers to Bridger Bowl and perhaps even consuming existing parking spaces (see Tom Fiddaman)
- There are numerous technical and procedural problems with the PUD and CUP applications (see Alex Eby, Deb Stratford)
- The development creates serious fire hazards and strains the existing BCRFD volunteer base (see Joan Cory)
- 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 Bruce Jodar, Lowell Cary, Tom Fiddaman, Curtis Kruer)
We have provided excerpts as a guide, but many of the issues are complex and require reading the full testimony linked. Please be aware that the testimony below is generally provided from our own electronic documents, and may differ slightly from the public record, due to the inevitable flurry of last-minute revisions. While we have made every effort to be accurate, you should refer to the official public record, available from the Planning Dept., for critical uses. The Planning Department has a complete file containing letters by other interested parties, as well as recorded oral testimony.
- BCPOA Members
- Bruce Jodar – It would appear that someone didn’t read our General Plan
- Alex Eby – Problems with the PUD application and the Planning Dept. Staff Report
- Kate Vargas – History of the Base Area Zoning
- Tom Fiddaman – Traffic, Land Use, Scale of Development, Community Benefits
- Lowell Cary – Land Use
- Joan Cory – Wildfire
- Deb Stratford – Community Benefits, PUD/CUP Process
- Jean Bucher – Wastewater
- Pauline Sager – the 11th hour concession by BCP
- Ken Danhof – What benefits to whom?
- Expert Witnesses
- Brian Gallik, Atty
- Stephanie Kruer, Land Use
- Curtis Kruer, Wildlife
- Mark Cunane, Water
- John Wittingham, Wastewater
- Allied Engineering, Wastewater
- Bob Marvin, Traffic
BCPOA Members
Bruce Jodar – It would appear that someone didn’t read our General Plan
From these general guidelines we move on to more specific requirements including:
-It is proposed that the residential areas be developed in such a way as not to interfere with open meadows, and well away from the wetland areas along the stream beds.
Concerning wetland areas in particular, the General Plan has this to say:
-Only low density residential development will be allowed, no more than one unit per 40 acres.
-Allow no dense build-up of buildings in any one place, prefer no cluster developments.
-In all cases, the streamside vegetation should be left undisturbed.
The General Plan also offers specific development criteria concerning Ski Base Facilities:
-Hide buildings from view of motorists on Bridger Canyon Road by retention of natural vegetation or installation of landscaping.
Amazingly, the proposed PUD begins construction in an open meadow which is visible from Bridger Canyon Road and clusters development adjacent to wetland areas. It would appear that someone didn’t read our General Plan.
…the proposed PUD does not offer low-cost hotel, motel, or hostel accommodations as envisioned by the authors of the Base Area Plan which would be more in keeping with the low key nature of a community ski area like Bridger Bowl and have real potential to achieve the desired reduction in traffic on Bridger Canyon Rd. A smaller scale PUD with an emphasis on concentrated overnight accommodations would substantially reduce the overall footprint of the development, lower negative impacts on the fragile environment, and make it much easier to blend the project into its surroundings. The proposed PUD appears to be an attempt to maximize high-cost residential and over-night development which will only benefit the developer’s bottom line and is in direct conflict with the expressed intent and requirements of our zoning regulations.
While the PUD process remains the best option for insuring a high quality development in the base area, and I can envision a more appropriate plan being supported, the current application does not reflect the intent of our regulations, does not address the specific purposes of the PUD regulation, does not provide significant community benefits that would outweigh the considerable negative impacts of this project, and does not represent a more desirable approach to development than the underlying zoning would allow. As a result, and in the strongest terms possible, I urge you to uphold the intent and purpose of our regulations and deny this application.
Alex Eby – Problems with the PUD application and the Planning Dept. Staff Report
I’m not clear as to why Bridger Canyon Partners has been allowed to submit a master PUD without also applying for a CUP for the entire project. Nowhere in the regulations do I find language supporting a procedure allowing for conditional use permits to be granted on a phase-by-phase basis. Part of the problem with evaluating Bridger Canyon Partners’ application has been that we do not have sufficient information on the overall PUD to adequately determine the potential impacts and trade-offs associated with the whole project.
If after receiving MDEQ approval, Phase 1 is built, but water and sewage capacity proves insufficient to warrant further development, then phases 2 and 3 would be unable to obtain the necessary MDEQ permits and would have to be abandoned. Without subsequent stages, would Phase 1 stand on its own? Unfortunately not. Because Phase 1 lacks sufficient commercial amenities to keep guests on the hill (and off the road) and is located at a distance relatively far from the alpine ski facilities, it fails to meet the goals of the Base Area Plan and the intent of the General Plan.
If Bridger Mountain Village is allowed to proceed with phased approval, and water or sewage capacity prove insufficient to build the reserve units, then the base area would be left with roughly half of the overnight units in Phase 1, half in Phase 2, and none in Phase 3. The result would be no overnight accommodations located near the existing base area (which according to the Zoning Regulation should have the highest concentration of overnight density).
Only by evaluating a master PUD through the CUP approval process can the above problems be resolved. It is simply not possible to weigh the impacts of a project without a detailed picture of the whole thing. Although building in phases may make sense, approving a project on a phase-by-phase basis guarantees piece-meal development and opens the door for serious, long-term, negative impacts.
The testimony goes on to detail many other problem areas, including:
- non-contiguous boundaries
- an error in the planning department Staff Report and testimony, ascribing benefits to the county rather than Bridger Canyon Zoning District
- lack of public visibility of information on accessory uses, provided privately to the planning office
- lack of detailed information on conditional uses, including building envelopes
- last-minute changes to the application
- beginning construction without all permits
- inscrutable transfers of density rights
- failure of 360 Ranch to record deed restrictions stipulated by the 1996 settlement agreement
- public revelation of a sealed settlement
- changes in the expected ultimate capacity of Bridger Bowl that create inconsistency with the Base Area Plan
- discrepancies in cabin square footage calculations
- Staff Report errors in density allocations
I hope I have raised enough questions for you to become as concerned as I am…as the entire Board of the Bridger Canyon Property Owners’ Association is…as all the concerned citizens who have left their work and families to attend two days of testimony before this Commission. We who oppose this development are not a “radical fringe group”; rather, we are a community of friends and neighbors who have spent thousands of hours meeting, talking, reading, investigating, reviewing, writing, testifying, and organizing because we have determined that this project is wrong for the Bridger Bowl Base Area and wrong for Bridger Canyon. The district deserves more than polished briefings or reassuring clichés. We need a development that through its design demonstrates an awareness of our values and priorities…a development that provides meaningful benefits and minimizes negative impacts.
Kate Vargas – History of the Base Area Zoning
After carefully analyzing the PUD and CUP applications submitted by Bridger Canyon Partners and studying the design of the overall project and that of their first phase, I am convinced that BCP did not consider the guiding principles or specific recommendations set forth in Bridger Canyon’s three planning and zoning documents. Had they considered the intent of our plans, I doubt they would have chosen to begin their project in an open meadow, close to steams and wetlands in a location entirely visible from Bridger Canyon Road. Even with the modifications they’ve agreed to, against the advice of the General Plan, they are still clustering overnight accommodations and single-family homes in sensitive wetland areas, with homes running alongside creeks that serve as tributaries for an already impaired Bridger Creek.
Because they’ve chosen to provide individually owned cabins as overnight accommodations, the footprint they’ll leave on the meadow and surrounding areas is much more impactful than that left by a larger, multi-room facility, such as a lodge (with overnight rooms), small hotel/motel, hostel, or B&B.
Had they considered our planning principles, they wouldn’t have chosen to start in a location distant (in comparison to Phase 2 and 3) from the alpine ski bases. They would have started in the center and worked outward, placing their structures under cover of trees.
Had they understood that the base area was given unprecedented overnight accommodations to solve a future traffic problem for canyon residents, they may have chosen to offer more amenities in Phase 1 or start the entire project with Phase 2. The accommodations are distant from the hill and their lodge will compete (in a limited fashion since they won’t be able to tie their trails into the existing ones at Bohart) with a successful, existing cross-country operation. We don’t need another cross country skiing resort. We need accommodations near the alpine ski facilities as was envisioned by our plans. We need a development that surrounds and supports Bridger Bowl. We don’t need another real estate sales operation trying to make back its initial capital investment.
That BCP made the design choices before us today, leads me to believe that they did not consider the goals of the Base Area Plan, the guiding principles of the General Plan, or the purposes of the district from the Zoning Regulation when they designed their project. When asked why they chose to start with their Phase 1 site plan, they said that it made good financial sense. It looks to me like the Partners are capitalizing on the beauty of the area’s streams and wetlands (with little care for their long-term health and future productivity) so as to more rapidly make a return on their initial investment. Financial considerations are a part of running a business, but when you are applying for a huge density bonus, you also have to be willing to give the community some real, honest-to-goodness benefits as well. I believe that the Partners’ have failed to understand the intent of our plans and the values of our district.
Instead, BCP has held onto its own vision trying to force and bully it into working in an environment ill suited for such a project. BCPOA has always supported conscientious development, and I encourage BCP to release their vision of this project and join us in becoming good stewards of the land by reading, understanding, and digesting the intent of our plans and the purposes of our district.
Tom Fiddaman – Traffic, Land Use, Scale of Development, Community Benefits
I have personally spent many hours studying the technical details of traffic, land use, the scale of the project, and its benefits to the community, which you will find summarized in four attachments to this letter. The most important technical finding is that the Traffic Impact Study is overly optimistic, yet fails to show traffic mitigation benefits. The most important finding to me personally is that the benefits of the project to our community are largely illusory.
I am convinced that an attractive project could be designed to meet our regulations, and that this is not it.
Given the ambiguous effect of the development on peak hour traffic, the negative effects of the unambiguous increase in total traffic, and the fact that there are other options for mitigating Bridger Bowl’s traffic (e.g. buses), we find no benefit to the community from the proposed development’s impact on traffic.
The Bridger Canyon Zoning District – first of its kind in Montana – was created by residents to preserve the rural character and pristine environment of Bridger Canyon. Certainly Bridger Canyon residents are concerned about the greater good for Gallatin County, and in particular the health of Bridger Bowl, but to approve a project that benefits the county without also benefiting residents of the zoning district would mock the very intent of creating zoning districts by petition. The Base Area Development must provide compelling benefits to Bridger Canyon residents, not require them to “take one for the team.”
Given the phasing of the PUD application, and the allocation of full overnight rights to Phase 1, half reserve rights to Phase 2, and only reserve rights to Phase 3, it seems quite possible that a variety of conditions – including insufficient water and sewer capacity – could lead to a project with many homes and overnight accommodations dispersed far from lifts, without ever building high density, low footprint accommodations in proximity to lifts, as contemplated in the Base Area Plan.
TomTestimony1
See also Bob Marvin’s review, below
The attached report extends my traffic testimony to reconsider whether Bridger Mountain Village accommodations have, and will retain, the attributes needed to mitigate traffic. Briefly, it seems that the physical configuration of the Phase 1 units does not lend itself to high occupancy by skiers displacing Bozeman trips. Further, the Staff Report stipulations and the covenants and administrative plans provided in the application do not provide any real protection against conversion of the overnight accommodations to quasi-residential use, with even less potential to mitigate traffic and provide sales to Bridger Bowl. Similarly, the proposed covenants do not guarantee public access to common facilities claimed as a benefit of the project.
Correcting this deficiency likely requires more than stipulations; new ordinances enabling oversight and enforcement have often been required in similar situations in other locales, as shown by two attached articles. Absent significant controls, I encourage you to deny this application, in favor of potential future projects with a physical configuration that does not raise such concerns.
Lowell Cary – Land Use
As noted on page 37 of the staff Report and in the Bridger canyon zoning regulation, 13.5, in approving the area for a planned unit development the commission must determine if at least one of the four general Standards for Development exists. Because BCP provided a CUP application for Phase 1 only, the Planning Dept, the commission and public have only been privy to the details of that part of the Bridger Mountain Village development. My comments here refer to the conditions of the area planned for Phase 1.
The “Standards for Development”, section (13.5) of the Bridger Canyon zoning Regulation, list four general criteria for evaluations of the appropriateness of an area for a planned unit development. I believe that the Crosscut Ranch meadow and other Phase 1 areas do not meet any of the conditions listed. I will explain my reasoning point by point after referencing the condition.
LCaryTestimony
LCaryTestimonyII
(note that we are currently unsure which of two drafts is in the official record – this copy contains more information, but less narrative; we will reconcile as soon as possible)
Joan Cory – Wildfire
As a Bridger Canyon resident for 16 years, and a BCPOA director for six, I have concerns about the current application with regard to the health and safety of residents of Bridger Canyon. To approve this application, benefits to the community of Bridger Canyon residents must be demonstrated. In addition, potential benefits must outweigh the risks of development. I will address one such area of risk: the increased danger of serious wildfire, the increased danger that such fire will spread, and the difficulty of evacuating canyon residents because of fire, or high smoke levels, beginning in this high density housing development. We’ve all seen TV footage of wildfires in conjunction with mountain housing structures; realize the risks to area residents, fire fighters, and wildlife; and must consider the proposed application from this perspective.
Let me first acknowledge that BCP has made modifications on this issue in its recent application, to wit, a fire station and truck are listed as items of significant benefit to the community. This would pertain to some 30 upper canyon residents outside of the proposed development, but primarily to the residents and guests of the development itself. Phase I alone would increase the canyon population by 33% and, as most wildfires result from human activity, creates a significant additional fire threat. This fire station, then, only mitigates a problem that the development creates in the first place.
A BCPOA director and volunteer firefighter writes: “Another matter that needs additional consideration is the [proposed] fire station at the base area. Although this is a well intentioned attempt … to provide a ” ‘community benefit’ …, as a firefighter, I am having some difficulty with the operational reality of such a scenario. Aside from the fact that … such a station could provide additional support for a handful of the current residents in the upper canyon, as well as the new residents and guests at the Base Area, the reality of staffing and providing a quick response time from such a station is another matter entirely. …
Phase I of the proposed development comprises a large number of units widely dispersed over the base area, rather than the consolidated guest services originally envisioned. This would be essentially a high density subdivision located in a highly sensitive environmental area. … All of those individual structures render it more difficult to fight fires than if units were consolidated. Individual ownership of units makes it less likely that fire protection measures will be understood, adhered to, and enforced. High density population in multiple low occupancy structures spread out over a large area in a wild land fire – urban interface area — puts everyone in the canyon at risk.
Deb Stratford – Community Benefits, PUD/CUP Process
Thanks to the efforts of many canyon residents and county planning officials, such as yourself, the canyon remains the place I fell in love with 20 years ago. It is my hope that those individuals will be honored today by requiring Bridger Canyon Partners to submit a PUD and subsequent CUPs that are consistent with the intent of Bridger Canyon’s General and Base Area plans and, in full compliance, to the letter, with the Bridger Canyon Zoning Regulation.
So, before us today we have a single PUD application that is applied for under a Conditional Use Permit. However, during BCPOA’s review, in which I participated, we determined that numerous aspects of the PUD requirements were not provided. The explanation was that they were proposing staged construction and therefore BCP’s PUD application need only pertain to that portion of the staged development. I strongly disagree. Staged development is an allowable sequence of construction of a portion of the Planned Unit Development, provided it is done proportionally. … It does not provide for a separate PUD within the existing PUD, nor does it relieve the developer from fulfilling all the conditions required under a PUD for the other portions of the development. Actually this makes perfect sense, this interpretation obligates the developer to provide all details of the entire PUD. The developer is made accountable for his design plans, has a greater financial investment and therefore is less likely to fall short of completion. It reduces the possibility of under permitting by regulatory agencies and most important of all, provides the appropriate level of information needed to make an informed decision as to a projects feasibility and appropriateness by all parties involved, public and private. Therefore, given the above, I assert that the applicant has submitted an incomplete application, and the commission is obligated to deny the PUD
Could have been Good
I was first introduced to Pete Stephen, several of his associates and Randy Johnson of the planning department, when they attended a Bridger Canyon Property owners Association general meeting in the spring of 06 to share the vision for the base area and inquire as to what the canyon residents would like to have included in the project. . He talked about the overall design to the liking of European resorts rather than a Big Sky type scenario. He said he understood how important it was to retain the canyons beauty, that he was going to be a resident of the canyon himself and knew how important the zoning regulations were to Bridger Canyon, and to the residents, and that he would work within their constraints; he saw it as his legacy. I went home pretty excited. I thought wow, this sounds like a good fit, restoring the Cross Cut Ranch with a lodge and Trapper cabins, an old time general store, a European resort flavor, unobtrusive, a village with small shops, restaurants and a lodge around a second base area. Could be good, I won’t have to run into town every time I run out of milk, I could walk or ride over with friends have a beer, glass of wine and dinner without having to drive. Non-local skiers would have a place and a reason, to stay on the hill and off Bridger Canyon Road. Unfortunately, that is not the project that was presented today.
Jean Bucher – Wastewater
To put Allied’s report in lay terms, reviewers stated that the information provided to MDEQ was insufficient, that there is a possibility of slope instability in the drain field area (located on a bench above Bridger Creek), and that BCP could get approval for Phase 1 of the project before it is determined whether or not phases two or three would be approved.
Before this project moves any further in the evaluation process, I strongly suggest that the Commission require the developers to, conduct “a complete geological study to resolve conflicting geologic interpretations” of the drain field area, and require the developer to obtain MDEQ approval for all three phases of development before beginning construction of any kind.
JBucherTestimony
Pauline Sager – the 11th hour concession by BCP
Numerous conversations between BCPOA and BPC took place over the last twelve months. BCPOA expressed a major concern about phase 1’s gross lack of environmental considerations. The stream and wetland encroachments, high visibility of the meadow development, the density in the meadow, the lack of amenities, the location of the waste treatment facility and accompanying drain field, the location of an equestrian center in close proximity to wetlands and Bridger Creek are among many other design plans that seemed outside the district’s protective zoning regulatory documents. BCP made several attempts to resolve BCPOA’s concerns by agreeing to many of the items listed in there modification document submitted to the Planning Department, unfortunately they were contingent on BCPOA’s support of a test amendment BCPOA believed would allow overnight accommodations to become virtually single-family residences, which is certainly outside the intent of the proposed development.
Ken Danhof – What benefits to whom?
Who gets to determine what is of significant benefit to the district? Only those who reside in the district can decide what is meaningful to them. In Kate Vargas’ presentation last week, we heard a detailed history of the district’s residents’ tireless, and informed, commitment to upholding the zoning district’s regulations. This commitment has always been legally based on the three documents that I just referred to. That is why I now turn back to our Zoning Regulation to answer my earlier question, “What benefits would be significant and meaningful to the district?”
The first significant benefit sought by the district is a solution to the problem for which the high-density allotment in the base area was allowed. On page 3 of the Bridger Bowl Base Area Plan, it states, “the rationale for this high density allocation with overnight qualification…was to allow for the expansion of the Bridger Bowl Ski Area to its ultimate capacity without exceeding the vehicular capacity of the two-lane Bridger Canyon Road.”
Other benefits considered meaningful to the district are stated at the very beginning of the PUD section of the Bridger Canyon Zoning Regulation. Meaningful benefits would support and enhance the purposes of the district as defined in section 13.1 of the zoning document.
“The purposes of this district include the following:
a. Enhance and preserve open space and unique natural features.
b. Preserve to the maximum extent possible the natural characteristics of the land, including topography, vegetation, streams, and tree cover.
c. Protect areas of important wildlife habitat.
…
I conclude that not only does BCP’s development not provide significant or meaningful benefits to the district, but also, if built as proposed, Bridger Mountain Village may be detrimental to the health, safety, peace … comfort and general welfare of the Bridger Canyon Zoning District. Harmful, in effect, to the very district it is supposed to benefit in an important and meaning way.
Expert Witnesses
Brian Gallik, Atty
This firm represents the Bridger Canyon Property Owners Association. Bridger Canyon Partners, LLC, has applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and related Conditional Use Permits (CUP) for property located within the Bridger Bowl Base Area. As discussed below, my client objects to the proposed PUD and CUP applications for the following reasons, in addition to those set forth by it, and other consultants retained by it: (1) the Application is inconsistent with the comprehensive and base area plans which require strict adherence to that comprehensive plan; see Bridger Canyon Property Owners Association, Inc., v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 270 Mont. 160, 169, 890 P.2d 1268, 1273 (1995); (2) the proposed conditions set forth in the planning report do not adequately mitigate the impacts of this PUD proposal on the human environment; and (3) in light of the substantial testimony regarding the significant private benefit and little public benefit, the application before you constitutes illegal spot zoning. See, Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Board of County Commissioners (2001), 305 Mont. 232, 25 P.3d 168.
Stephanie Kruer, Land Use
Curtis Kruer, Wildlife
Mark Cunane, Water
Twitter
Facebook
Canyon email list
RSS
Email