Will This Rural Valley Double in Size?
Bridger Resort Development May Be Impeded By Zoning Regulations
By Lucia Stewart, 5-14-07
 |
|
 | |
|
Update: Bridger Canyon Partners’ development application has been tabled. Click here for the story.
Living near the base of a small ski area surrounded by open space, wildlife and recreational opportunity in close proximity to a vibrant city is many a New Westerner’s dream.
Bridger Canyon is just that place. Currently consisting of 388 homes in 50,000 acres, it’s a rural haven nestled in a wild and breathtakingly scenic valley on the east slope of the Bridger Mountains. It is only 20 minutes from downtown Bozeman, and contains Bozeman’s beloved Bridger Bowl Ski Area.
That lifestyle could be hindered by — or provided by, depending on your view — 452 overnight units, 75 recreational homes lots, a commercial village, a lodge including a swimming pool and fitness facilities, employee housing, related parking and additional recreational amenities.
The Bridger Canyon Partners’ Planned Unit Development (PUD) is currently on the Gallatin County Planning and Zoning Commission roundtable, after an extend two-day public hearing in mid-April due to 70+ public comments. The commission will continue their board discussion on Tuesday, May 15th at 1:00 pm.
Interestingly, this potential development is not something new to Bridger Canyon. It faced a similar development in the mid-1990s by the 360 Ranch that after approval by the Gallatin County Planning and Zoning Commission, ended up in the Montana Supreme Court over violation of the Bridger Canyon General Plan and Development Guide.
In the early 1970’s, the Bridger Canyon Property Owners’ Association (BCPOA) had forethought in creating some of the strictest zoning and development regulations of its time in order to maintain the canyon’s pristine state.
Its goals: To prevent overcrowding, conserve property values, to preserve fish and wildlife habitat, scenic resources and ensure a high water quality standard as well as protect agricultural lands from the effects of urban encroachment.
The Bridger Canyon General Plan, petitioned by the BCPOA in April of ’71 to be adopted by the Gallatin County Zoning and Planning Commission, exemplified forward thinking for rural Montana in planning ahead with what was desired for the future of the area.
It included ideas of parcel requirements of 40 acres with one unit allowed per parcel, 25-foot setbacks from the property line, 100-foot setbacks from any creek and 125 feet from any major roadway.
The BCPOA did foresee the possibility of expansion needed at the Bridger Bowl Base Area, needing to promote business, tourism and recreational uses but with the plan to not destroy the character of the area or threaten water quality, traffic or fire safety. Therefore a Bridger Bowl Base Area Conceptual Plan was adopted in 1979.
Currently, the BCPOA believes the current Bridger Village PUD is not aligned with the Bridger Canyon Zoning and Development Guide nor the conceptual plan.
Bridger Village is outlined to become a small mountain community. Bridger Canyon Partners is insisting that this development is congruent with the development guide for Bridger Bowl’s foreseen growth of 8,000 skiers a day (currently equipped for 3,200 skiers a day) by providing overnight accommodations to reduce the commute on the two-lane road into Bozeman, and doing so with tremendous building density so as to maintain open space on approximately 80 percent of 335 acres.
Bridger Bowl supports this development, as it has seen significant growth of skiers over the past few years. And with the Forest Service approval of a 611-acre expansion that will double the skiable acreage, Bridger can actually host more skiers — although parking issues are still in the works.
As a non-profit ski area, Bridger Bowl is not in the business to make money. They focus on providing a quality experience at an affordable price, and they see this expansion as potentially increasing the skier capacity on the weekdays that will provide revenue to keep lift tickets affordable with the rising cost of operations.
But the BCPOA doesn’t see the community benefits that the BCP is offering in exchange for the density requested. The current plan will increase the structures within Bridger Canyon by over 150 percent.
The citizens don’t feel there is a community benefit from this development as it is currently planned. The second base area, planned in Phase 2 at the base of Bradley Meadows, will have limited road access and no public parking.
The new recreational trails are not shown to link with existing trails, and if they do, are not shown how the public will access them and who will maintain them. This was enough of a setback that a key collaboration with the Bohart Ranch Nordic ski resort, that the owner Jean MacInnes withdrew here neutral position during public comment.
And the traffic study did not show the increase in construction traffic over the timeline of development, only potential trips-a-day once Bridger Village was occupied.
It seems to be a case where the Bridger Canyon residents feel disrespected and are enraged that despite conversation with Bridger Canyon Partners prior to their submitting the PUD, they did not take into account what the BCPOA had explained is important and valued in order to receive their support.
But as they have explained, it was written down in 1971 when this rural canyon anticipated the potential growth and simply wants to maintain community and environmental integrity.
To read the Gallatin County Planning Department’s Staff Review of Bridger Village, click here.
And Stay Tuned to NewWest.Net/Bozeman for an update on the hearing.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Like to receive our print magazine, The New West? Click here for free subscription information.
Comments
It's interesting that you note that Bridger Bowl supports this development - public testimony by Mike Riley and Randy Elliott certainly conveyed that impression to me, too. However, the Bridger Bowl board told BCPOA board members that it would remain neutral.
I've read that Bridger's bylaws require favoring the local skier. It's hard to see how a development that dedicates all future parking zoned in the base area to a new, exclusive, nonlocal audience serves that purpose. The proposed second base lift has no public parking. Many of the homes to be built are remote from the base - will the owners walk 1000 feet or more to catch a shuttle, or will they drive - taking up one of the precious existing parking spaces?
Next time locals get turned away from the Bridger lot on a powder day, I'm sure they'll take comfort in knowing that they can stop at the spa for a facial instead.
Bridger Bowl is not in business for profit, but the developers most definitely are. Bridger only benefits to the extent that visitors buy lift tickets - and the development is not configured to maximize ticket sales. It's configured to maximize real estate sales.
It's worth noting that the 80% open space claimed for the development is calculated according to zoning rules that don't really capture the flavor of open space. It includes such niceties as the area under building eaves, strips of trees isolated by roads, and a septic drainfield. The real figure, from the perspective of an animal or a nordic skier, is much smaller, largely because the development sprawls individual cabins all over the landscape rather than concentrating overnight accommodations at high density near the bases.
Some of the failings of this development could be forgiven if it actually reduced traffic on Bridger Canyon road, but so far the evidence indicates that it will make it worse.