HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-25 Public Comment - J. Bruff - Request for Reconsideration of B3 Height ReductionFrom:Jackson Bruff
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Request for Reconsideration of B3 Height Reduction
Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 10:20:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Commissioners,
I hope you’re well. My name is Jackson Bruff, and I’m a Bozeman resident living on W.Lamme. I’m writing to express concern regarding the recent reduction of the B3 district height
limit within the draft UDC set for adoption. I believe the amendment was made in error andrespectfully ask that the Commission reconsider. Key points are below:
The Main Street experience is already protected through the B3-C core district—not the broader B3 district. The draft code includes specific massing, form, and
character requirements in B3-C to safeguard the pedestrian experience and historic scaleof Main Street. Adjusting the B3 height limit does not influence these protections and
therefore does not advance the goal of preserving downtown character.
Comparisons to Jackson, WY and Aspen, CO in previous public comment shouldbe cautionary, not aspirational. These are among the most exclusive and expensivecommunities in the country largely due to restrictive development environments.
Bozeman should avoid replicating those dynamics, especially in the B3 district.
Reducing B3 height effectively constrains the district’s ability to function asBozeman’s economic and cultural core. B3 is the area where daily activity,employment, and economic energy are meant to concentrate. It is where density is
intended to thrive, supporting local businesses and sustaining the vitality of downtown.By lowering allowable height to levels comparable with B2-M, we diminish the
district’s capacity to serve as the city’s central business engine and restrict the verygrowth that keeps our downtown healthy and competitive.
Developers want to meet market demand—including for more attainable housing—but feasibility hinges on cost economics. Developers are inherently incentivized to
build what the market is asking for. Today, the market is clearly signaling a strong needfor attainable and workforce housing. However, without sufficient buildable volume, the
combination of land and construction costs prevents these units from penciling.Increasing height is one of the few ways to bring project economics in line with market
needs.
If the existing height limit and incentives were sufficient to deliver affordablehousing, we would already see projects in the pipeline. We are not. Input costscontinue to rise, and the draft code’s 90’ limit provided a realistic path to create
thoughtful, community-oriented residential projects.
Thank you for your time and for the work you do for our community.
Best regards,
Jackson Bruff