The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-22-26 Public Comment - M. Bateson - Following up on our B3 discussion(1)From:Mary Bateson To:Douglas Fischer Cc:Amsden@becklawyers.com; dgc12@hotmail.com; jwebster587@gmail.com; dploseff@gmail.com;lindasemones@hotmail.com; Zehra Osman; mark.campanelli@gmail.com; Jennifer Madgic; Bozeman PublicComment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Re: Following up on our B3 discussion Date:Monday, January 19, 2026 5:25:19 PM 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 Deputy Mayor Douglas Fisher, I have read and reread your email of Jan 15. 2026, and I would like to engage further. Below I include the passages from your email (DF), and my comments and questions (MB) about what you have said. (1) Governance DF - “I would suggest that neither I nor the City Commission is well-positioned to resolve disputes like this at the 11th hour from the dais.” MB -The City Commission is uniquely positioned to resolve these disputes. It is the job of the City Commission to do so. (2) Reasons DF -“…there are many compelling reasons for a taller limit – as well as evidence and arguments that suggest the risks may be less severe or less certain than they are sometimes framed. The 90-foot limit was reviewed by various experts and stakeholders – from staff to downtown associations to the Community Development Board – before the prior Commission switched it at the last minute, and then switched it back. That review did not produce unanimity, but it did surface tradeoffs From my conversations with staff and others, I don’t think our town’s heritage or our ability to secure meaningful resources for affordability is at dire risk. I also feel recent public discussion has discounted the many benefits of that extra height that led to the current limit.” MB - I would like to hear the reasons that have influenced your decision. I do not see these reasons explained here, just your statements that reasons exist. (3) ”See how it works” DF - “I want to be clear: after such consideration, I do not support rolling the B3 height limit back to 70 feet at this time. …We owe that process and the community time to see how it works. …I have suggested to my fellow commissioners that we give staff four months to work with the UDC as-is. As staff (and the public) encounter sticking points or problems, I suggest we put those aside in a basket that we then take up and examine. We already have a few items in that basket now: Transitions and this B3 discussion. Once we have a better picture, we can prioritize and chart a path.” MB - Seeing how a 90-foot building works is an experiment that cannot be retracted. Once we see that “it does not work,” we must live with the 90-foot building and its consequences, whether positive or negative. Better to have a real conversation about it before the buildings go up. It is especially important to have the discussion on what codes are in place before the MLUPA rules change the way in which development projects are reviewed, which will virtually eliminate substantive public involvement. Thank you for engaging with me and others (who are included on this reply) on this issue. I look forward to further explanation, and I hope that you are willing to reconsider your position. Sincerely, Mary Bateson, Bozeman resident On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 3:53ௗPM Douglas Fischer <Douglas.Fischer@bozemanmt.gov> wrote: Dear Jim, Daniel, David, John, Linda, Mark, Mary, and Zehra, Thank you again for taking time out of your Saturday to meet with Jen and me and share your concerns about the 90-foot height limit in the B3 zoning district. I heard several serious and urgent concerns from all of you – namely that we risk the livability, culture and history of our town with a 90-foot limit, rather than 70 feet; and that we are foregoing millions of dollars in affordable housing revenue by allowing the extra 20 feet by right. You have asked me to consider these carefully, discuss with my fellow Commissioners, and roll the B3 height limit back to 70 feet while we further debate the plusses and minuses of tall buildings downtown. I have had a number of conversations with stakeholders both for and against this, as well as with staff and my fellow commissioners. I want to be clear: after such consideration, I do not support rolling the B3 height limit back to 70 feet at this time. First, as you have shown, this is a complex issue with significant consequences on both sides. While you have made compelling arguments for a shorter limit, there are many compelling reasons for a taller limit – as well as evidence and arguments that suggest the risks may be less severe or less certain than they are sometimes framed. Second, I would suggest that neither I nor the City Commission is well-positioned to resolve disputes like this at the 11th hour from the dais. We have learned, time and again, that complex land-use questions are rarely well-served by last-minute decisions from the dais. The 90-foot limit was reviewed by various experts and stakeholders – from staff to downtown associations to the Community Development Board – before the prior Commission switched it at the last minute, and then switched it back. That review did not produce unanimity, but it did surface tradeoffs that deserve more than an up-or-down vote under deadline pressure. Several of you were present this Tuesday evening as the Commission considered the College St. renovation. That work session offered a master class in good policymaking: Staff took a proposal to the community, listened, had a back-and-forth with stakeholders, incorporated concerns and found compromises. The process worked not because everyone agreed, but because it allowed concerns to be tested, refined, and improved before decisions were locked in. We were not at the dais deciding where to put stop signs and crosswalks. The B3 discussion, if we re-open it, would be the opposite: The five of us would be debating, again at the 11th hour, a technical and consequential issue based on limited, one-way feedback. Finally, we spent almost three years drafting the UDC. It is a good code but a complex one. We owe that process and the community time to see how it works. I have suggested to my fellow commissioners that we give staff four months to work with the UDC as-is. As staff (and the public) encounter sticking points or problems, I suggest we put those aside in a basket that we then take up and examine. We already have a few items in that basket now: Transitions and this B3 discussion. Once we have a better picture, we can prioritize and chart a path. I share your deep attachment to downtown Bozeman – its scale, its walkability, and the sense of place that makes it feel like home rather than just a real-estate market. My guiding belief is that Bozeman should accommodate growth deliberately and transparently in places already built to handle it, rather than pushing it outward or freezing decisions out of fear. Bottom line: I hear the urgency and concern by you and other residents about a 90-foot height limit downtown. From my conversations with staff and others, I don’t think our town’s heritage or our ability to secure meaningful resources for affordability is at dire risk. I also feel recent public discussion has discounted the many benefits of that extra height that led to the current limit. I see consequential downsides to a snap decision, and I want to let staff and this community work with the code as-is for a few months before we make changes. This is not the answer you want, but I deeply appreciate your engagement on this. Douglas Douglas Fischer Bozeman City Commission dfischer@bozeman.net 406-595-5721