HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-26 Public Comment - M. Bateson - Re_Re_ Following up on our B3 discussionFrom:Mary Bateson
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Douglas Fischer
Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: Following up on our B3 discussion
Date:Thursday, February 12, 2026 8:21:27 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 Deputy Mayor Douglas Fischer,
Thank you for commenting in response to the oral comment of February 10 at the City
Commission. I was not present when you spoke, but prepared this transcript of your speech
from the meeting video that I watched in days following the meeting:
Douglas Fischer comment Feb 10, 2026: “I just wanted to briefly respond to Ms. Bateson’s
and Mr. Carty’s comment, you know, about the B-3 and, you know, my note to them. Just,
I, I have talked to you guys or, you know, my fellow commissioners here about how, how
we can follow up, I guess, to this, to the big revision that we made to the UDC. It is, I
believe, one of our -- we have not approved or officially approved our priorities but it is on
there to follow up and, and, you know --I do think we it would be worthwhile to kind of
look at a number of different things, you know, as as but I also think we need to give staff
time and we need to give this the ordinance time to let our planners, let our builders, let
our community see how this works before we start making changes to it yet. And so that’s
why I do think I would like to collect items in a basket and then look at that basket. But I
just I think um, you know one of the things that I stressed is that we need to give some
time for that ordinance to go into effect and see how it works on the ground.”
I am wondering if you would like to edit, revise or expand on your statement. I very much
appreciate your continued willingness to converse about the issue of the height requirements
in B-3 zones. I know that this discussion has come at a time that was probably quite difficult
for you and I want you to know my sympathies are with you.
Sincerely,
Mary Bateson, Bozeman Resident
On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 8:59 PM Mary Bateson <mbateson5@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Commission Members and Bozeman Public Comment,
I spoke to the City Commission on February 10, 2026 about the height limit in the B-3 zones
in Bozeman.
I listened to the December 16 City Commission meeting video, and heard Douglas Fischer
saying that a larger, thoughtful, deliberate discussion of this issue is needed. I completely
agree.
I would like to thank Douglas Fischer for the email of January 15 (below), where he stated
that “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.”
I was there to request that the B-3 discussion be added as an agenda item on a city
commission meeting as soon as possible. Because the B-3 discussion is already “in that
basket,” I would hope that a meeting to discuss it could be added to the commission’s
agenda as soon as legally and logistically possible.
Deputy Mayor Fischer and I agree on his statement in a Jan 23 email that “buildings, once
constructed, are lasting.” He goes on to say “That permanence is precisely why I am
cautious about making abrupt changes under deadline pressure. Both 70-foot and 90-foot
buildings shape the city for decades; the question is which set of tradeoffs we are prepared
to accept, and how intentionally we make that choice.”
This is why I request that the thoughtful and deliberate discussion happen as soon as
possible, certainly within the suggested 4-month window, but preferably sooner.
Thank you so much for your continued attention to this matter.
Sincerely, Mary Bateson, Bozeman resident
On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 4:56 PM Douglas Fischer <Douglas.Fischer@bozemanmt.gov>wrote:Dear Mary (and all),
Thank you for the thoughtful follow-up and for laying out your concerns so clearly. Iappreciate your continued engagement on this issue.
You asked for further explanation of the reasoning behind my position. I’ll try to be clearand concise.
At a high level, my support for the current B3 height limit rests on three considerations.
First, I believe downtown is the most appropriate place for Bozeman to accommodategrowth. Concentrating development where infrastructure already exists reduces pressureto sprawl outward, supports local businesses, and helps maintain activity and vitality in thecity center. In that context, modest additional height is one of the few tools available toabsorb growth without expanding the city’s footprint.
Second, I weighed competing claims about the impacts of additional height. I takeseriously the concerns you raise about sunlight, wind, scale, and sense of place. I also hearfrom planning professionals and practitioners that a 90 foot limit – when paired with otherchanges to the UDC – does not inevitably produce the harms that are often associated withmuch taller or more uniform high-rise development. Faced with these differing expertopinions, my judgment is that the risks are real but not as certain or harmful as they aresometimes framed.
Third, process matters. The 90-foot limit emerged from a long and public drafting processfor the UDC, informed by staff analysis and advisory board review. Reversing thatdecision on the eve of implementation would substitute a last-minute Commissionjudgment for a more deliberative public process – and I am convinced that is a poor wayto make policy.
You are right that buildings, once constructed, are lasting. That permanence is precisely
why I am cautious about making abrupt changes under deadline pressure. Both 70-footand 90-foot buildings shape the city for decades; the question is which set of tradeoffs we
are prepared to accept, and how intentionally we make that choice.
I have encouraged staff to track how the code functions in practice and to surface issuesthat merit adjustment – including height and transitions. If problems emerge, I expect us to
address them through the same public, advisory-driven process that produced the UDC inthe first place.
I respect that you and I may ultimately disagree on where the appropriate line should be
drawn. I appreciate the seriousness with which you approach this question, and I remaincommitted to continued public engagement as we evaluate how the new code performs.
Best,
Douglas
Douglas Fischer | Deputy Mayor
Bozeman City Commission121 N. Rouse St.
Bozeman, MT 59715
On Jan 19, 2026, at 5:25 PM, Mary Bateson <mbateson5@gmail.com> wrote:
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 toengage further. Below I include the passages from your email (DF), andmy comments and questions (MB) about what you have said.
(1) GovernanceDF - “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) ReasonsDF -“…there are many compelling reasons for a taller limit – as well asevidence and arguments that suggest the risks may be less severe orless 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 DevelopmentBoard – before the prior Commission switched it at the last minute, andthen 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’sheritage or our ability to secure meaningful resources for affordability isat 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. Ido not see these reasons explained here, just your statements that reasonsexist.
(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 processand the community time to see how it works. …I have suggested to myfellow commissioners that we give staff four months to work with theUDC 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 upand examine. We already have a few items in that basket now:Transitions and this B3 discussion. Once we have a better picture, wecan prioritize and chart a path.”
MB - Seeing how a 90-foot building works is an experiment that cannot beretracted. Once we see that “it does not work,” we must live with the 90-foot building and its consequences, whether positive or negative. Better tohave a real conversation about it before the buildings go up. It is especiallyimportant to have the discussion on what codes are in place before theMLUPA 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 arewilling to reconsider your position.
Sincerely,
Mary Bateson, Bozeman resident
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 3:53 PM 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 meand 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 riskthe livability, culture and history of our town with a 90-foot limit, rather than 70feet; 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 fellowCommissioners, 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 consequenceson 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 andarguments that suggest the risks may be less severe or less certain than they aresometimes 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 havelearned, time and again, that complex land-use questions are rarely well-servedby last-minute decisions from the dais.
The 90-foot limit was reviewed by various experts and stakeholders – from staffto downtown associations to the Community Development Board – before theprior 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 morethan 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 goodpolicymaking: 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 allowedconcerns to be tested, refined, and improved before decisions were locked in. Wewere 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 wouldbe debating, again at the 11th hour, a technical and consequential issue based onlimited, one-way feedback.
Finally, we spent almost three years drafting the UDC. It is a good code but acomplex 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 orproblems, I suggest we put those aside in a basket that we then take up andexamine. We already have a few items in that basket now: Transitions and thisB3 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-estatemarket. My guiding belief is that Bozeman should accommodate growthdeliberately and transparently in places already built to handle it, rather thanpushing it outward or freezing decisions out of fear.
Bottom line: I hear the urgency and concern by you and other residents about a90-foot height limit downtown. From my conversations with staff and others, Idon’t think our town’s heritage or our ability to secure meaningful resources foraffordability is at dire risk. I also feel recent public discussion has discounted themany benefits of that extra height that led to the current limit. I see consequentialdownsides 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