Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-18-26 Public Comment - M. Bateson - Re_Re_ Following up on our B3 discussionFrom:Mary Bateson To:Douglas Fischer; Bozeman Public Comment Cc:Joey Morrison; Emma Bode; Jennifer Madgic; Alison Sweeney; Joey Morrison; Chuck Winn Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: Following up on our B3 discussion Date:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 10:59:20 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, I very much appreciate your continued willingness to discuss the issue of the height requirements in B-3 zones. I watched your comments at the February 17, 2026, DURB (Downtown Urban Development Board) meeting. Thank you for asking how we know what the appropriate height is, and how will we know in 6 months? Should it be 60 ft? Should it be 70 ft? Should it be 90 ft ? I don't have a marker to say, oh it should be this one because, I don't know what success looks like. (paraphrasing your words). Jake Van Dusen answered that he didn’t think there is going to be a barometer that you’ll be able to put definitively to say this is the metric and anything above this line is success and anything below this line is not. He did not think 6 months is long enough to see what it does to the community long term. He went on to say “So I think it is an appropriate amount of time to receive enough feedback from the community, that did we miss something that the community wanted differently than we thought…” I hope that you take Jake’s words to heart, and consider that the commission almost took the community’s opinion on this matter to the UDC, but did not quite do that. Something was missed. So once again, I ask that the City Commission consider adding the discussion of the height limit in B-3 zones on an agenda within the 4-month window you initially spoke of on December 16, 2025. This is a very important detail of our development code. You have heard me speak and read my letters concerning this issue, and I thank you for that. Please consider making good on your word to have this discussion before we get more tall buildings that can ruin Bozeman’s historic character — which could make Bozeman a less desirable tourist destination and thus decrease economic vitality — before we lose a single dollar of Affordable Housing support, before another shadow is cast on our landscape. Having a stricter limit is the best position from which to see how this works. Sincerely, Mary Bateson, Bozeman resident CC: Mayor Joey Morrison, Commissioners Emma Bode, Jennifer Madgic and Alison Sweeney, City Manager Chuck Winn On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 8:21 AM Mary Bateson <mbateson5@gmail.com> wrote: 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 beclear and 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 inthe city center. In that context, modest additional height is one of the few tools availableto absorb 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 alsohear from planning professionals and practitioners that a 90 foot limit – when pairedwith other changes to the UDC – does not inevitably produce the harms that are oftenassociated with much taller or more uniform high-rise development. Faced with thesediffering expert opinions, my judgment is that the risks are real but not as certain orharmful as they are sometimes framed. Third, process matters. The 90-foot limit emerged from a long and public draftingprocess for the UDC, informed by staff analysis and advisory board review. Reversingthat decision 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 preciselywhy 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 tradeoffswe 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 usto address them through the same public, advisory-driven process that produced theUDC in the first place. I respect that you and I may ultimately disagree on where the appropriate line should bedrawn. 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 MayorBozeman 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 thesedisputes. It is the job of the City Commission to do so. (2) ReasonsDF -“…there are many compelling reasons for a taller limit – as wellas 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 DevelopmentBoard – before the prior Commission switched it at the last minute, and then switched it back. That review did not produce unanimity, butit did surface tradeoffsFrom my conversations with staff and others, I don’t think our town’sheritage or our ability to secure meaningful resources for affordabilityis at dire risk. I also feel recent public discussion has discounted themany 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 thatreasons exist. (3) ”See how it works”DF - “I want to be clear: after such consideration, I do not supportrolling the B3 height limit back to 70 feet at this time. …We owe thatprocess and the community time to see how it works. …I havesuggested to my fellow commissioners that we give staff four monthsto work with the UDC as-is. As staff (and the public) encountersticking 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 inthat basket now: Transitions and this B3 discussion. Once we have abetter picture, we can prioritize and chart a path.” MB - Seeing how a 90-foot building works is an experiment that cannotbe retracted. Once we see that “it does not work,” we must live with the90-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 placebefore the MLUPA rules change the way in which development projectsare 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 thatyou are willing 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 werisk 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 affordablehousing 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 furtherdebate 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 70feet 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 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-servedby 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 switchedit back. That review did not produce unanimity, but it did surface tradeoffs thatdeserve more than an up-or-down vote under deadline pressure. Several of you were present this Tuesday evening as the Commissionconsidered the College St. renovation. That work session offered a masterclass in good policymaking: Staff took a proposal to the community, listened, had a back-and-forth with stakeholders, incorporated concerns and foundcompromises. 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 issuebased 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 itworks. 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-estate market. 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 resourcesfor affordability is at dire risk. I also feel recent public discussion hasdiscounted the many benefits of that extra height that led to the current limit. Isee consequential downsides to a snap decision, and I want to let staff and thiscommunity work with the code as-is for a few months before we makechanges. This is not the answer you want, but I deeply appreciate your engagement onthis. Douglas Douglas Fischer Bozeman City Commission dfischer@bozeman.net 406-595-5721