Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bozeman residents urge commission to roll back planned B3 height increase to 90 feet ahead of Feb. 1

Bozeman City Commission · January 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

An extended public-comment period at the Jan. 6 meeting focused on opposition to a change in the Unified Development Code that raises maximum B3 zoning height from 70 to 90 feet; speakers warned the change could forfeit millions in affordable-housing bonus funds and urged the commission to act before Feb. 1.

A large contingent of residents used the Jan. 6 meeting’s public-comment period to urge the newly seated City Commission to reverse or delay a change to the Unified Development Code (UDC) that increases the maximum building height in B3 zoning from 70 to 90 feet.

Speakers argued the change, currently scheduled to take effect Feb. 1, could allow developers to add stories without triggering the city’s affordable-housing bonus program and that the city could lose millions in bonus-density dollars that would otherwise fund affordable housing. Daniel Carty referenced a guest column in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle and asked the commission to return B3 to 70 feet before Feb. 1. David Loess and others said the height change was introduced late in the UDC process and raised procedural and statutory concerns about first and second readings.

Residents called for either a rollback of the change or for the commission to require developers to use the affordable-housing ordinance to provide on-site deed-restricted units or cash in lieu before receiving additional height. Mark Campanelli, Tim Marcinko, Jim Walseth and others urged the commission to preserve neighborhood character and protect the city’s ability to collect housing bonus funds. Several speakers asked for more transparent public engagement and for the commission to re-examine the late change to the UDC.

Commission response: Commissioners acknowledged the volume of comments and said they would consider next steps; some commissioners emphasized the need to review variables before the Feb. 1 implementation date. No formal vote or action to change the UDC occurred at the Jan. 6 meeting.

Outcome: The meeting recorded widespread public concern and formal requests that the commission act before Feb. 1 to preserve affordable-housing funding and public trust; the commission did not take immediate legislative action at the session.