HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-25 Public Comment - N. Nakamura - Fowler Housing project discussion - EVB and City CommissionFrom:Natsuki Nakamura
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Fowler Housing project discussion - EVB and City Commission
Date:Thursday, August 7, 2025 8:24:32 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.
Please share this comment with both the Economic Vitality Board (EVB) and the City
Commission.
I attended the EVB’s meeting last night with intentions to comment, but the final agenda
item was cut and the meeting adjourned, so I am submitting some of my thoughts in writing.
I was disappointed with some of the discussion of the EVB last night for several reasons.
1.
There was an invitation from neighbors for the new development to be a part of the
neighborhood. Instead, the response in the discussion by the board was mostly
focused on how to modify or adjust the buffer to separate the new development
from the existing neighborhood. When we isolate affordable housing
developments, they become stigmatized instead of being properly integrated into a
mixed-income community. While the 120% AMI income target is arguably not low-
income, emphasizing a buffer isolates and stigmatizes whatever affordable housing
development that ends up going there. I heard an invitation and desire from
neighbors to have the new development be part of the community, not an out-of-
place and isolated development, so it would be a shame not to cultivate this
sentiment and strengthen a sense of community for both the current and future
residents here.
2.
Some board members mentioned not wanting to stifle any creativity at this early
stage. Yet it seems like a lot of creativity has already been stifled by the extremely
limited scope of the discussion. The board only deliberated between 4-story narrow
townhomes and 3-story narrow townhomes. It seemed like there was a false choice
presented between either having 3-bedroom options if units are 4-stories or limiting
the project to 2-bedroom options if units are 3-stories, but why couldn’t the project
be anything else? There was no discussion if the townhomes should be narrow vs.
regular width, fewer or more townhomes in the project, anything other than
townhomes, offering commercial, etc. Some public comment offered up an idea of 18
duplexes on this parcel that would mirror the footprint of existing housing while still
adding density. Maybe one wants to argue that more housing should be squeezed
onto the parcel, but this or any other idea was not even considered by the board.
When the starting point of the discussion is that the project is 84 buildings that are 2-
4 stories, the creativity is stifled down to what buffer would be needed to transition to
the neighborhood.
3.
As David Fine mentioned many times, this project is in a very early stage since the
parcel has not even been annexed in yet. So while I haven’t typically seen boards
other than the CDB weigh in on zoning of a specific parcel, it was surprising to see
that the agenda item that seemed most relevant to where we are in the process was
the item that was cut from the agenda and that most of the discussion by the board
was at the site-plan level (eg. how many stories, moving the parking around,
increasing the buffer, etc). This feels cart-before-the-horse.
4.
One public comment astutely pointed out that there is more than just affordable
housing going on in this discussion. There are the interests of the existing
neighborhood (which, again, includes a desire to have this development be a part of
their neighborhood); there is the Fowler Ave Connector (FAC) project that has
transportation priorities; and there is the nearby riparian corridor. All of these different
interests need to be in conversation and collaborate in order to design something that
is neighborhood-friendly, environmentally-responsible, and beneficial for the
community of Bozeman. There are certainly trade-offs to think through with all of
these interests, but the conversation cannot be siloed to only consider trade-offs like
3- vs 4-story townhomes.
I hope the City Commission’s work session next week will be more wide-ranging and takes
into consideration how the Fowler housing project could be a part of the neighborhood
instead of an isolated project. Three years of fierce advocacy from the community has
resulted in a better 60% design for the FAC, and I think the Fowler housing project will
benefit from community input as well.
Thank you for your consideration,
Natsuki Nakamura