Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFowler Neighborhood Phase III Engagement Summary FINALFOWLER HOUSING CONSENSUS PROCESS ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY AND ACTION ITEM TIMELINE/HISTORY City purchased county land on Fowler Ave over 10 years ago as part of road project City became interested in putting affordable housing on site Hosted series of engagement meetings: June 4, 2025 –2 in-person open houses July 22, 2025 –Harvest Creek HOA Town Hall August 6, 2025 –Economic Vitality Board Meeting August 12, 2025 –Commission Work Session; directed to start consensus Jan 2026 –today: Consensus process involving over 150 hours of staff time across two departments RESOLUTION TO ANNEX AND ZONE THE PROPERTY Annex Zone Commission to direct Suggested a resolution to help further demonstrate commitment to residents CONSENSUS PROCESS OVERVIEW Consensus Process Phase I — Listen and Understand, 49 interviews with individuals Phase II — Learn Together, 3 balanced groups of 10-12 Phase III — Co-Create Solutions, 2 -day design charrette Each phase builds on the work that came before it. WHAT IS CONSENSUS? Consensus in this process does not mean every person in the room has final decision-making authority, nor does it mean every person must agree before the elected officials can act. Consensus is not a vote! It is consensus as disciplined community learning and problem solving. Consensus in this process is an effort to understand differing perspectives, make tradeoffs visible, identify areas of agreement and disagreement, and develop recommendations that can inform elected decision makers. PHASE I: LISTENING AND UNDERSTANDING Slowed down the process in response to community concerns. Created opportunities to listen more deeply to perspectives, experiences, concerns, and priorities. Included neighbors, future homeowners, employers, and community stakeholders. Started with a core group of homeowners, putting flyers on doors on New Holland Dr.and working with HOA to recruit Tailored invitations to participate to key stakeholders rather than citywide blasts to ensure balanced perspectives and build understanding throughout phases Clarified the central purpose of the project. Question: "What matters to this community?" WHAT WE LEARNED IN PHASE I The goal is attainable middle-income homeownership. Neighborhood compatibility matters. Safety, parking, traffic, and green space matter. Community members wanted meaningful opportunities for influence. Technical expertise would be needed to explore realistic options. PHASE II: LEARNING TOGETHER Brought together people with very different relationships to the project. Moved toward shared understanding and collective problem solving. Made tradeoffs visible. Clarified priorities and conditions for success. Question: "Given what matters to us, what would it take to move forward together?" WHAT EMERGED IN PHASE II Significant agreement around middle-income homeownership. A desire for durable, quality housing. Interest in neighborhood integration. Recognition that tradeoffs are unavoidable. A recommendation for a collaborative design charrette. A LARGER ASPIRATION — FOWLER NEIGHBORHOOD VISION “We envision a thoughtfully designed, high-quality neighborhood that is fully integrated into the Harvest Creek community, provides permanently affordable homeownership opportunities for middle income residents, enhances safety and quality of life, fosters belonging among new and existing neighbors, and demonstrates how collaboration, trust, and innovation can create lasting benefits for the entire Bozeman community and future generations.” Community vision from Phases I and II QUESTIONS FOR PHASE III What does affordability look like in physical form? What does neighborhood compatibility look like? What tradeoffs emerge? How do we honor multiple values simultaneously? THE TRANSITION Community values →Design criteria Community concerns →Problems to solve Community priorities →Design priorities Community hopes →Design goals COMMUNITY VALUES — PHASES I & II 1.Attainable homeownership for middle-income residents 2.Collaborative and transparent planning process 3.Neighborhood character and quality of life 4.Thoughtful design and livability 5.Zoning flexibility with clear design standards 6.Long-term affordability and stewardship 7.Green space, parks, and landscaping 8.Parking, traffic, and infrastructure considerations 9.Inclusion and representation 10.Economic and workforce impact VALUES  GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGN Guiding Principle •Prioritize attainable homeownership for middle- income residents Value •Attainable homeownership for middle-income residents VALUES  GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGN Guiding Principle •Foster collaborative and transparent planning Value •Collaborative and transparent planning process VALUES  GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGN Guiding Principle •Integrate with and complement existing neighborhood character Value •Neighborhood character and quality of life VALUES  GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGN Guiding Principle •Emphasize livability and thoughtful design Value •Thoughtful design and livability VALUES  GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGN Guiding Principle •Balance zoning flexibility with predictable design standards Value •Zoning flexibility with clear design standards VALUES  GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGN Guiding Principle •Ensure financial and operational sustainability Value •Long-term affordability and stewardship VALUES  GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGN Guiding Principle •Preserve and enhance green space and connectivity Value •Green space, parks, and landscaping VALUES  GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGN Guiding Principle •Address parking, traffic, and infrastructure proactively Value •Parking, traffic, and infrastructure considerations VALUES  GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGN Guiding Principle •Support inclusion, representation, and community cohesion Value •Inclusion and representation VALUES  GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGN Guiding Principle •Plan for existing workforce housing needs along with adaptability and long-term success Value •Economic and workforce impact GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE FOWLER NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN 1.Prioritize affordable homeownership for middle-income residents 2.Foster collaborative and transparent planning 3.Integrate with and complement existing neighborhood character 4.Emphasize livability and thoughtful design 5.Balance zoning flexibility with predictable design 6.Ensure financial and operational sustainability 7.Preserve and enhance green space and connectivity 8.Address parking, traffic, and infrastructure proactively 9.Support inclusion, representation, and community cohesion 10.Plan for existing workforce housing needs along with adaptability and long- term success PHASE III GOALS Fowler Community Meeting: Purpose & Outcomes Purpose: Explore design possibilities, test ideas, understand trade-offs, and translate community learning into design alternatives. The Fowler Community has been established through the consensus process as a middle-income housing neighborhood. Desired outcomes: Consensus on guiding principles Consensus on future zoning Understanding of the City’s next steps PHASE III GOALS, CONT. What the Community Told Us Key areas of agreement: Middle-income homeownership is a central goal. Housing should be affordable, durable, and high quality. New development should integrate with the surrounding neighborhood. Trade -offs are unavoidable and need to be addressed openly. The community sees an opportunity for Fowler to become a model neighborhood demonstrating that affordability and quality can coexist. PHASE III RECAP: CHARRETTE Local Precedents: NO! ……………………meh………………………better……………………….YES! PHASE III RECAP: CHARRETTE Elements Explored: Neighborhood Character Property Line Treatment Pedestrian Experience Open Space Comfort & Safety Building Appearance PHASE III RECAP: CHARRETTE Community Design Priorities: Create a neighborhood that complements Harvest Creek and connects seamlessly to existing trail networks. Prioritize walkability through landscaped pathways, tree-lined routes, and pedestrian-focused design. Promote comfort and safety with human-scale lighting, thoughtful site design, and minimal impacts on neighbors and wildlife. Use landscape buffers and existing vegetation to define edges; avoid tall walls and fences. Design open spaces that foster community interaction, support active use, and complement nearby park amenities. Encourage architectural variety with durable, context-appropriate materials, varied rooflines, and a balanced color palette. PHASE III RECAP: CHARRETTE Density & Zoning PHASE III RECAP: CHARRETTE Density & Zoning Feedback: NO to RC! 2 story max height on the east. 3 story max height OK along Fowler. No building larger than 4 units. Can this really be “affordable”? Is RA feasible for affordability? Opportunity for small scale commercial? DENSITY & ZONING CONSENSUS Guiding Principles 1.Prioritize affordable homeownership for middle-income residents 2.Foster collaborative and transparent planning 3.Integrate with and complement existing neighborhood character 4.Emphasize livability and thoughtful design 5.Balance zoning flexibility with predictable design 6.Ensure financial and operational sustainability 7.Preserve and enhance green space and connectivity 8.Address parking, traffic, and infrastructure proactively 9.Support inclusion, representation, and community cohesion 10.Plan for existing workforce housing needs along with adaptability and long-term success RA RB RC TIMELINE Aug-27 PHASE 3 CONSENSUS TAKEAWAYS - ZONING Community feedback indicated clear opposition to RC zoning – would not align with neighborhood character or reflect an appropriate scale of development. Evaluated RA and RB against Guiding Principles – while both may align, the density and building form limitation prescribed in RA creates challenges with ensuring the financial and operational sustainability of the development. However, there was concern that RB zoning could result in 3-story buildings across the entire site. Consensus agreement that RB zoning is appropriate IF buildings adjacent to existing homes in Harvest Creek are kept to a maximum 2-stories, scaling up to 3-story buildings along Fowler Avenue. Buildings with a maximum of 4 homes (4-plexes) are acceptable. RESOLUTION Annex Zone R-A, Residential Zoning? R-B, Residential Zoning? Other? Subdivision Exemption Motion language: I move to adopt the resolution directing the City Manager to submit an annexation and zoning application for the Fowler property with a zoning designation of R-? ZONING COMPARISON Lot/ Building Standard Code links: R-A (38.210.020) R-B (38.210.030) R-C (38.210.040) Dwelling units per building (max) 2 8 24 Building height (max) 40 45 50 Wall plate height (max) 22 (2 story) 33 (3 story) n/a Minimum density per net acre 6 du/acre 8 du/acre 10 du/acre Building width (max) 80 ft 120 ft 150 ft Lot Coverage (max) 40% 40% 60%