Bozeman commission upholds Guthrie Fifth & Villard site plan after appeal, 4-1

The Bozeman City Commission on April 15 upheld the Community Development Director’s conditional approval of the Guthrie Fifth and Villard site plan, certificate of appropriateness and demolition application (No. 24493), rejecting an appeal and thereby removing the two‑year demolition stay on the property.

The appeal centered on whether the director correctly applied the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) guidelines and other parts of the Unified Development Code (UDC) when approving a higher‑density, multiunit building on a parcel zoned R5. Commissioners heard testimony and reviewed staff findings on traffic, fire protection, open space and the project’s compliance with the affordable housing ordinance before making their decision.

Mayor Terry Cunningham opened deliberations by framing the legal question for the commission: "The question before us tonight is did the community development director follow the process, adhere to the relevant policies in the course of making the decision or not?" He emphasized the commission’s role was to determine whether the director’s ruling was correct under the code, not to adjudicate constitutional claims or to substitute personal preference for the staff’s technical review.

Staff told the commission the application had been reviewed by the Development Review Committee and that technical reviewers — including the fire inspector, solid waste, open space, and the transportation and engineering director — found the plan met applicable standards. Transportation staff said the project would add roughly a 10% increase in traffic to the area and that further intersection improvements would be studied by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) as part of a broader North Seventh Corridor review. The fire marshal reported that fire access and hose pulls on the proposed site met requirements.

On affordability, staff and some commissioners noted the project met the affordability standard in effect when the application attained adequacy (the previous Affordable Housing Ordinance threshold at 80% AMI for target units), and that deed‑restricted rental units would retain affordability over time. Opponents argued the building’s mass and scale did not meaningfully respond to neighborhood context as the NCOD envisions.

Commissioner Fisher said the project met several technical standards but found the building’s design "is not compatible" with NCOD design guidelines as written and urged design changes. Commissioner Boddy and other commissioners, however, noted the project was substantially different from an earlier denial (Guthrie 1): it reduced height from five stories to four, reduced units from 111 to 91, added traffic calming and other amenities, and incorporated design elements that staff considered responsive to neighborhood concerns.

Commissioners had three formal paths under code: uphold the director’s conditional approval, amend that approval (with specific findings), or overturn it. The commission first voted 5‑0 to preserve the city’s procedural defenses in case the appellants pursue judicial review. The body then considered an amendment offered by Commissioner Fisher that would have required stepped‑back upper floors on the north and east sides; that amendment failed by a 2‑3 vote. The main motion to uphold the director’s conditional approval passed 4‑1 (Commissioner Fisher opposed).

Votes at a glance: - Motion to preserve procedural defenses (mover: Commissioner Magick) — Passed yes 5, no 0. - Amendment to require stepped back upper floors (mover: Commissioner Fisher) — Failed 2‑3 (Fisher and Magick aye; Boddy, Deputy Mayor Morrison and Mayor Cunningham no). - Motion to uphold the Community Development Director’s conditional approval of application 24493 (mover: Commissioner Madrigg) — Passed 4‑1 (Magick aye; Fisher no; Bode/Boddy aye; Deputy Mayor Morrison aye; Mayor Terry Cunningham aye).

Commissioners and staff repeatedly flagged the NCOD as outdated and ambiguous for higher‑density infill, and several said the commission should pursue a clearer code solution — for example, creating distinct zoning subcategories or numerical standards within the NCOD so that mass, scale and height expectations are predictable. Mayor Cunningham suggested integrating NCOD guidelines into zoning code where appropriate to reduce subjectivity.

The decision leaves the developer’s conditional site plan approval intact; the commission’s discussion indicates forthcoming policy work to reconcile the NCOD, the UDC and the Affordable Housing Ordinance for future infill projects.

Ending — The commission did not impose design changes on the existing approval; instead it upheld the director’s conditional approval and signaled a likely code‑revision process to give neighborhoods and developers clearer, numerical standards for mass, scale and transitions in overlay districts.