Bozeman City Commission members discussed whether to reclaim review authority over the Guthrie development (project 24493) after more than 100 written public comments asking the commission to hear the project in public rather than leave it to administrative review. City Attorney Greg explained the legal differences between a reclaim and an appeal; commissioners and neighborhood representatives repeatedly urged the commission to use the reclaim option so the public could hear deliberations.

Why it matters: The reclaim option would move the application from an administrative decision by the Director of Community Development to a public decision by the City Commission, changing the record and the public participation opportunities. Opponents say the project involves the demolition of a historic structure in a neighborhood conservation overlay district and that leaving the matter to administrative review would limit transparency and put the burden of a costly appeal on residents.

City Attorney Greg outlined the two paths and their consequences. “What reclaim means is that you basically step into the shoes of the Director of Community Development and review the project as if you are the initial final decision maker for the project,” Greg told the commission. He contrasted that with appeal rules: “Appeals have to be filed within 10 working days. After the final decision we do a notice for the appeal and then during the appeal a construction hold is in place.” Greg also noted there is no fee for reclaim but an appeal carries a fee.

Public commenters urged reclaiming the project now rather than forcing residents to pay an appeal fee. “We deserve transparency and to hear the deliberation in public,” said Scott Boyd, a Bozeman resident. Midtown Neighborhood Association representative Emily Tallego pointed to the neighborhood conservation overlay district guidelines and how they interact with demolition authority: she told commissioners that the city’s NCOD design guidelines and related code “say generally if the building has been determined to be historically significant, final authority for the demolition or movement shall rest with the city commission” and emphasized “it is code.”

Other callers and in-person speakers made similar points and cited the volume of written comment. Daniel Carty, a Bozeman resident who has filed written comments in the project file, said, “We Bozeman residents have done our due diligence in reviewing and commenting on the Guthrie 2 development and thus we have earned the right to be heard before the commission on this matter.” Lisonbee Sweeney, chair of the Better Bozeman Coalition, told commissioners neighborhoods across the city feel “abandoned” when code procedures are not followed, and she cited a municipal-code provision requiring neighborhood notification at application submission.

Opponents also called attention to financial barriers to formal appeal. Multiple speakers urged the commission to reclaim because an appeal fee that was discussed in public comments would impose a material cost on residents; one commenter asked the commission to consider waiving the $2,760 appeal fee should reclaim not occur. Several speakers also pointed to the project’s history: the Guthrie had a prior application number (23354) and the current resubmission is project 24493. Neighborhood commenters said the certificate of appropriateness for demolition remained unchanged while the site plan had been revised, a distinction they said makes the commission’s review especially important.

Not all testimony was limited to procedural or preservation points; some residents raised policy and affordability concerns tied to the project. Natsuki Nakamura, a Bozeman resident, argued the affordable units proposed are not truly attainable for many workers and said, “We don't need more unaffordable housing, and we definitely should not be actively incentivizing it.” Local resident Brian Gallack told commissioners, “The decision before you is not ministerial,” urging the commission to treat the application as a substantive policy matter rather than a routine administrative step.

What the commission did and next steps: Commissioners discussed the options and several expressed interest in more public dialogue. Commissioner Madchen said, “One reason I would be interested in reclaiming the Guthrie project a second time is primarily to set aside time as we did before to have a very public transparent process to review some issues like the NCOD that I think need to be reviewed in that public setting.” No formal motion or vote to reclaim the project was recorded during the meeting. The timeline for any reclaim request or for scheduling the matter before the commission was not announced at the meeting; the appeal window described by staff (10 working days) remains a potential procedural deadline once and if the director issues a final administrative decision.

Background and context: City Attorney Greg explained that a reclaim must be scheduled before the Director of Community Development issues a final decision and that a reclaim’s record includes the administrative record plus a supplemental public-comment period at the commission hearing. An appeal, by contrast, is limited to the record before the director and only those issues raised in the appeal are open for de novo review by the commission. The code provision cited by speakers also contains a two‑year stay on demolition permits if a demolition application is denied for failing to meet the relevant section (cited in public comment as section 38.340.090.c), a detail neighbors referenced as part of their concerns about how demolition review should proceed.

The city received more than 100 written comments on the Guthrie 2 file during the current review; commenters and neighborhood groups asked the City Commission to reclaim its review authority for project 24493 rather than rely on administrative review. Commissioners did not take a formal vote on reclaim at this meeting; proponents said the commission’s next clear options are to (a) schedule a reclaim before the director’s final decision or (b) allow an administrative decision and face potential appeals filed by aggrieved parties, which, per code, would require a fee and would trigger a construction hold until the appeal is resolved.