Commission continues Guthrie appeal after lengthy hearing; record closed for April 15 deliberation

The Bozeman City Commission on April 1 heard more than four hours of testimony on appeal 25033, an administrative appeal of the community development director’s conditional approval of the Guthrie Fifth and Villard site plan, certificate of appropriateness and demolition (application 24493). After hearing staff, the appellant and the applicant, and more than 40 in‑room public commenters for and against the project, the commission voted 5–0 to continue deliberation to April 15 and closed the hearing record.

City Community Development Director Aaron George presented staff’s recommendation to uphold the director’s conditional approval, summarizing changes between the earlier Guthrie proposal and the current application: the developer reduced building height from five stories to four, cut unit count from 111 to 91, and adjusted the unit mix while meeting the affordable housing code’s 50% required price‑restricted share. “Staff recommends making two decisions this evening: preserve any defenses the City may assert and that this director’s decision conditionally approving the Guthrie application should be upheld,” George said during his presentation.

Appellants, represented by attorney Kiersa Shelke and the Bozeman Home Advocacy Group, argued the director’s decision contains legal and factual errors. Shelke said the governing certificate‑of‑appropriateness and NCOD standards (38‑340‑50) require a compatibility analysis with surrounding structures and neighborhoods and that, in her view, staff’s report failed to meaningfully analyze adjacent single‑family residences. “The Guthrie is not compatible or appropriate,” Shelke said, asking the commission to overturn the director’s approval.

Applicant representatives said the Guthrie team substantially revised the project in response to previous commission concerns. Andy Holleran of Homebase said the second proposal reduced height and unit count, increased parking and added amenities such as a 1,000‑square‑foot fitness center, more bike storage and improved unit kitchens. “We listened…we really improved the kitchens” and reduced mass and scale relative to the first proposal, Holleran said.

Technical staff answered detailed questions on code application, traffic and safety. Nick Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering, told commissioners the development’s trip generation is modest relative to the previous assisted‑living use and that the applicant submitted a signal warrant study at staff request. Fire Marshal Scott Mueller said the proposal meets applicable fire‑safety standards, including sprinklers and access for emergency response.

Public comment was sharply divided. Supporters urged the project’s proximity to transit and jobs and the need for workforce housing; opponents—many of them neighbors—argued the 4‑story, 91‑unit mass overwhelms the immediate NCOD neighborhood, raises traffic and parking issues and that demolition alternatives were inadequately explored. Appellants noted staff recorded 107 written public comments as of 1 p.m. on April 1; other speakers referenced larger totals posted in the public record.

The procedural outcome: Commissioner Fisher moved to continue deliberations to April 15; the motion passed 5–0. City Attorney Greg advised commissioners that the record is closed and that April 15 will be deliberative only; no new written or oral public comment may be added to the record. The Commission’s final vote on the appeal will occur during that closed deliberation.

Next step: the commission will meet in deliberation on April 15 to consider the appeal and vote; the record as of April 1 is final and ex parte contacts are prohibited for commissioners until that vote.