Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gallatin Council approves R8 PRD rezoning for Nichols Lane area after amendment on lot sizes and architecture
Summary
After extended debate over density, lot sizes and buffers, the Gallatin City Council approved second reading of Ordinance O-2410-63 to rezone property near Nichols Lane and Woods Ferry Road to R8 PRD. Council adopted an amendment requiring wider lots along the western edge and upgraded garage doors; the final vote was 5–2.
The Gallatin City Council voted 5–2 on March 4 to approve second reading of Ordinance O-2410-63, rezoning property south of Nichols Lane and west of Woods Ferry Road to an R8 planned residential district (PRD), after adopting amendments that enlarge several perimeter lots and require upgraded carriage-style garage doors across portions of the development.
The measure rezones part of a larger tract described in the ordinance as roughly 106.91 acres (not zoned) and specifically rezones about 26.65 acres from R40 low-density residential to R8 PRD, and authorizes revising the official zoning atlas. The council considered revised elevations, unit counts and site layout before taking its vote.
City planner Brian Rose (staff) told the council that the developer revised elevations for the smaller “30-foot wide” product and that staff was “much happier with this version of designs.” Rose said the developer is now proposing about 278 dwelling units (down from an earlier figure around 293) and that the plan provides roughly 56% open space — double the 28% required in the PRD district table. He reported the proposed density at about 2.14 dwelling units per acre, which aligns with the city’s suburban character goal of roughly 2–5 dwelling units per acre.
Council members debated whether PRD rules remove strict lot-size minimums and whether the plan’s lot mix fits the surrounding R40 context. “We’re really building 278 units on 55 acres. Simple math,” said Councilman Alexander, arguing residents near the site were not opposed to development but felt the lot sizes were “very small” compared with existing nearby acreage and that neighbors felt “they’re being marginalized.”
Josh Reggins, representing the developer and Kimley-Horn, responded that the plan reduces smaller lots and that many of the alley-fed 42-foot lots produce product sizes comparable to the 52- and 75-foot products. Reggins said, “we’ve reduced lots by about 20 lots over the course of this exercise,” and described a range of likely price points for the various lot types.
Council members pressed on buffers, traffic study timing and the visual quality of elevations. Rose and the developer said the plan includes greenway connections and a collector road connection through the property; Rose highlighted the larger open-space allocation and the upgraded façade and garage-door treatments the developer added in response to staff comments.
Late in the discussion a motion to defer the ordinance so the developer could return with changes to increase lot sizes failed 4–3. Council subsequently approved an amendment that requires lots in the area comprising Lots 1–18 and Lots 77–80 (as shown on the plan submitted to council) be widened to 84 feet and requires upgraded carriage-style garage doors across the community; the amendment passed unanimously. The ordinance as amended passed on second reading, 5–2.
Votes at a glance: Ordinance O-2410-63 (second reading, rezoning to R8 PRD) — amendment requiring 84-foot perimeter lots in specified areas and carriage-style garage doors adopted unanimously; ordinance as amended approved 5–2.
The council discussion also included repeated requests for a traffic impact study before final approvals; a motion to defer until such a study was completed failed for lack of second. Multiple council members asked staff and the developer to consider larger buffers along existing residences; the developer indicated limited ability to change the plan immediately but agreed to specific lot-width concessions on the western boundary and adjacent Nichols Circle-facing lots.
The ordinance text and staff presentation referenced PRD standards in the city zoning ordinance, including the PRD table listing required open space at 28%, permitted lot coverage at 45% and a 6,000-square-foot minimum lot size in that table; staff and council noted other ordinance sections that affect PRD lot-size interpretation.
The council’s action sends the amended rezoning back to staff for the technical changes and retains the approved amendments as conditions of the rezoning. The developer said the exterior-lot width changes and the architectural adjustments could be implemented in the plan and indicated the development team would proceed under the council’s direction.
