Gallatin City staff review Final Master Plan for Bridal Messer Phase 1A; rezoning and new-code timing debated

Gallatin City planning staff on Oct. 25 reviewed a Final Master Plan for the Bridal Messer Development Phase 1A, a proposed single‑family subdivision of about 19 residential lots west of Woods Ferry Road. Staff presented a revised plan and recommended approval, and commissioners and members of the public discussed lot sizes, parking, greenway access and how pending applications would be treated if the city adopts a new zoning code.

The matter matters because the project would convert a parcel west of Woods Ferry Road to a residential subdivision under an R2i designation and because staff and commissioners debated whether adoption of a new citywide zoning code could change allowable uses or lot standards for applications already in process.

Staff described the Phase 1A application as a single‑family residential layout with front‑loading lots, on‑street parking, and a proposed greenway connection. The plan calls for roughly 19 lots in Phase 1A and referenced a minimum lot size of about 545 square meters for certain lots. Staff advised commissioners that the applicant had submitted a revised final master plan packet and that staff is asking the commission to recommend approval to the City Council for any required rezoning or final actions.

Commissioners pressed staff on how adoption of a new zoning ordinance would affect the application. Planning staff said the city is working on a new zoning code but that the exact timeline and adoption process were not settled; staff referenced possibilities ranging from roughly three to nine months for adoption but did not give a firm schedule. Commissioners and commenters debated whether the city should apply the new code to pending applications, whether a moratorium or special handling is needed to avoid retroactive changes, and how to minimize conflicts between current approvals and the new code.

An applicant representative spoke during the discussion and described the project’s layout and proximity to existing development; city staff said they would review public and commission comments and incorporate necessary revisions to the master plan before forwarding recommendations to the City Council. Staff also noted the existing PMDP (the previously adopted plan for portions of the area) and said some technical amendments to the PMDP or zoning map might be necessary depending on Council action.

No formal vote or final action on the master plan or rezoning was recorded in the transcript. Staff told the commission the application would proceed through the regular review steps and may be scheduled for a future City Council hearing for any rezoning or adoption items.

Details from the session included references to Resolution 245 (staff recommendation packet) and multiple technical elements of the revised Final Master Plan packet, including frontage, parking configuration, and greenway access. Commissioners emphasized the need for clear guidance on how the new zoning code will be applied to pending applications and requested that staff return with any needed clarifications or edits to the plan packet.

The planning work session concluded with staff taking comments for incorporation into a revised recommendation to the City Council; no final decision on the plan or on changes to the city’s zoning code was made at the work session.