Citizen Portal
Sign In

Council hears scaled‑back Greensboro Village plan; sends developer back to update plans

City of Gallatin Council Committee (Work Session) · February 11, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City of Gallatin heard a reduced proposal for Greensboro Village — cutting 325 previously proposed units and focusing on a 150‑unit age‑restricted building plus an assisted‑living memory care facility — and voted to ask the applicant to update materials and return at the next work session on Feb. 24.

The Gallatin Council Committee reviewed a scaled‑back preliminary master development plan for Greensboro Village on Feb. 10, 2026, and asked the applicant to return with updated plans.

Brian Rose, the city planner, told the committee the applicant removed the south‑of‑Greenlee portion of the prior submission and deleted some buildings that together reduced the proposed development by 325 units. Gary Vogt of KVD, representing the applicant Green and Little, said the revised submittal proposes a three‑story, 150‑unit, age‑restricted residential building and a separate assisted‑living/memory care building. “We submitted these 3 slides here to show a reduction of the plan,” Vogt said, adding the team preferred the option to forward a first reading with the condition that the applicant update plans.

Council members asked detailed questions about parking, building height and the mechanism that would ensure age‑restricted status. Vogt said the apartments would be deed‑restricted so units could not be sold or rented to anyone under 55. Councilman Alexander asked about parking counts; Vogt said staff would verify the number. Councilman Chabot pressed whether the assisted‑living building would be up to three stories; Vogt confirmed the maximum is three stories.

Councilman Jevons moved for Option 2 — require the applicant to update plans and return to a future work session — a motion seconded and carried unanimously. The council recorded the item as deferred to the Feb. 24 work session so staff and the applicant can submit clarified, updated drawings and a revised PMDP for review.

The decision is procedural: council did not approve the ordinance or authorize zoning changes tonight. The committee’s action instructs staff to present the corrected, consistent materials and gives the public another opportunity to review the revised submission when it returns to the committee.