[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6518293,"mediaKeyId","5394079-1a6dbcbaadb783c05c1f1263e3edd1f8","parentId",5394079,"title","Ordinance committee urges rewrite of proposal to require R‑5 housing in economic corridor be part of mixed‑use or PUD","audioSeconds",783,"startMs",97000,"endMs",880000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5394079-1a6dbcbaadb783c05c1f1263e3edd1f8&start=97&end=880","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5394079-1a6dbcbaadb783c05c1f1263e3edd1f8/thumbnail_97000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6518293/Livingston-Parish/Louisiana/Ordinance-committee-urges-rewrite-of-proposal-to-require-R5-housing-in-economic-corridor-be-part-of-mixeduse-or-PUD","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6518293-17a4f6b318200749f98a16961c5fd0e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770500560&Signature=U3TPpt8P3IVahJ-lNG7oCuOvQDVjzr4PN3O2idITU35Hx-8A-jH9V5p4QPpn3eRsEUi2Jk2Eu3MUb6KBYFmGYKyfUHLh8V6AA4kqEi6vokLZo9MdP-6vD5AA92f11STPUfjPM2wNcNQJY80oJTqoVyz-IcLtxUjFcU32vhO87uzC2gSo0hnhbQRSpdboHgzz5EiUKUsb5DB3NboVckeyX-TIqp2tkKQjy7rv8y0tWOKfuACCmOvYP7Bg6YXkoJf-65t3aVyxEKeeV~D754ozTICiCcW3pJ8~e1Z3qjo2R-6yiYcqKV4fAwoy219A3NMdOQIRaNZFw5zXgkQwjSC8hA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-16T02:10:40Z","article","The Livingston Parish Ordinance Committee on July 15 discussed a proposal, placed on the agenda by Councilman John Manges, to require high‑density residential developments in the parish’s economic corridor to be part of a planned unit development or mixed‑use project.

Councilman John Manges said the change is meant to protect limited corridor land and increase the local tax and sales base. “If you build it, then industry will come,” Manges said, but he argued that apartments alone do not generate the same revenue or commercial activity as combined developments. He told the committee that local fire protection districts “are telling me that with an apartment complex, they get $32 a year,” and the parish assessor had shown that a 400‑unit complex produces far less property tax revenue than 400 single‑family homes.

The ordinance language in the packet referred to R‑4 uses, but Marty Maley, the parish land use attorney, said the current draft appears to amend the wrong code section and that the committee likely needed to target R‑5 (the code section governing higher‑density multifamily) instead. “If you want it to be R‑5, it’s gotta amend 1‑17‑1‑85, not 1‑17‑1‑75,” Maley said, and recommended redrafting. Maley and other speakers also advised considering a standalone “economic corridor” ordinance rather than embedding exceptions into R‑4 or R‑5.

Council members debated tradeoffs. Mister Shavers asked whether an apartment developer would be required to include commercial uses and was told by staff that a concept plan showing proposed retail and other uses would be required for approval. Several members raised traffic and infrastructure concerns. One council member said a large mixed‑use project previously approved for the Watson area “would be 100% overrun with traffic” if built as previously approved, while others noted that DOTD standards and traffic‑impact studies are handled through state review when improvements are required.

Planning staff and committee members suggested alternative approaches: amend the correct R‑5 code section, add size‑ or unit‑thresholds, or create a separate economic‑corridor ordinance that references R‑4/R‑5 uses. Committee members also recommended adding a framework or ranking (percentages or priorities for commercial uses) so the corridor does not become filled exclusively with a single use.

Action: Committee members agreed not to advance the ordinance as drafted and asked the sponsor to redraft it and return it to a future Ordinance Committee meeting. The land use attorney recommended reworking the draft to amend the correct code section and to consider a standalone economic‑corridor ordinance.

The discussion included references to the parish master plan, existing code sections (1‑17‑1‑75; 1‑17‑1‑76; 1‑17‑1‑77; and 1‑17‑1‑85), DOTD traffic‑impact procedures, and real‑world examples (Perkins Road and other mixed‑use corridors) cited by committee members.

The committee moved on after instructing staff and the sponsor to rework the proposal and return with a revised ordinance and additional examples.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Livingston Ordinance Meeting 7 15 25","oneSentenceSummary","The Livingston Parish Ordinance Committee on July 15 discussed a proposal, placed on the agenda by Councilman John Manges, to require high‑density residential developments in the parish’s economic corridor to be part of a planned unit development or mixed‑use project.","taxTitle","Livingston Parish, Louisiana","taxId",12941,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6518283,"Committee backs concept‑plan requirement for some rezones; asks staff for draft ordinance and examples",165,3202000,3367000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5394079-1a6dbcbaadb783c05c1f1263e3edd1f8&start=3202&end=3367","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5394079-1a6dbcbaadb783c05c1f1263e3edd1f8/thumbnail_3202000.jpg","/articles/6518283/Livingston-Parish/Louisiana/Committee-backs-conceptplan-requirement-for-some-rezones-asks-staff-for-draft-ordinance-and-examples","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6518283-d1bd7fca366c61f7ed9d3a5651cc987d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770483889&Signature=bo4wt9WSC~nuymjsTUfnSn4XiiPLvilvtnFUURfFgGLd5IH-yAsc0eLwzMQte8iu28OnXmvwD1eMP2I~Bv70nJF-uR7HNXFS0wQmy7by3onabS6qrmOIvSCXr~zQ8d~hsEbdIUmu5ZpPzdSiddsyQKC0eGaQJzGa0JnsuyB1s~DH-mwgw~Tz~bcv90U7ZKEhqmxG7KPZU8v2pNe1CJ1odkEqXUJrHT53c0y6fnbjYn5KCAoGGHaI23pp6O-hMRJ4Yg-uoQIFTevY66n5etpM0b8BR9xuXhpEuViSdv1XocvldH120oECN2Igr3RiMiZcsnnk02eYG8YBzGnpuzDKmw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The ordinance committee discussed on July 15 a proposed requirement that applicants seeking rezoning provide a concept plan describing the proposed development when the change could significantly affect land use or public infrastructure.

Committee members said the requirement would “front‑load” information for the Planning & Zoning Commission and the council so reviewers can make more informed recommendations and decisions. Marty Maley and planning staff described drafting options: require concept plans for rezones that change from agricultural to residential or from lower‑ to higher‑density categories, or limit the requirement to rezones above a minimum acreage or unit threshold.

Several members suggested the requirement should not apply to every minor rezoning (the “onesie‑twosie” cases) and recommended identifying which category changes would trigger a concept plan. Members also asked staff to review example ordinances from Youngsville and St. Tammany parishes and to prepare a draft that indicates the zoning classifications for which concept plans would be required.

Action: Committee asked staff to prepare a draft ordinance with specific triggers (for example, certain acreage or category changes) and to provide exemplar concept plans from other parishes. The committee did not adopt new rules at the meeting.

","The committee discussed a proposal to require concept plans for certain rezoning requests so the Planning & Zoning Commission and council can review likely impacts in advance. Members asked staff to prepare a draft ordinance and bring exemplars from comparable jurisdictions.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6518288,"Committee discusses requiring new R‑2 subdivisions to be part of planned residential developments",392,2809000,3201000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5394079-1a6dbcbaadb783c05c1f1263e3edd1f8&start=2809&end=3201","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5394079-1a6dbcbaadb783c05c1f1263e3edd1f8/thumbnail_2809000.jpg","/articles/6518288/Livingston-Parish/Louisiana/Committee-discusses-requiring-new-R2-subdivisions-to-be-part-of-planned-residential-developments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6518288-8c1346ba2075add4b66ca24403deed5a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770500560&Signature=Qw-AwY8nZqAgsA09HhKi3R~flsPN~Gy0-nSVziACNnMyTTLnE5oWToFK3MsmMAp--vjDGqUxQcuLLtoeCd39nxtcyE8KiOerZlWo0y291lB9rO0RtY5fuL80BTBph8dODtqDznAV23se~OphHL-nG3NLlA5gJIxbRVQ0SX8t8yNFPi1GmjLr3K6EtvTU9zUlxKDIXOHhLoQHXI7E5qQ4bKq3RSRuobc7-qn0MVPG5d2QyMd0ETl~nJywmWaatkA2inzDDr26frsJ6Yim1A-9B-U9NfByvDj6D83ZG8KXDMTKOY8mcRwdpzcUhyQ4Y6yZybSZ2I4oYIsPq6SJ0Z9UdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Livingston Parish Ordinance Committee discussed a draft proposal on July 15 that would permit new R‑2 (medium‑density single‑family) subdivisions only when they are part of a planned residential development that includes a mix of housing types.

Councilman John Manges, who presented the draft, said the intent is to reduce the stigma attached to so‑called “starter subdivisions” and to improve infrastructure and amenities by combining lower‑priced homes with larger‑lot and higher‑priced housing within a single HOA and development. “Let's include them in those same subdivisions. Let's have the same green spaces. Let's have the same, HOAs,” Manges said.

The draft as discussed included thresholds and density language that still need clarification. Committee members noted a proposed maximum density figure was under consideration (a change from “4” to “3.75” was mentioned in the packet) and that developments exceeding 10 lots would be affected. Speakers urged that any ordinance specify size‑tiers, lot sizes, and a clear set of requirements so the rule cannot be gamed by minimal compliance (for example, by adding token larger lots to qualify).

Members asked for exemplars from other jurisdictions and more detailed drafting. One council member said the parish should define tiers (examples offered from Huntsville, Ala., and other nearby jurisdictions) so a development can include $3,000,000 homes and $250,000 homes in a single master‑planned community with appropriate internal standards.

Action: Committee agreed to leave the draft pending further detail. Staff and the sponsor were asked to bring a revised ordinance and examples of tiered planned residential developments to the next Ordinance Committee meeting.

","Committee members considered a proposal to require new R‑2 medium‑density subdivisions above a 10‑lot threshold to be part of a planned residential development (PRD) that mixes housing types to reduce stigma and share infrastructure costs. Members asked staff for more detail and exemplars before advancing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Ordinance committee urges rewrite of proposal to require R‑5 housing in economic corridor be part of mixed‑use or PUD

Committee backs concept‑plan requirement for some rezones; asks staff for draft ordinance and examples

Committee discusses requiring new R‑2 subdivisions to be part of planned residential developments