Developer proposes 240-unit planned development in Livingston’s Northtown; neighbors cite traffic, fire-safety and design concerns

Developers presented a concept plan at a Livingston City work session for a 20-acre planned unit development (PUD) in the Northtown neighborhood that would place roughly 240 multifamily rental units and a small commercial building on a portion of a 132-acre property.

The proposal would concentrate the housing into three 36-unit buildings and several 24-unit buildings, with one mixed-use building at the entry containing commercial space on its ground floor. Presenters said the buildings would be three stories, under 40 feet, and that the project would include public trails and roughly 64% open space on the 20-acre parcel.

Why it matters: The project would add several hundred residents and vehicles north of the railroad tracks and is likely to increase demand on nearby crossings and arterial streets. Neighbors and commenters at the meeting pressed the developer and city staff on traffic, wildfire evacuation and emergency access, and asked for more detail on trail connections and building design.

What the developer presented - Parcel and master plan: Presenters said the acreage under discussion is a 20-acre portion of a larger 132-acre property; earlier phases of the master plan have already produced about 53 lots and approvals for phases 4A, 4B and 5, presenters said. - Unit count and mix: Presenters described a total of about 240 units on the 20 acres. The transcript included a later unit breakdown reported as 104 studios, 68 one-bedroom units and 68 two-bedroom units (total 240). The developers said they designed smaller “efficiency” and studio units to lower per-unit costs. - Buildings and amenities: The concept shows 36- and 24-unit buildings, three stories tall with central corridors and two exits; one building’s main floor is planned for approximately 12,000 square feet of commercial/office space at the site entry. Presenters said they expect to add sidewalks, tree planting and landscaping phased with construction. - Parking and code: Developers said the project would provide roughly 342–350 parking spaces; at the meeting staff and presenters also discussed parking requirements and the transcript includes conflicting references to 1.0 and 1.5 parking-space ratios. Presenters said they had designed parking to meet the city’s minimum. - Open space and trails: Presenters stated the PUD proposal provides about 64% open space for the 20-acre parcel and noted the city requires at least 20% open space to qualify for PUD incentives. The developers said the PUD would include a required ~3,000-foot trail segment and that they plan to integrate the project into Livingston’s trails and active-transportation system. - Fire and utilities: Civil engineering plans described a water-main extension uphill, added fire hydrants at the request of the fire chief, and a commitment that “all of these buildings will all be sprinkled as well,” to use the presenter’s words. Presenters said the developer would phase construction and that each building would be sprinklered and served by hydrants spaced to city standards.

Questions and concerns raised by residents and staff - Traffic and railroad crossing: Multiple residents said the crossings at Fifth Street and other north-side intersections are already congested; commenters and staff acknowledged a traffic study was performed and that most intersections would operate at level of service C or better except at the Fifth/Front corridor. City staff said improvements at the Fifth Street crossing are on the city’s radar but that full designs are not yet complete. - Wildfire and evacuation: Residents repeatedly asked how hundreds of additional residents would evacuate in a wildfire scenario and whether additional vehicle crossings or other mitigations would be required. Developers and the civil engineer said the project provides a second access and added hydrants, but several residents said they remain concerned about evacuation routes. - Design, walkability and placement of parking: Commenters and some city participants urged that the project be more walkable and less “car-centric,” requesting that parking be tucked away, buildings face one another, and trails link more directly to surrounding neighborhoods. - Affordable housing and tenure: Presenters said they were not pursuing deed-restricted affordable housing or a dedicated affordable-housing program for the site; they described the units as market-rate rentals and said the developer expects to manage the property and operate rentals rather than sell condos. The developers said the intent is to offer lower-cost rental options measured against current local construction costs rather than formal affordable-housing restrictions.

Phasing and next steps Developers described three construction phases: Phase 1 would include Buildings 1–3 at the lower site, Phase 2 Buildings 4–6, and Phase 3 Buildings 7–9. Presenters said they expect buildings in each phase to be completed in sequence and that initial construction could begin within months of receiving permits, contingent on approvals and market conditions. Staff reminded attendees that the work session is informational (not a public hearing) and that written comments would be included in materials for the land use board in April and later for the city commission.

What is unsettled in the record The transcript includes several inconsistent numerical references that staff or the developer may resolve in subsequent filings: at points the presentation referenced 240 units and elsewhere a near-maximum figure of 248 was mentioned; parking figures were given as “about 350” and later as 342; the transcript also contains conflicting references to a 1.5-per-unit parking requirement and a 1-per-unit standard. The article reflects those inconsistencies and records them as stated in the meeting.

Next procedural steps and community input Staff said the developer’s submittal will become part of the land use board packet in April and will be considered during the formal public-hearing process. Presenters invited written comments and said they would revise designs to respond to community input on trails, building design, commercial uses and emergency access.