Livingston commission clears first reading of Northtown PUD after debate over traffic, water loop and emergency access

Livingston — The Livingston City Commission on first reading approved an ordinance to rezone roughly 20 acres on the North Side from R‑2 (medium-density residential) to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), a step the developer says will allow a mix of studio, one‑ and two‑bedroom apartments and some ground‑floor commercial space.

The commission voted unanimously after more than two hours of presentations and public comment. Commissioners and staff asked for stronger guarantees that water and emergency access infrastructure will be built as the project progresses, and imposed conditions requiring a water main loop by the time phase 2 receives occupancy, a financial guarantee if the loop is delayed, traffic mitigation at two downtown intersections and a covenant barring short‑term rentals on the project.

Why it matters: The Northtown PUD would add 240 dwelling units, mostly studios and one‑bedrooms, to a part of Livingston that already lacks walkable neighborhood commercial services. Supporters say the project supplies housing types the city’s 2021 growth plan and the 2020s housing market study identified as missing; opponents raised concerns that existing road crossings and the railroad create evacuation and congestion risks the city must address before approving major new density.

Most important facts first: City staff and the applicant said the proposal stays within the municipality’s allowable density under recent state and local zoning changes but clusters buildings onto the lower, flatter portion of the site. The applicant proposes 240 units (104 studios, 68 one‑bedroom and 68 two‑bedroom units), about 12,850 square feet of first‑floor commercial space and roughly 63–64% of the 20‑acre parcel set aside as open space. The developer asked for a 40‑foot maximum building height where R‑2 would allow about 34 feet; that increase was presented as a trade for conserving open space.

Staff, consultants and the developer discussed these technical points in detail: the site plan proposes two stormwater retention basins the engineer says can retain the 100‑year design storm; the project will provide more on‑site parking (342 spaces provided vs. 304 required by code); buildings will be sprinkled and the fire department asked for additional hydrants beyond standard spacing. The traffic consultant estimated the project will generate about 1,812 daily vehicle trips and roughly 100–250 peak‑hour trips; his analysis showed the most impacted movement would be eastbound left turns from Front Street onto Fifth Street and recommended peak‑period left‑turn restrictions from an eastbound approach and signage to reroute that movement to Chinook Street.

Key disagreements and clarifications: The commission pressed staff and the applicant on the timing of a required water main loop. City design standards favor looped mains to provide fire flows and operational resiliency; the site currently ties to an existing dead‑end main in adjacent, earlier phases. The applicant said a full loop to adjacent phases would be costly if required before any occupancy of phase 1, and proposed completing the loop before phase‑2 occupancy; staff agreed to that compromise if backed by a financial guarantee to ensure the loop is completed within an agreed period. Commissioners attached the following conditions in the approval: require the full loop to be in place by the first certificate of occupancy in phase 2 or within 36 months of phase‑1 completion (whichever comes first); require installation of the traffic signing measures identified in the traffic impact study (including peak‑period left‑turn restriction signage at Front and Fifth and associated enforcement); require construction of an all‑weather emergency access/egress connection to the west that will be completed early in the project phasing; require the developer to include a covenant forbidding short‑term rentals on the property; and require meetings with neighbors on trail alignment and design.

Project scale and phasing: The applicant briefed the commission that full build‑out could take five to seven years; the first building is expected to take about 14 months to construct and reach initial occupancy. The developer told the commission their phasing will move building‑by‑building (not three buildings delivered simultaneously), and that commercial tenants will be sought once residential occupancy begins.

Implementation and next steps: This was the PUD ordinance’s first reading; municipal code requires a second public hearing and reading at least 15 days later. Staff will return the draft ordinance with the commission’s conditions plus findings required by the PUD ordinance and will post the updated traffic and utility engineering documentation in the record. The commission’s action was 4–0 in favor.

Background: The PUD chapter was adopted as part of the city’s 2021 growth‑policy implementation after public input asked for flexible tools to encourage smaller, multifamily housing and neighborhood commercial uses. Under the city’s revised rules and recent state law changes that expanded housing types in single‑family zones, the applicant could have pursued other routes; the PUD is intended to allow incentives (height, bonus standards) in return for public benefits (open space, commercial, trail connections).

What proponents said: City planning staff said the mix of studios and one‑bedrooms responds to the community’s documented shortage of smaller rental units and will provide housing options for students, single‑person households and older residents seeking to downsize while remaining in Livingston. The developer stressed it had worked with city planners through multiple pre‑application and work‑session meetings over nearly two years and characterized the proposal as the product of iterative changes to respond to city objectives.

What opponents said: Dozens of residents raised concerns in public comment about cumulative traffic delays at the railroad crossings (especially Fifth Street), evacuation routes in wildland‑urban interface conditions, construction impacts and whether the city should require deed‑restricted affordable housing or stronger guarantees on infrastructure before allowing occupancy. Several speakers urged the city to accelerate work to find or fund an additional grade‑separated crossing across the railroad, a project staff said is being pursued through long‑range grants and studies but remains a multi‑year effort.

Why the city required conditions: Staff and commissioners said the conditions are tailored to reduce operational risks and ensure public safety while allowing the housing supply the growth policy calls for. The loop timing and financial guarantee were added to reduce the risk that the city will be left with an extended, operationally problematic dead‑end water main; signage and enforcement were added to reduce predictable congestion at a constrained crossing point; and the emergency access connection was requested by the fire chief to provide a second egress route.

What to watch: The next commission meeting will include the second reading and an updated staff report with the traffic and utility memoranda included in the record. If the ordinance is adopted on second reading, subsequent design review, subdivision approvals and building permits will be required before any vertical construction. The community also will have another public hearing opportunity before final approval of the PUD.

Ending note: The commission framed its vote as an attempt to balance urgent local housing needs with clear public‑safety and infrastructure requirements; commissioners said they expected staff and the developer to return with the technical documents and guarantees that made the conditions enforceable.