Developers propose 48-unit affordable housing project in Livingston’s Brookstone area

Developers seeking Low Income Housing Tax Credits told a City of Livingston public work session that they plan two three-story buildings totaling 48 affordable rental units on about 1.02 acres north of the railroad tracks near Brookstone and Miles Lane.

The Sheep Mountain Residences proposal, advanced by Boundary Development with design by Aspect Architecture and civil work by Headwaters Engineering and a nonprofit partner HRDC, would use Livingston’s planned unit development (PUD) incentives and the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program to make the project financially feasible. Scott Frymouth of Aspect Architecture said the team is seeking “additional density” through the PUD but is not requesting extra height or other relaxations: “We are not seeking any additional height, or really any other additional relaxations at this time.”

The project would place two mirrored three-story buildings, each about 45 feet tall, on a single lot. Each building would include 24 units (16 one-bedroom, six two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units), for a site total of 32 one-bedroom, 12 two-bedroom and four three-bedroom units. Garrett Schultz of Headwaters Engineering said the site is about 1.02 acres and would be served by 4-inch domestic and 4-inch fire services tied to existing Brookstone Street utilities; each building would be sprinkled and served by existing hydrants.

The developers said the PUD incentive would allow nine additional dwelling units beyond what base zoning would permit, which they said is necessary to lower per-unit costs. Catherine (project team member) described LIHTC and how the Montana Board of Housing awards credits that require a 30-year affordability period. She said the team plans to target households earning up to 60% of Park County’s area median income (AMI), which the team said currently equates to roughly $42,000 for a single-person household and a bit more for two-person households.

On-site parking is proposed at 48 stalls to meet the City of Livingston design standard of one stall per unit. Schultz said the plan shows 38 standard-dimension stalls (9 by 18 feet) and 10 compact stalls (16-foot length) along the west edge of the site to accommodate an irrigation ditch there. The team also said about 10 additional on-street spaces would be available. The traffic study cited by the developers estimated about 324 new daily trips from the site and concluded local intersections would remain at Level of Service A or B.

Stormwater plans call for a subsurface infiltration system because the tight site lacks room for an above-ground pond. Schultz described a 20-foot stormwater easement along the southern property line that currently functions as a swale for the Brookstone area; the team said it plans to collect runoff with inlets that infiltrate into the ground and to coordinate with the Ditch Users Association on work at the west-side irrigation ditch, including removing some native materials and replacing them with gravel to terminate the ditch and use the site for infiltration, with overflow routed to the ditch west of Miles Lane if needed.

HRDC will serve as the nonprofit partner and will administer tenant intake and income verification for LIHTC compliance. Tabra Veil of HRDC described HRDC’s role in application processing and ongoing tenant management, and said HRDC will not give preference to its existing clients: “It is strictly prohibited for them to take preference to HRDC clients,” the project team said when explaining eligibility and tenant screening.

Public commenters raised concerns about noise from nearby railroad traffic and truck traffic, insulation and energy costs, space for children to play, and the project’s tax-exempt status. A resident who lives in a nearby development told the developers that “the noise reduction is a big issue,” citing nighttime trains and truck traffic. The developers responded that modern windows and adherence to building and energy codes should help with sound attenuation and said planned solar arrays should help lower resident utility costs.

Several residents also questioned the loss of property tax revenue when LIHTC-assisted projects are tax-exempt. One commenter, Patricia (resident), asked whether projects such as this shift more tax burden to existing property taxpayers. Project representatives and City staff said the Montana Board of Housing and state budgeting processes account for the program’s tax incentives and that LIHTC funding is typically necessary to make these projects financially viable given current construction costs. The developers said that if property taxes were added to the operating budget the project’s long-term viability would be in jeopardy without additional subsidies.

Developers said they have advanced through the first round of the Montana Board of Housing competition and expect a final funding award decision in October; if awarded credits, they stated an optimistic target to break ground in April. The project team also encouraged written comments for the Montana Board of Housing and told residents that comments for the city review must be sent to the City Planner to be included in the packet. City Planner Jennifer (city planner) reiterated the public comment process and provided contact information.

Next formal steps in the land-use sequence are a consolidated land use board public hearing (notice two weeks prior as required), followed by two city commission readings because the PUD requires a zoning change. The developers and city staff emphasized that any significant changes to the submitted plan would return to the public review process.

The meeting was a public work session and no formal action or vote occurred.