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

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.