Land Use Board recommends City Commission consider Northtown PUD rezoning for 20-acre parcel

The Livingston Consolidated Land Use Board on April 9 voted to recommend that the City Commission approve a zoning map amendment to create a planned unit development (PUD) on a 20.01-acre parcel in the Northtown area.

The PUD application from Northtown Development Corp. proposes to rezone the parcel from R-2 medium-density residential to a PUD and build approximately 240 dwelling units (a mix of studios, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units) plus about 12,850 square feet of neighborhood-scale commercial space on the ground floor of the building nearest Scenic Trail. "They are proposing 240, dwelling units," Jennifer (city planning staff) told the board during her staff report.

The move to PUD status would allow the developer to replace standard area and density requirements with a site-specific approved plan and request limited incentives for public benefits. In this case the application proposes clustered buildings and design features that staff said would leave roughly 63.5% of the 20-acre parcel designated open space and seek one development incentive: a height increase from the R-2 maximum (34 feet, depending on roof pitch) to 40 feet. The developer did not commit to reserving any units as city-designated affordable housing; staff noted the city adopts an annual resolution that sets the local affordability thresholds.

Why it matters

The proposal drew sustained public comment and multiple technical questions from board members about traffic, stormwater, emergency access and topography. The LUB’s recommendation includes staff’s standard conditions and two additional items discussed at the meeting: an updated traffic impact study (incorporating nearby approved but not-yet-built plats) and a requirement for the developer to work with city staff on emergency response/access as phases are built. The commission will make the final legal decision.

What the plan would allow and why the PUD is proposed

The parcel is currently zoned R-2 medium-density residential. Under the city’s existing code the same 20 acres could be developed to a much higher unit count if developed entirely under base zoning without subdivision review: staff said the by-right maximum on the property would be 498 dwelling units if the developer chose to build to maximums allowed by the code rather than through subdivision review. The PUD application instead proposes roughly 240 units, clustered in buildings to reduce disturbance on steeper slopes and to concentrate utilities, streets and services.

Developer Matt Moore of Halverson Architects said the developer’s goal is "240 attainable workforce type apartment units" to increase rental supply in Livingston. Moore said the design favors a high number of studio units because of local market demand. Garrett Schultz of Headwaters Engineering outlined the project’s stormwater approach and said the design includes two detention/retention basins sized to meet the city’s regulatory standard for the 10-year, 2-hour event, with upsizing included to handle larger events as directed by public works comments.

Board and staff concerns

- Traffic and intersections: Multiple residents and board members said congestion at the Fifth Street crossing and other North Side choke points create public-safety and day-to-day access concerns. Staff and the applicant agreed an updated traffic impact study is required. Jennifer stated public works had submitted comments requiring that an updated traffic study be submitted and reviewed "before this will proceed to the city commission," and the board put that requirement into its recommendation. The staff and the applicant said the revised study must include trips from approved preliminary plats (including recent Northtown phases and the Discovery Vista development) and requested real-time counts at specified locations.

- Emergency access/evacuation: Several residents raised wildfire and egress concerns. The LUB recommendation asks the developer to work with city staff and emergency services on emergency response/access measures as phases are developed; the board included language requiring the developer to provide an evacuation/access plan tied to phase construction (for example, prior to final approval of a phase), and staff noted a proposed northern all-weather emergency access/connector that would provide an alternate route and improved access for emergency vehicles.

- Stormwater, drainage and grading: Citizens and board members pressed for more detail about how grading, runoff and pond overflows would be handled on the steep site. Headwaters Engineering said the site will route most runoff into designed pond(s) with underground piping and curb inlet systems to reduce surface flows on roadways; the engineer and staff noted that public works had requested that design revisions split flows more evenly between the two ponds and provide additional hydraulic detail. The city will require further refinement and public-works review as part of infrastructure plan submittals.

- View impacts, topography and trails: Several residents and at least one board member said the buildings’ scale and color palette may contrast with the existing viewshed. The developer said building materials and colors are not final and that they will consider more muted palettes. The applicant also described a network of sidewalks and over 1,100 feet of trails shown in plan sets and said trails and easements will be included in the development; the LUB asked staff and the developer to better show trail connections and public easement language in subsequent submittals.

- Parking and operations: The developer proposed one parking space per unit (the existing city standard) plus parking for commercial tenants and some additional guest spaces; the applicant also noted on-street parking areas and assigned resident spaces as part of management plans. Board members requested clearer detail about guest parking, snow storage/removal and property management responsibilities (HOA vs. developer).

- Affordable housing: The applicant did not commit to reserving any units as city-defined affordable housing. Staff reminded the board the city defines affordability through an annual resolution based on HUD data for Park County, and staff noted that increased supply could affect market rents but the developer made no formal affordability commitment.

Board action and next steps

The Land Use Board voted to recommend the City Commission approve the PUD zoning amendment, with staff-recommended conditions and the LUB’s additional conditions that an updated traffic impact study be completed to public-works specifications and that the developer coordinate emergency-response and access details with city staff as phases are constructed. The recommendation will be forwarded to the City Commission for the required public hearings and final decision.

Quotations from the meeting

Jennifer (city planning staff): "They are proposing 240, dwelling units."

Matt Moore (Northtown Development Corp.): "Our theory is let's put some more supply out there and and help this price come down a little bit."

Cynthia Westover (resident): "I'd like to express my strong objection" to rezoning the parcel.

Neesy Ballard (resident): "It is irresponsible to be allowing more development" before egress and emergency-planning concerns are addressed.

Ending

The board’s action was a recommendation, not a final zoning approval. The City Commission will receive the staff report, public comments and the LUB recommendation and hold the required public hearings before acting on the rezoning ordinance. The developer and staff will continue refining the traffic, stormwater and grading plans during infrastructure review; members of the public may submit comments at the upcoming City Commission hearings.