Developers outline 48-unit affordable housing PUD near Brookstone in Livingston

Developers and city staff on Monday described Sheep Mountain Residences, a proposed 48‑unit affordable housing planned unit development on a 1.02‑acre parcel north of the tracks at Brookstone and Miles Lane in Livingston.

The presentation, given at a public work session, said the project would consist of two three‑story buildings about 45 feet tall, with 24 units in each building and a unit mix of 16 one‑bedroom, six two‑bedroom and two three‑bedroom units per building (48 units total). Boundary Development is the developer; Aspect Architecture is the design firm and Headwaters Engineering is the civil engineer. HRDC will serve as the nonprofit partner and will administer tenant selection and ongoing management tasks if the project advances.

The developers said they intend to use the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program (LIHTC) and the city’s planned unit development (PUD) ordinance to gain additional density that would allow nine more dwelling units than standard zoning would permit on the site. The team said the development would target households earning up to 60% of Park County area median income (AMI), which the presenters stated for 2025 is roughly $42,000 a year for a single‑person household in Park County.

Why it matters

Project presenters and local housing advocates said Livingston needs more multifamily rental homes for working households and lower‑income residents, and that LIHTC is the primary tool to make such projects financially viable in high construction‑cost markets. The developers, presenters and HRDC emphasized that LIHTC financing imposes long‑term affordability requirements and that the Montana Board of Housing must award credits for the project to move forward.

Design, utilities and site work

Garrett Schultz, civil engineer with Headwaters Engineering, said the site already has water and sewer connections on Brookstone Street. He described a planned 4‑inch domestic service and a 4‑inch fire service to each building, existing hydrants on Brookstone and sprinklers in each building.

Schultz said the team expects to provide the City of Livingston required parking ratio of one stall per dwelling unit. In the design presented, the team counted 38 full‑size parking stalls (9 feet by 18 feet) and 10 compact stalls (16 feet long) along the west side adjacent to an irrigation ditch; the compact stalls will back to a curb, the presenter said. Separately during the session a presenter also said there would be 49 on‑site spaces plus about 10 on‑street spaces; the developers’ two statements about the parking count differed and city staff asked that written comments be sent to the planner for the record (see Clarifying details).

Schultz said a traffic study by Bob Abilene (Helena) estimates the project will generate roughly 324 daily trips and that nearby intersections would remain at an acceptable level of service.

On stormwater, Schultz said an existing 20‑foot stormwater easement runs along the south side of the property and that the project is too tight for an above‑ground pond. The proposed approach is a subsurface stormwater treatment and infiltration system that collects runoff in inlets and infiltrates it on site. The west‑side irrigation ditch will be connected to a gravel termination and used as an infiltration outlet; the design includes an overflow path to the ditch west of Miles Lane if infiltration capacity is exceeded. The team said final coordination will be required with the local Ditch Users Association.

Building design and amenities

Scott Frymouth of Aspect Architecture described two mirrored buildings with stylistic variations in façade treatment and color to reduce monotony. Each building would be served by two corridors and central stairwells; one building would include a shared laundry/lounge area, the other additional gear storage for residents (bikes, seasonal gear). The team said they plan to install solar panels to help reduce residents’ utility costs.

Affordability, tenant selection and HRDC role

Presenters said the project will pursue LIHTC financing, which requires that units meet income limits and remain rent‑restricted for decades. Tabra Veil, Park County Housing Coalition program manager with HRDC, said HRDC would manage the tenant application and income verification process and that HRDC would not give preference to HRDC clients; eligibility will be determined strictly by the HUD/LIHTC income rules. Presenters noted LIHTC also typically requires annual income recertification for tenants.

Public questions and developer responses

Residents questioned noise from trains and trucks, insulation and heating/cooling, outdoor play space for children, on‑street parking and potential tax impacts. A Brookstone HOA board member asked about the irrigation ditch setback, extension of Brookstone and landscaping along the extended right‑of‑way; the team said Brookstone is a 54‑foot city right‑of‑way and the project will extend Brookstone into the parcel, include landscaping, and preserve access to existing garages.

On noise and insulation, presenters said the buildings will meet applicable building and energy codes, that modern windows will aid sound attenuation, and that the buildings may act as a mass to reduce noise for homes upslope. On transit, the developer said they are negotiating with Windrider Transit to add a route or stop and would fund a new stop for an initial period; any new route must be approved by Windrider and would be open to the public, not just project residents.

Tax status and community concern

Presenters stated that LIHTC projects are typically exempt from property taxes while the project receives LIHTC benefits, and they encouraged residents to submit comments to the Montana Board of Housing. Several residents raised concern that tax‑exempt affordable housing shifts property tax burdens to other taxpayers and can affect local revenues used for services; a city official replied that state housing programs and the Montana Board of Housing already account for tax implications when awarding credits, but that the topic is a broader fiscal policy question for county and state assessment authorities.

Timeline and approvals

City staff said this session was an informational PUD work session (no action was taken). Next steps listed by staff and developers: the consolidated land use board public hearing (public notice two weeks prior), then two readings before the City Commission because the change involves zoning and an ordinance. Separately, the developer has applied for LIHTC at the state level: the project advanced through the first round and the applicants expect a Montana Board of Housing decision in October; if awarded, the team said they would aim to break ground the following April. Staff asked that any comments intended for the land use board packet be sent directly to the city planner so they can be included in the meeting packet.

What was not decided

This meeting was informational only; no formal approvals, motions or votes occurred. Multiple members of the public asked for more detail on parking counts, insulation/noise mitigation, tenant wait‑list composition and the long‑term tax treatment; the developers and HRDC provided verbal answers and offered to supply additional documentation and to accept written comments.

Where to comment

City staff said project materials and a condensed presentation will be posted on the project page on the City of Livingston website and that written comments for inclusion in the land use packet should be emailed to the city planner at planner@livingstonmontana.org. The developers also encouraged comments to the Montana Board of Housing as part of the LIHTC application record.

Ending

Developers and HRDC said they hope the project will add rental homes targeted to local working households; residents said they want detailed, written responses on noise mitigation, parking counts and fiscal impacts before land‑use hearings. The PUD and LIHTC application processes will determine whether and when the project proceeds.