[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6630821,"mediaKeyId","2688878-e972e9aa5d3722810eaab49e4d858ccc","parentId",2688878,"title","Commission approves demolition permit at 218 S. Second with condition to retain eastern facade unless structurally infeasible","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",10963000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2688878-e972e9aa5d3722810eaab49e4d858ccc&start=10963&end=10963","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2688878-e972e9aa5d3722810eaab49e4d858ccc/thumbnail_10963000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6630821/Livingston-City/Park-County/Montana/Commission-approves-demolition-permit-at-218-S-Second-with-condition-to-retain-eastern-facade-unless-structurally-infeasible","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6630821-948a2e506c890f50277a8b21cb2b6680/orig.mp4?Expires=1776169899&Signature=W-Ah5xX-tErt4-Y0bzykfwQ6F2OOCplEidO5LqVb0et3NbrLyc8rINjlLNZO5xb0uLsYzER4u7nWKfXsjmA8t0IkGPfG07MOWsxj9XygifdzxtHL0tw7mNKq~ykG9OT92vgN7jf4vuLATN5CgglPqd1TqxLB9pauIZXjV7n32gjFHk608m74fCXo5QyzqykyiuZATOanjeSgfqCI82FAe8AaCBfttzFUNAKojv08ialRNABfONqPv9naXDiFQLODH-yyYV8kG8tYuKLpaZMy-F1Td6DoOrzHbRVgfuZRnF~JOEzE2P2GDlNFKcAJqsWPfB7rcrPfbocbZu~Sl93WYg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Livingston, MT","date","2025-03-19T13:37:06.75Z","article","The Livingston City Commission on March 20 granted an appeal of a Historic Preservation Commission decision and approved a demolition permit for the brick portion of the building at 218 South Second Street, with a condition: the east facade must be retained in place unless a structural engineer certifies retention is infeasible.

Background and the appeal
At its February meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission had approved a version of the demolition permit with a condition requiring the applicant to save and incorporate the existing east facade into the new design and to return to the HPC if the facade could not be saved. City staff and the city attorney reviewed that wording and concluded the condition, as written, did not make the application \"acceptable\" under the municipal code because it left unresolved how the applicant could obtain certainty to proceed.

City Manager Brent Gager and city attorneys advised the commission that the HPC’s intent was to require retention of the east brick facade but that the HPC’s condition had been drafted in a way that left legal ambiguity. Staff recommended the commission approve the applicant’s appeal and approve the demolition permit while clarifying the condition so that it would be administrable.

Commission action and the new condition
After testimony from Historic Preservation Commission members, neighbors and the applicant, the commission approved the appeal and the demolition with a clarified condition. The commission’s adopted language requires that the east facade \"be retained in place unless deemed infeasible by a structural engineer.\" That approach preserves the HPC’s original intent while giving the applicant a clear, technical standard for when the facade may be removed.

Public comment and developer response
Members of the Historic Preservation Commission, including its chair, asked for preservation of the east wall and said the HPC had attempted to offer the applicant a path forward; HPC members said they understood demolition might proceed only if the facade could not realistically be retained. Several neighbors and preservation advocates described the building as a component of the downtown historic context and urged retention. The applicant, Eric Horn, said he and his team had revised the project after HPC feedback and told the commission, in part, \"I'm gonna say that we're gonna try to save that facade, but if the design doesn't work for it, there's no use in saving it,\" explaining that retaining a facade can add time and cost that may affect project feasibility.

What this means
The commission’s decision clears the way for the applicant to seek required building permits and design review, subject to the new technical condition. If the applicant claims the facade cannot be retained, the commission’s language requires a structural‑engineer certification that demonstrates infeasibility before the east wall can be removed. Separate design and building permit reviews — including any review by the Historic Preservation Commission for new construction in the district — remain required before construction can proceed.

Ending: The commission’s conditional approval aims to balance the HPC’s preservation goals with the applicant’s need for a clear technical standard to decide whether façade retention is practicable.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025_03_18 City Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Following an appeal of a Historic Preservation Commission condition, the Livingston City Commission approved demolition of the brick portion of the former industrial building at 218 South Second Street but imposed a condition that the east facade be retained in place unless a structural engineer certifies it cannot be saved.","taxTitle","Livingston City, Park County, Montana","taxId",52298,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6630826,"City delays decision on proposed annexation of 38 Loves Lane after public concerns",1499,4720000,6219000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2688878-e972e9aa5d3722810eaab49e4d858ccc&start=4720&end=6219","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2688878-e972e9aa5d3722810eaab49e4d858ccc/thumbnail_4720000.jpg","/articles/6630826/Livingston-City/Park-County/Montana/City-delays-decision-on-proposed-annexation-of-38-Loves-Lane-after-public-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6630826-8c14eabb02be16ca67fe3443db8975b5/orig.mp4?Expires=1776169899&Signature=ZrvBZwq4jG12zZ1fqcshttBazpRcXP0mo-XTGFeZ8F-21D2Oma4YpINlKmzK5W7pRT77P7KQDaPrQTD82iYjXmuaDQC6bc1tVAi4G6btSpHqomwc84iiN5lx5ZLwgRXXvAwh7EL17wpJuDsTgtGyXU8YH5j8~zfRGSMs0qwk7NjPzXcnj6q26wCgftqHehSjy3WxIPgnFGHrzXihIw~dgcaZPMGDYeANa8oXzHSPjPW6JBNxOHMQaEVExa-O-Dc6uq5yrxX1v022tSxMST70gnPpbcsWbQsv14HVRdUImBEtogV6UdXhiPOcYtMin4rB5QQ7LjOWDcvBK1ejZj6bxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Livingston City Commission on March 20 continued the public hearing on Resolution 5157, which would annex a parcel at 38 Loves Lane into city limits, to its April 1 meeting for further staff review after several residents raised questions about the application and surrounding infrastructure.

What’s proposed
City staff said the property owner has requested annexation of a parcel adjacent to city utilities and Interstate 90; the owner has proposed the site for a U.S. Department of Agriculture facility should annexation and subsequent development proceed. City staff noted the parcel sits between Loaves Lane and Miller Lane and that, if annexed and developed, the parcel could be served by nearby city water and sewer mains.

Public concerns cited at the hearing
Neighbors and commenters raised multiple concerns during a lengthy public comment period: whether Loaves Lane and Miller Lane — a narrow one‑way approach in spots — can safely handle the traffic and delivery demands of an anticipated USDA facility; prior annexation promises on nearby properties that had not resulted in completed development; and a notarization/format problem in the petition submitted with the annexation application.

Jamie Adams, a notary and resident, told the commission the notary block on the petition \"is not filled out correctly\" and flagged possible errors including an incorrect county designation on the form and a potentially improper notary signature format. Staff said the matter warranted further review.

Applicant response and next steps
Applicants' representatives said the annexation was the first step in a longer review process and that utilities are adjacent. An applicant representative said planned public‑improvement work on nearby Miller Lane was scheduled for the spring, and the applicant’s team said they had not yet finalized site plans or building designs. Attorney Eric Gerberg, speaking for the applicant, said preconstruction coordination for public improvements was under way and urged the commission to allow the annexation process to proceed; he acknowledged later that the annexation hearing could be continued.

Commission action
After hearing testimony and staff input the commission voted to continue the public hearing on the annexation application and associated resolution to the April 1, 2025 commission meeting so staff could review the notarization issue and other concerns and provide any additional information to the commission and public.

Ending: Continuing the hearing does not approve annexation. Staff will review the notary documentation, planned road improvements and other issues and return the item to the commission at the April 1 meeting.","Commissioners continued the public hearing on Resolution 5157 (annexation of 38 Loves Lane) to April 1 after residents raised questions about road capacity, a notarization error on the annexation petition and whether promised improvements and development will materialize.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6630831,"Commission rejects rezoning near hospital, citing floodplain uncertainty and loss of industrial land",3060,2060000,5120000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2688878-e972e9aa5d3722810eaab49e4d858ccc&start=2060&end=5120","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2688878-e972e9aa5d3722810eaab49e4d858ccc/thumbnail_2060000.jpg","/articles/6630831/Livingston-City/Park-County/Montana/Commission-rejects-rezoning-near-hospital-citing-floodplain-uncertainty-and-loss-of-industrial-land","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6630831-3bf9cc8a5e30e84e07aa547d2a0c4a25/orig.mp4?Expires=1776169899&Signature=YE7~wPTL3ei9H~7wxV6-BCZEL5Uw4cz-ujCxsCmEXK5aPnTuli7RI~8zHWwGYmb2hqwhx2Z~6pgJCknOS3WJ04uEuq~MQ-t5jlzXwTbQVhTSUDteGVsR2ZGBODxmngToTUBeO4hn3VjA472gxnzU2Q6Ij2BDVT9VWct0SJTSAm6k8ko5C62kC6~E2-kkVy-ls6aWL038QRH72r4i0DQd9jWT9XrFUmP9xkdHZnp-5zFaXpEDvmi2hq7emm2oaVW9Iv0pLFu~D4KdA27blPomEsgPSb~NLhw1gQKCHqSBnicq53dxJvfaZ4MkO1ZYwy97C83NXFkG4PsCP8owVANnCQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Livingston City Commission on March 20 rejected ordinance 3058 — a request to rezone two parcels on Alpenglow Lane from Light Industrial (LI) to Mixed Use (MU) — after hours of testimony from residents, hospital representatives and city staff raised concerns about flood risk, loss of light‑industrial land and infrastructure readiness.

The proposal and the staff recommendation
Planning Director Jennifer Severson told the commission the rezoning was requested by the property owner and had been recommended for approval by the Consolidated Land Use Board. Severson said the parcels lie adjacent to Livingston Community Hospital and that the applicant identified potential future uses including assisted living, senior housing and workforce housing for hospital staff. \"They are proposing to rezone these from the current zoning of light industrial to mixed use,\" she said during the presentation.

Staff pointed to alignment with portions of the city’s growth policy and noted a consolidated land use board recommendation in favor of approval. Severson also highlighted that parts of the lots lie within the mapped 500‑year floodplain (non‑regulatory) and that the parcels are outside today’s 100‑year regulatory floodplain.

Public testimony and central issues
Public comment ran nearly two hours. Nearby residents and advocacy speakers urged caution and urged the commission to delay any rezoning until updated floodplain maps — currently being redrawn after the summer 2022 floods — are published. Citizens repeatedly argued that certifying land for higher‑density residential use where flooding had occurred was premature without the updated FEMA mapping. As one public commenter put it, approving a zoning change before the remap \"seems premature\".

Others representing health‑care and business interests urged the rezoning as a way to site assisted living and workforce housing adjacent to the hospital. Rick Ojibla, speaking for Livingston Healthcare, said parts of the parcels are developable and that the hospital’s workforce challenges and proximity to the hospital made the site desirable for housing. Chamber of Commerce and hospital supporters also noted potential community benefits and proximity to services.

Staff and commissioners discussed regulatory controls available if the rezoning were approved: building and fire codes, floodplain permitting if the remapped area falls into the 100‑year regulatory floodplain, traffic‑impact studies and Montana Department of Transportation review of highway access. Grant, a staff participant, told the commission the expected draft remapped FEMA flood maps were \"available in about 14 months or so,\" and another staff member said regulatory adoption could follow in late 2026.

Commission concerns and vote
Commissioners repeatedly returned to two matters: the pending floodplain remap and the city’s remaining light‑industrial landbase. Commissioner Willich (and others) flagged that the city currently has only a limited acreage zoned for light industrial and expressed concern about losing roughly 12 acres to mixed use. Multiple commissioners also said approving mixed use now could expose residents and vulnerable populations to flood risk if the new maps expand the regulatory floodplain. After discussion the commission moved to reject the ordinance's first reading; the motion to reject carried.

What happens next
Because the commission rejected first reading, the rezoning will not proceed as proposed. Staff and commissioners noted the zoning code rewrite planned for later in 2025 would clarify many definitions raised repeatedly in the hearing — including precise distinctions between \"personal care center,\" \"adult foster care\" and other facility types — and said they expect to bring a draft code update to the commission for preliminary review in late spring with land‑use board review in the fall.

Ending: The rejection does not prohibit the landowner from pursuing other land‑use options consistent with the current light‑industrial zoning, nor does it prevent a future rezoning request if circumstances change; commissioners and staff indicated they would revisit the issue after the floodplain remap and the zoning‑code update.","The City Commission voted to reject the first reading of Ordinance 3058, a developer‑ and hospital‑backed proposal to rezone two Alpenglow Lane parcels from light industrial to mixed use, after extended public comment focused on floodplain remapping, infrastructure and the reduction of light‑industrial acreage in the city.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_46":104,"_48":105,"_50":106,"_52":107,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":108,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":109,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6630835,"Commission accepts Reservoir Park geodesign report, asks city manager to form steering group",1535,431000,1966000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2688878-e972e9aa5d3722810eaab49e4d858ccc&start=431&end=1966","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2688878-e972e9aa5d3722810eaab49e4d858ccc/thumbnail_431000.jpg","/articles/6630835/Livingston-City/Park-County/Montana/Commission-accepts-Reservoir-Park-geodesign-report-asks-city-manager-to-form-steering-group","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6630835-c572c5d7cf4e448058c1e3b5125e94bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1776169899&Signature=Qf3aYR8ec3mCI2LHu57wE0Ki8vcrlczvKhsJbm2eDd6EGc3-pF~4kvnhGQZ2Y2PxniLPCsJ5J-RZg8T7AE68Mb4Y~V4iYQCMO-rxTU99PNzpu87Z-gg6-bmMNcvMcKSc~a40xF4s2m50aR0-aly5I1jI92vF~Fit4oX7qQlXxmWPYrg0AV0RDlGr4gKdSRYDiUXGnZdKM9woUB0NIw9RilpheZ58RxZfd6Ggrng20n2VNPfBOmhAFepJyrTFAekM7S0N~AffpXDL2MLb2F9SlPp5pBpD~EySl8v-A5x-HDGr55~P1a0RAHc~xNnT9qev-w~7RXapCVAIQyoCxh59MQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Livingston City Commission voted March 20 to receive the Reservoir Park Geodesign Workshop report and directed the city manager to pursue formation of a steering committee to advance design and implementation.

The report, prepared by Alec Antic of CV Studio, summarized results of two in-person geodesign workshops and an online mapping survey that drew 202 responses. Antic described geodesign as \"a collaborative method, for structured discussion of, spatial and city policies\" that uses maps and stakeholder input to test scenarios and build consensus.

Why it matters: Reservoir Park is a roughly 5.5-acre city-owned parcel on Livingston’s north side that residents use informally. The workshops produced a set of preferred approaches — preserving natural features, improving trails and connectivity, adding off-street parking and basic amenities such as restrooms, and concentrating more active recreation on the western portion of the site — that the commission said merit next-step planning and a community-led steering group.

Workshop findings and immediate reaction
Alec Antic told the commission the site was generally divided into three zones by existing city water infrastructure. He said workshop participants generally favored keeping the east zone \"as natural as possible,\" enhancing it with drought‑tolerant plantings or a demonstration garden; putting utilitarian items such as parking and restrooms in the middle zone; and locating play areas and picnic/recreation uses on the west side. Antic said one group discussed a small children's bicycle pump track but \"there was never, like, a full consensus\" on that amenity.

Public commenters and commissioners raised several implementation points. Rachel Jones, executive director of Farm to School in Park County, told the commission, \"I was surprised not to see any community garden features in your, schematics,\" and said her organization would participate in planning if the city considered local food or urban agriculture features. Hayes Gucci, who lives adjacent to the park, offered to serve on a steering committee as a neighborhood representative.

Commission direction and next steps
City Manager Brent Gager told commissioners the staff recommendation was to follow the consultant’s suggestion: form a steering committee comprising city staff, nonprofits, residents and other stakeholders, define funding and maintenance responsibilities, and then hire a design professional once scope and budget are clearer. Commissioners voted to receive the report and asked staff to start forming the steering committee and to fold Reservoir Park planning into the new parks master plan where appropriate.

Implementation questions flagged
Commissioners and commenters flagged issues staff will need to resolve in next steps: identifying likely funding sources and maintenance responsibilities; ADA access and pedestrian safety; traffic and parking treatment on adjacent streets; and how potential features such as community gardens might be sited in ways that serve nearby lower‑income housing. Antic and Gager said the geodesign process was a nonbinding, preplanning exercise intended to establish community priorities, not a fixed project budget or timeline.

The commission’s vote to receive the report clears the way for staff to form a steering committee and to begin tying community recommendations to a realistic budget and maintenance plan. The city also noted that a parks master plan update under way could be used to coordinate final design and funding.

Ending: The commission thanked participants and consultants for the outreach and emphasized that the steering committee and staff will return to the commission with recommended next steps, budget options and, eventually, design proposals for formal review.","After geodesign workshops and an online survey that drew 202 responses, the Livingston City Commission on March 20 accepted a community-led design report for Reservoir Park and directed the city manager to advance implementation planning including a steering committee; residents urged consideration of a community garden and accessibility.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission approves demolition permit at 218 S. Second with condition to retain eastern facade unless structurally infeasible

City delays decision on proposed annexation of 38 Loves Lane after public concerns

Commission rejects rezoning near hospital, citing floodplain uncertainty and loss of industrial land

Commission accepts Reservoir Park geodesign report, asks city manager to form steering group