City planning staff and members of the Livingston Consolidated Land Use Board spent much of their Oct. 8 meeting reviewing a comprehensive zoning‑code update that would set a 60‑foot minimum restriction for the Central Business District and create a new “light mixed use” district with a 36‑foot height limit along Park Street.

Jennifer (planning staff) told the board that recent state legislation changed what local governments may regulate. "The state has come has said that this is where you can restrict heights, and this is what you can restrict them to," she said, adding "in heavy commercial districts, central commercial districts ... we cannot limit height or restrict height below 60 feet. So that is why for our CBD ... 60 feet is the minimum that we can restrict it to in the Central Business District."

Why it matters: The rewrite is intended to align zoning with the 2021 city growth policy and a 2022 housing action plan, but it must also comply with new state law. The change will affect where denser housing or larger mixed‑use developments are allowed downtown and along commercial gateways, and it prompted public comment about downtown character, infill, URA funding and flood‑related constraints.

Key elements discussed

- Heights and new districts: The draft limits the Central Business District (CBD) to 60 feet (the minimum allowed by state law), proposes a new Light Mixed Use (LMU) district along Park Street capped at 36 feet, and keeps higher allowances in highway/general commercial and CBD for larger commercial uses. Board members discussed allowing a planned‑unit development (PUD) incentive — an agreed‑upon public benefit package — to grant extra height (up to 40 feet) in LMU to encourage compact infill without placing taller massing directly in the downtown core.

- Parking: Staff said the legislature removed some local control over parking minimums. Under the new framework, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) may not be subject to off‑street parking requirements; buildings undergoing a change of use generally cannot be required to add parking; and one parking space per residential unit would be the new baseline for units over 1,200 square feet (half a space for units under 1,200 square feet). Planning staff proposed a requirement that short‑term rentals provide one off‑street parking space unless site constraints make that impossible.

- Short‑term rentals (STRs): The code would define STRs and require a city license. The draft distinguishes owner‑occupied STRs (Type 1) from non‑owner‑occupied STRs (Type 2) and would require Type 2 operators to designate a local contact within a specified radius and to meet performance standards. Board and public discussion focused on whether Type 2 STRs should be allowed citywide or limited (for example, allowed only in mixed‑use or commercial districts and not in single‑family neighborhoods), and whether STR licensing should be deferred for a more focused community discussion.

- Riparian setbacks and flood risk: Freshwater Partners and other commenters urged wider riparian setbacks (proposals ranged from about 150 to 300 feet for major waterways) and referenced preliminary flood‑modeling for the Yellowstone River and local creeks. Staff had proposed a narrower 10‑foot buffer from the ordinary high‑water mark for perennial streams. Several residents opposed large new setbacks and submitted a petition. An attorney representing some residents warned that broad new setbacks could expose the city to constitutional takings claims if they amount to regulatory expropriation without compensation.

Public comment and board reaction

Planners and developers who testified praised the move from strictly auto‑oriented highway commercial to mixed‑use zoning and supported the LMU approach for encouraging housing and walkable development. Randy Carpenter, a land‑use consultant, told the board he and his clients "enthusiastically support the proposed new ... low density mixed use zoning district" as a way to increase housing options while maintaining a human‑scale downtown.

Several preservation and environmental groups and residents urged larger riparian buffers and cautioned that map‑level rezoning should reflect flood risk. Other residents urged the board to respect property rights and warned that very large setbacks could trigger litigation; attorney Pertha Lund told the board she would be prepared to discuss constitutional challenges if setbacks were expanded dramatically.

Procedure, next steps and actions

Board members emphasized that the consolidated land‑use board is advisory for map changes; the board may recommend map amendments but the City Commission will make final decisions on both text and map changes. The board decided to continue the discussion: at the end of the Oct. 8 meeting a motion passed to continue the public hearing on the zoning update at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 14, to allow more focused review and public comment. Earlier the board approved the Sept. 17, 2025 meeting minutes (motion by Bailey, second by Frank) with the roll call reflecting four affirmative votes.

What the board is weighing: The discussion repeatedly balanced two policy goals that can conflict in practice — protecting the visual and historic character of Livingston’s downtown and enabling denser infill to meet housing demand — while operating under new state limits on local zoning authority and with flood and infrastructure constraints in mind.