Livingston zoning overhaul would set 60‑foot minimum in core, add short‑term rental rules and shrink downtown CBD

City planning staff presented a proposed, citywide zoning text amendment to the Consolidated Land Use Board on Sept. 17 that would recast zoning districts, set new building‑height minimums in core commercial areas, add short‑term rentals to the use table and bring the code into alignment with recent state legislation.

The amendment would, among its largest changes, set a 60‑foot minimum height for properties in the Central Business District (CBD), industrial and certain commercial districts; create a new “light mixed‑use” district with a 36‑foot height limit for areas closer to downtown; and expressly add two types of short‑term rentals to the zoning use table, staff said. Jennifer Severson, the planning director presenting the update, told the board: “This is the zoning text amendment that is before you tonight, and it is related to the comprehensive citywide update to the city's zoning ordinance.”

The proposal responds in part to state legislative changes that staff said limit how low local governments may set maximum heights in certain commercial and industrial districts and that alter rules about nonconforming uses. Severson told the board the recent legislation also shifted mapping procedures so map amendments proceed by resolution and become effective immediately at adoption, a change she said has created a legal tension between adopting the map and adopting the text of the ordinance.

Why it matters: The draft would change where higher‑intensity development is allowed in Livingston and how the city regulates conversions of downtown buildings, parking and short‑term rentals — issues that affect property owners, developers and residential neighborhoods. Jennifer Severson said the update is intended to align the zoning code with the city’s 2021 Growth Policy and to incorporate several state mandates that already took effect.

Key proposed changes - Heights: Set minimum 60‑foot height allowances for CBD, industrial and certain commercial districts (state minimum); create a new light mixed‑use district closer to downtown with a 36‑foot limit; allow R‑1 and R‑2 principal building heights up to 30 feet (36 feet where roof pitch meets the larger allowable pitch). Severson said, “Surprisingly, to me, when I got here, I very quickly learned we have no height limits at all in the Central Business District.” - Downtown boundary: The staff proposal shrinks the geographic extent of the CBD to reduce direct 60‑foot allowances adjacent to lower‑rise residential streets and to introduce transition zones of lower height and intensity. - Parking and vehicles: The draft incorporates state minimums for parking. Staff summarized a major change required by state law: residential parking minimums are substantially reduced — for example, units under 1,200 sq. ft. could be required to provide only 0.5 parking space and larger units 1 space. The code would add allowances for compact stalls and modest vehicle‑parking reductions in exchange for visible secure bike parking in the CBD; it would also require EV charging for commercial lots with more than 30 spaces. - Short‑term rentals: The draft adds two defined short‑term rental types to the use table — a Type 1 (owner‑occupied/host on site) and a Type 2 (non‑owner or property‑manager‑operated). Severson said the zoning text would recognize these uses and that separate licensing rules would be developed later. “We are proposing they be acknowledged, defined,” she said. - Historic preservation: State law amendments changed who may make certain design‑review decisions. The staff draft retains the Historic Preservation Commission as an advisory resource but documents that city staff will make the formal design‑review decisions unless state law or subsequent legal changes restore the commission’s authority. - Other changes: renaming highway commercial to “general commercial,” consolidating definitions and administrative chapters into a single zoning chapter, adding compact parking standards, and clarifying allowed neighborhood‑scale commercial uses and home‑occupations.

Public concerns and board questions Public commenters raised questions about the new downtown heights, the proposed boundary changes for the CBD, short‑term rentals, and whether the code includes sufficient protections for riparian areas and steep slopes. Jack Luther, a resident, asked whether rooftop structures such as elevator penthouses would count in a 60‑foot height limit; staff pointed to code language and building‑code allowances that permit certain equipment or architectural features above a limit but said they would confirm the exact list of permitted encroachments.

Residents and groups also asked for: a build‑out analysis comparing current zoning capacities with the proposed code; stronger riparian and steep‑slope buffers; clarification about how the Watson and other deed‑restricted parcels would be treated; and examples of how the new rules would affect first‑floor uses in the CBD (retail vs. first‑floor residences). Randy Carpenter of Friends of Park County asked whether the city had performed a build‑out analysis and expressed concern about allowing non‑owner short‑term rentals broadly.

Staff responses and directions Severson said staff will: (1) post a clean and a tracked version of the proposed text on the city website and continue to accept written comments; (2) host a public workshop/open house so property owners can see the story map and ask about parcel‑specific effects; (3) correct errors found in the draft use table (for example, an R‑2 business‑office line that staff acknowledged should be conditional rather than prohibited); and (4) coordinate with the city attorney about the apparent legal conflict between adopting a zoning map by resolution and adopting a text ordinance.

Formal actions and next steps The board approved routine minutes from the June 11 meeting and later voted to continue the zoning‑code item for further review at its next scheduled meeting on Oct. 8. The board also directed staff to keep the public comment period open through Sept. 30 so staff can assemble comments for the Oct. 8 packet and to schedule a public workshop before that meeting.

What remains undecided No final code changes were adopted. The board requested further detail on several items — including how first‑floor residential conversions in downtown will be treated, whether the city should study potential build‑out under the proposed map and text, and whether additional riparian or slope buffers should be required — and asked staff to return with clarified language and corrections.

The Consolidated Land Use Board will resume formal consideration of the text amendment on Oct. 8; the city will post the workshop date and materials on the City of Livingston website and in the city manager’s newsletter.

Ending note: Staff stressed that some of the changes are required by recent state law and must be reflected in Livingston’s code, while others are local choices for balancing downtown character, housing capacity and neighborhood protection. The board and staff signaled they expect additional public input and technical refinements before any ordinance is forwarded to the City Commission.