Land Use Board recommends rezoning Livingston Healthcare parcels to mixed use to allow housing and health‑adjacent development

At the Feb. 24, 2025 meeting, the Livingston City Land Use Board voted to recommend the City Commission approve a zoning map amendment to rezone two parcels owned by Livingston Healthcare (identified in staff materials as Tract 5B and Tract 1D) from Light Industrial to Mixed Use.

Jennifer, city planning staff, summarized the request and staff analysis and recommended the board forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission. She told the board the two subject parcels were the product of a recent boundary-line adjustment: Tract 5B is now about 31 acres and Tract 1D about 81 acres after the adjustment that moved roughly 20 acres into Tract 5B to provide development flexibility.

The zoning change would allow residential uses that are not permitted in the current Light Industrial (LI) district — including multifamily, duplexes and accessory dwellings — and would retain hospital- and medical‑adjacent uses. Jennifer noted the city’s 2021 growth policy future land‑use map already identifies the area for mixed use, and she evaluated the rezoning against statutory and policy criteria required for map amendments.

Rick Ojila, consultant for Livingston Healthcare (1 Grey Dog LLC), said the hospital’s prevailing rationale is workforce and senior housing tied to hospital needs; he said the project team has no developer or finalized development plan yet. “We have no we have no developer. We have no development plans,” Rick said, and he described preliminary interest in multifamily or townhome approaches to provide housing for staff and traveling clinicians.

Board discussion touched on flood and erosion considerations raised earlier in the meeting: staff told the board the parcels are not in the city’s regulatory hundred‑year floodplain under the current (2011) FEMA‑based maps, but a pending FEMA update could place some areas into the regulatory floodplain; any future development that falls into a hundred‑year floodplain would trigger floodplain permitting and no‑rise analyses. Jennifer also noted that utilities (water/sewer) are present on the Tract 5B/1D area and that developers would be required to extend or upgrade service lines and hydrants at their expense when development occurs.

Motion and vote: Board member Caitlin moved to recommend approval of the zoning map amendment to the City Commission; Frank O’Connor seconded. The board conducted a roll-call vote and recorded six affirmative votes and no negatives. The recorded roll-call sequence in the meeting transcript was: “Boris Houston — Aye; Kaitlyn Schiller — Aye; Bailey — Yes; Becky Morris — Aye; Frank O’Connor — Aye; John Calvin — Aye.” Commission member Schulz was noted in the meeting as not voting. The board’s motion was to recommend approval to the City Commission; final zoning authority rests with the commission.

Next steps and caveats: Jennifer reminded the board that rezoning only changes the list of allowed uses — specific development proposals would still require site‑specific reviews. Depending on scale and use, future permitting could include: site‑plan review or planned‑unit‑development review (public hearings for larger subdivisions or PUDs), transportation impact analysis if projects exceed trip thresholds (site‑plan triggers at 10 dwelling units/20 parking spaces or a threshold tied to anticipated trips), floodplain permits and the standard suite of state and federal permits for any bank or in‑water work (Army Corps Section 404, conservation district 310, DEQ 401, and coordination with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks if applicable).

Ending: With the board’s recommendation, the item will move to the City Commission for final action; staff and the applicant indicated follow‑up technical work (including flood/geomorphic study) would inform any later development proposals.