Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Legislation Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State law removes mandatory design‑review authority; city staff to draft code changes
Summary
City staff told the Livingston Historical Preservation Committee a 2025 state legislative change removes the commission's ability to require design‑review; staff will prepare amendments to bring municipal code into compliance and the commission will retain an advisory role.
At a recent meeting of the Livingston Historical Preservation Committee, Livingston City Manager Grant Kager said a 2025 state legislative change removes the commission’s authority to require applicants to undergo design‑review and that city staff will prepare text amendments to bring Chapter 31 of the municipal code into compliance.
The change stems from 2025 legislation (referred to in the meeting as SP 214) that amended MCA 76‑2‑302, Kager said, and the result is that “reviewing an application for the determination of compliance with local design review standards … must be conducted by employees of the municipality.” Kager said that language removes the earlier carve‑out that allowed the committee to be required as a reviewing body.
Why it matters: the committee, created by ordinance 1498 (finalized 07/19/1982) and codified in Chapter 31, previously exercised both advisory and—by local code—permit‑approval functions for the downtown historic overlay. Kager told the committee that two of the six powers listed in the original ordinance—those authorizing the commission to approve or disapprove permit applications and to establish binding design‑review guidelines—are now legally problematic and likely must be removed or reworded in the city code.
Kager said the committee can continue to perform several functions that appear to remain permissible: establishing criteria for designation, reviewing and commenting on broader planning programs, providing information on surveys/technologies/funding, and rendering advice at the request of a property owner. He emphasized that, under the statute, the municipality may not require review by an external board, so any review by the Historic Preservation Committee would be optional and advisory: “You can be a resource to applicants to come through, and you can be a resource to the administrative staff,” Kager said.
Committee members pressed for clarity about how the city will implement the change. Kager said he will prepare proposed amendments to Chapter 31 for the city commission and will present draft language to the committee for comment before the city adopts changes. He also said administrative decisions on permit compliance will be made by city staff, and that applicants retain the right to decline advisory review; staff decisions remain appealable to the city commission under existing procedures.
The committee asked for a legal opinion and for staff to spell out options that preserve the committee’s ability to advise—such as drafting nonbinding design guidelines the committee would recommend to staff. Kager said the city attorney and staff will provide that legal review as part of the code‑update process.
What’s next: Kager told members he intends to draft code amendments in the coming months and bring proposed language back to the committee for review; if the city commission approves changes, the municipal code will be revised to reflect the statutory requirement that municipal employees perform design review. The committee will be asked to provide advisory comments on the draft text when staff circulates it.
