Land Use Board recommends rezoning of two Livingston Healthcare parcels to Mixed Use

The Livingston Land Use Board voted on Feb. 24, 2025 to recommend that the City Commission rezone two parcels owned by Livingston Healthcare—identified in staff materials as Tract 5B and Tract 1D—from Light Industrial (LI) to Mixed Use (MU). The board’s roll-call recommendation passed 6‑0 (Commissioner Schulz did not vote on the board matter), moving the request forward for formal action by the City Commission.

Staff and applicant presentation: Planning staff explained that the parcels were annexed and initially zoned Light Industrial because a hospital use was allowed in that district at the time. The parcels were later adjusted by a boundary-line change: Tract 5B was expanded to about 31 acres and Tract 1D is roughly 81 acres, a combined total near 102 acres, according to the applicant. Staff said the City’s 2021 Growth Policy future land-use map anticipates mixed-use development in the area adjoining the hospital, and recommended the Board forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission.

Applicant Rick Ojala, working with Livingston Healthcare, told the board the hospital’s interest in rezoning stems from a desire to address workforce and senior housing needs near the hospital and to enable clinic‑related and supportive uses. "Our preliminary discussions have been multifamily," Ojala said, describing conversation topics such as workforce housing, assisted-living and other housing types to support staff retention and hospital operations. Ojala emphasized that no developer or firm plan has been selected and that the hospital is seeking flexibility in allowable uses.

Land‑use implications: Planning staff reviewed municipal code Table 3040 showing permitted uses in MU versus LI. The key difference, staff said, is that MU allows housing types (single‑family, duplex, multifamily, accessory dwelling units) and a broader set of commercial and office uses; LI is primarily oriented to industrial uses and does not permit housing. Staff noted some uses remain subject to special exception review depending on intensity (for example, larger retail thresholds). The board discussed that future development proposals would trigger the appropriate administrative or public review—site plan review, PUD or subdivision—depending on parcelization, number of units and trip generation.

Floodplain and safety considerations: Staff noted that current FEMA regulatory floodplain maps (based on older modeling) do not show these parcels in the 100‑year regulatory floodplain, but a floodplain study and map update are in progress and could change that designation. Staff and the applicant acknowledged that if mapped into the 100‑year floodplain, future development would require floodplain permits and no‑rise or elevation measures at the building‑permit stage. The board also heard the Freshwater Partners presentation earlier in the meeting that highlighted channel migration and avulsion hazards in the East End of Livingston, information staff said could inform future site design and feasibility work.

Vote and next steps: Board member Kaitlyn (Caitlin) Schiller moved to recommend approval to the City Commission and the motion was seconded; the board then conducted a roll‑call vote with the following outcome: Boris Houston — Aye; Kaitlyn Schiller — Aye; Bailey — Yes; Becky Morris — Aye; Frank O'Connor — Aye; John Calvin — Aye. The board’s recommendation will be transmitted to the City Commission for final action. Staff noted that future development will be subject to engineering review, utilities extension at the developer’s expense, applicable floodplain permitting, and potential traffic impact studies if projected trip generation exceeds established thresholds.