Livingston land‑use board backs staff zoning draft, asks for more research on riparian setbacks and ag zone

The Livingston City Land Use Board continued its review of a proposed zoning code update on Oct. 14, 2025, and voted to forward the staff draft to the City Commission with targeted directions: staff should research riparian setback distances for named waterways and draft an agricultural/low‑density zoning alternative for certain outer parcels.

Jennifer Severson, the city planning staff leading the update, told the board the packet contained only modest changes since Oct. 8 and highlighted several substantive edits: refined definitions for assisted living, supportive and transitional housing; a co‑living category limited to a maximum of 10 private sleeping quarters; adult foster care capped at four residents consistent with state licensing; clarified allowances for co‑living and supportive housing across R1, R2, CBD and LMU zones; short‑term‑rental parking and licensing language; and proposed riparian setbacks including a 10‑foot no‑construction baseline for perennial streams in the draft.

The staff changes were intended to align local rules with state definitions and to make the document administrable, Severson said. On short‑term rentals, she said the zoning administrator should be able to evaluate parking waivers during licensing and that the draft proposes one on‑site parking space per short‑term rental unit where feasible. On housing types, she explained that assisted living is treated as a community use (rather than single‑family residential) and that co‑living is defined by shared facilities rather than by household composition.

Why it matters: The draft would reshape where multi‑person housing types and certain low‑intensity commercial or residential mixes are allowed inside Livingston. Changes to height limits in some districts and new administrative parking waivers for short‑term rentals could affect how infill and tourism‑oriented housing projects are planned and permitted.

Public comment reflected a mix of support and concern. Tom BlueRock, a downtown resident, supported the low‑density mixed‑use (LMU) approach for encouraging smaller, lower‑cost downtown housing. Randy Carpenter of Friends of Park County urged caution about allowing high‑density or mixed‑use zoning on large vacant tracts at the city edge, presenting a build‑out analysis that, he said, showed thousands of potential homes under the proposed map designations and recommending an agricultural designation for some parcels. Tara Eddy submitted a petition opposing riparian setbacks (55 signatures) and said some creeks run dry and residents worried setbacks would limit rebuilding, fencing and safe use of property. Ken Cochran of Prince Of Park County urged stronger setbacks and legal vetting, citing flood studies and case law.

Board members agreed the draft provides a reasonable starting point but that two areas warranted more work before the Commission: (1) riparian setbacks — several commenters suggested substantially larger buffers (for example, the packet included public comments suggesting up to 300 feet for the Yellowstone and 150 feet for some creeks); staff recommended distinguishing stream types and researching precedents and legal risk (takings concerns) so that any recommended distances are defensible; and (2) an agricultural or very low‑density zoning option for large eastern parcels (board members asked staff to research what that zone would look like and to include PUD/cluster options where appropriate).

Motion and outcome: Board member Bailey moved to accept the staff report with the recommended edits, direct staff to research creek setback distances and to draft an agricultural/low‑density zone for consideration by the Commission; Frank seconded. The board took a roll‑call vote; members voting in favor included Bailey, John, Frank, Forrest and Becky; the motion passed.

What happens next: Staff will update the public web packet to reflect the board‑approved draft and the board’s recommendations, conduct the directed research on riparian setbacks (including differentiating named waterways) and prepare materials on an agricultural zone for Commission review. The city attorney will be asked to vet any legal concerns before final recommendations are sent to the City Commission.