Livingston land use board debates zoning overhaul: heights, PUD incentives, short‑term rentals and riparian setbacks

The Livingston consolidated land use board spent much of its Oct. 8 meeting discussing a proposed comprehensive zoning code update that would change district names and heights, add short‑term‑rental regulations and introduce new text governing conditional uses and PUD incentives.

Jennifer (city planning staff) told the board that recent state law constrains local height limits in certain commercial and industrial districts and explained staff's proposal to set a 60‑foot cap in the Central Business District (the minimum allowed by state law) and introduce a Light Mixed Use (LMU) district with a 36‑foot cap along Park Street and nearby corridors. She said the map amendments will go to the city commission, but the land use board's role that evening was to recommend text changes.

"The CBD, we are recommending that it is limited to 60 feet in height," Jennifer said, explaining the limit reflects state statutory changes. The staff presentation also proposed a high‑density residential mixed‑use district and new definitions to make conditional uses easier to understand.

Board members and public commenters raised three recurring concerns: the size of the revised CBD boundary and its effect on downtown infill potential and URA leverage; the scale and location of proposed LMU districts along Park Street; and the effect of new height limits on the ability to support affordable housing development.

To balance those concerns, staff recommended revising PUD language so that planned unit developments in LMU and R‑2 districts could receive a predictable height incentive up to 40 feet when they provide identified public benefits. The board generally supported that text change as a middle ground between preserving downtown character and enabling additional density.

The board also discussed short‑term rentals (STRs). The draft code defines two STR types: Type 1 (owner‑occupied) and Type 2 (non‑owner‑occupied), and proposes annual licensing with performance standards and inspections. Staff recommended a required off‑street parking space per STR where feasible and said non‑owner‑occupied STRs would be subject to additional conditions, including a designated local contact within a 50‑mile radius.

Board members were split on whether to allow non‑owner‑occupied STRs across R‑1 and R‑2 (traditional residential zones). Some members favored restricting Type 2 rentals or making them conditional in R‑1/R‑2; staff suggested the board could remove STRs from the code update and pursue a separate, more focused public process, but left the choice to the board.

Riparian setbacks and flood risk produced the most contested public comment. Freshwater Partners and other commenters urged sizeable setbacks (examples cited ranged from 150 to 300 feet for major waterways) based on preliminary flood modeling; in contrast, property‑rights advocates and an attorney warned that large universal setbacks could invite constitutional takings claims. Staff said the draft code currently proposes a 10‑foot buffer from ordinary high‑water marks as a starting point and recommended further mapping and legal analysis before adopting larger setbacks.

Several members also raised public comments about parcels encumbered by development agreements on the bench and near the river corridor. Staff advised those agreements remain in force and suggested marking such parcels in the record or using the PUD text to preserve the intent of existing development agreements.

No recommendation on the map was finalized. The board agreed to continue the hearing and scheduled the next session for Oct. 14, 2025 at 3:30 p.m. to allow more public input and focused discussion on short‑term rentals, riparian setbacks and an agricultural/open‑space zoning option.