A Serious Housing Code Discussion at Moscow City Hall

An ordinance amending Moscow housing code provoked quite a discussion at this past week’s city council meeting. We look at that conversation and other local goings-on in this week’s report!

Read the full transcript of the video below:

How’s it going y’all? Aiden Anderson here with the Moscow Minutes. This July kicked off with a bang and it hasn’t slowed down yet. Let’s get into it!

First off, it was wonderful to see so many folks out in patriotic fashion to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States at the Latah Independence Day Parade. We here at Moscow Report had the privilege of providing live coverage of the event and talking with folks at the scene this past weekend.

Let’s take a quick look at Latah County next. The commissioners are meeting more frequently than usual in order to convene as the board of equalization. While operating in this role, the commissioners act as a quasi-judicial body in order to address items pertaining to property and taxation. If you look at one of their meeting agendas, you can see that these items tend to be appeals of property tax assessments by county citizens. Since they’re meeting more often, you all have more opportunities to attend and see how this process actually works.

Speaking of taxes, let’s talk about budgets real quick. The Moscow City Council met on Wednesday to go through their proposed budget for FY2027. Latah County has also been conducting several department budget meetings over the course of the past few weeks. While the hearing dates for both of these budgets will be taking place later in the summer, now is the time that members of the public can get a look at the details and provide input to both the city and the county. We’ll be looking to break down both of the budgets ourselves, so stay tuned for that.

And now, let’s take a look at this week’s city meeting!

Things kicked off with a flurry of public comments. Joe Thompson asked about the installation of audible signals at city crosswalks, in particular to assist blind individuals with crossing busy intersections. John Slagboom spoke about the East City Park stage, asking the council to suspend signing and construction contracts until after the city budget hearing.

Tim Clark talked about a near-accident at the corner of Third and Jefferson and the need to educate electric vehicle riders about safety and street usage. Lastly, Nils Peterson, representing the Hills and Rivers Housing Trust, encouraged the city to give more attention to tiny homes when it comes to affordable housing issues.

The first action item of the meeting was the city’s written decision on 513 South Main Street. At the last city meeting, the council voted to reverse a Board of Adjustment decision to deny a Conditional Use Permit to Rusty Olps, the new owner of 513 South Main Street. City staff then prepared a written decision to present to the council. This written decision was then voted on and was approved 4-1 by the council, with Evan Holmes dissenting, and Sage McCetich being absent.

Megan Cherry of city staff then presented on two different public art projects. The first is a mural for the City Shop, and the second is a sculpture for the Moscow Police Department. The city arts commission has received multiple submissions for both of these projects, and at the city meeting, Megan presented their selections.

For the City Shop, the selected mural proposal is called Forged in Moscow by Taylor Shaw. For the Police Department, the selected sculpture is the Eternal Watch by Ken McCall. While additional discussions about the specifics of each piece are still to come, the council approved both selections after some back and forth about why the selections were chosen and what changes to the proposed designs might need to take place.

The big ticket item of the meeting was a public hearing. Mike Ray of city staff presented an ordinance to amend Moscow City Code Title 4 Chapters 1, 3, 4, and 6, regarding single and two-family dwellings, as well as bed-and-breakfast inns.

As Mike explained, the city has received building permits for the construction of buildings that are portrayed as two-family dwellings, but which appear to contain features suited for multi-family dwelling units, seemingly to avoid certain requirements for multi-family dwelling units in city code, such as life safety, ADA accessibility, and off-street parking. 

The planning and zoning commission worked on amendments that would clarify definitions of terms like “bedroom,” “kitchen,” and “dwelling unit” in city code, as well as update parking requirements, with the intention of making proper distinctions between two-family and multi-family dwellings and removing any ambiguity that might be exploited.

Additionally, the State of Idaho passed HB 583, which prohibits cities from imposing restrictions on certain short term rentals. The city thus needed to amend their code regarding bed-and-breakfast inns in order to be in compliance with state law. This amendment was added to the ordinance alongside the others, to be voted on as a whole.

When the hearing opened to the public for input, the result at the meeting was opposition to the ordinance. Rijel Tavella spoke against the ordinance, citing affordable housing concerns. As she explained, such requirements as proposed in each of the code’s changes would drive up costs and detrimentally impact affordability for units that could otherwise be available for those who are unable to afford full apartments.

John Slagboom echoed these concerns, and mentioned the possibility of overcrowding that could take place when folks are concerned about housing affordability, thus negating potential safety improvements. Nils Peterson also spoke, suggesting that the parking issues could be addressed differently than what was proposed, and that the ordinance as a whole was suggesting suburban solutions to an urban problem.

During the council’s deliberation, the council largely defended the ordinance as written, with Evan Holmes citing liability concerns, Sandra Kelly citing safety concerns, and Bryce Blankenship emphasizing the need for staff to have proper direction and clarity when it came to working with developers. Scott Sumner seemed less certain on the subject. He asked questions regarding specific details in the code changes, and argued that perhaps the parking issue should be examined more carefully. One way or the other, however, the ordinance was passed unanimously by the Moscow city council.

Last on the agenda, a lot division at 964 Public Avenue. Lucy Falcy presented a proposal to divide a five acre parcel into three separate sections. One lot would be 1.62 acres, one lot would be 2.81 acres, and the remaining .59 acres would be donated to the Palouse Clearwater Environmental Institute (PCEI), which has property adjacent to these sections. After some discussion clarifying the easement and structure of the land, the council voted unanimously to approve the lot division, before adjourning to an executive session.

That’s all I got for you this week. Once again, budget season is now upon us, and I would encourage you to take a look at the documents and send your input to both the city and the county. As always, we’ll have the relevant links posted with this video, and if you have any questions, please reach out. I’m Aiden Anderson with the Moscow Minutes. We’ll see you next time!